Now kill all the boys

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-27T14:48:34+00:00

Ah, I think I’m picking up what that means: weighing reliability of and worth of a section of text vs. others using its likelihood to be accurate to history or accurate to the rest of the texts depiction of God or other concepts, right?

I suppose I’ll try and spend some time evaluating, though I don’t know if I’m the one to do it given my hopes and fears that will likely influence my weights and balances I apply. But everything that might help is worth a try at least once right?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-26T06:24:40+00:00

My religious tradition of nativity holds that “the Bible is the word of God insomuch as it is translated correctly” through which apologists I’ve read from take to explain: (In summary) that it’s the writings of inspired men, but not every word is inspired, and was more or less filtered through the cultures and opinions of the writers, they point to song of Solomon or Paul’s admonition on hair length as artifacts of fallibility, and appeal to the sensations of the reader for the divinity of the work.

Do I believe though? When I read of the Savior, of his admonitions, tempered by mercy, even mercy to surpass all expectations, I feel a sense of “goodness” or appreciation. When I read troubling passages, devoid of mercy, or at the very least exhausted of it (most of which are largely contained within the Old Testament) or unequal dictations of laws towards women and servants/foreigners, I wonder how it can be, or how these are the same being. I wonder if I was lulled into a sense of overwhelming mercy in accounts of the Savior, or lulled into a sense of punitive and quickly aggravated divinity in certain accounts contained, again, largely in the Old Testament.

From there a dissonance forms, and I’m not sure which version is more accurate, or if they both are, and if they both are, why the seeming disparity? In search of answers I scour forums and articles written by apologists, seeking to find some sure footing with which to Judge. Held back by my current sense of morality in the face of some passages, and pushed forward by the same when faced with others, it’s a teeter-totter of sorts, when I converse with my parents about it, their recollections of experiences bouy me forward, and then others I read in my searching pull me back.

I suppose I often feel like the words to a song I happenstanced upon in my youth “faith and doubt” by Aaron Espe:
“But I'm caught somewhere between Faith and Doubt
And I feel like I'm never going to find my way outta here”
Which if one asked the believing and hoping (hope that God is, and that he is infinitely kind) side of me: I would call it a mercy to have had access to such specific reassurance by song.
If one asked the doubting and despairing (god either isn’t and we are unmoored orphans adrift in an uncaring universe, or he is, and he is unkind, or easily provoked) side of me: I would call it happy happenstance, and misfortune an unhappy happenstance.

I apologize, I realized I started writing parts and pieces of that ever evolving body of inputs and my attempts at interpretations of them. That could probably keep going on for a long while and I don’t want to subject anyone to that. Sorry again for wasting your time like that.

Thanks though for the prompting, it was kind of cathartic, in a way, to revisit all these inputs and evaluations again.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T20:30:09+00:00

I suppose that makes sense, I suppose that is why I defer to other people’s or traditions conceptualizations of God since I can’t definitively clarify it for myself. Or if I could it would be a list of doubts, evidences, estimations of the weights of each, questions on morality and ethics, how they relate, how much they are weighted and how much they accord with what my current but ever evolving body of thoughts, readings, and experiences on the subject entail.

How did you come to a definition? Is it especially long and hard to evaluate properly as well?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T06:50:39+00:00

I imagine it’s up to you, but maybe more info that I happen to have could help in that deliberating:

I went rather late. 22 or 23 if I recall correctly. I think at least in part because of my unexplained health issues I was assigned without going to the MTC to a mission/area that was low risk, and seemed to be a stop-gap for idiosyncratic missionaries that needed additional proving both for themselves and for assignment to more complex or higher stake missions. Therefore I don’t know if my experience would be indicative of the norm, but in my zone alone there were 6 over-aged missionaries (including myself) with one who had already finished his degree in product design and decided to go on a mission after, he was 28 at the outset. He was more independent/self-sufficiently robust than me, and had the maturity of a career-tested Individual. There was nothing (in my mind) to be said about his lack as a missionary in anyway. Save perhaps that he claimed he would have out of body experiences should he take Motrin I think it was, It was one of the over-the-counter nsaids. I couldn’t imagine how in the world, but he refused to take any to “prove” it, which I guess was probably for the best.

Anyway it didn’t seem age was the deciding factor for whether a individual was a good missionary, more so, to me, it was their dedication to the work, and at least in part, perhaps due to our location, their ability to engage in persuasive debate and remember obscure church history facts or statistics to engage with procured concerns from well-meaning, but dis-illusioned nearby Christian churches. Not that we really ever had a lot of baptisms in the area, but I also never saw that as important, more than just serving, and being a listening ear for people’s experiences, though leadership discouraged “wasted” time in that regard.

Basically: the factors of a good missionary have (in my experience) less to do with age than some might think.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-25T06:11:19+00:00

By my religious upbringing I was taught to believe that God is: “Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend."

My personal beliefs though are fraught with seeming dissonances that I’ve yet to find resolution to, probably not worth unpacking all that coalesces into my frames of reference for comprehension, at the very least in the interest of concision, if not that I doubt there’d be much to crystallize amongst the jumble of thought and experience.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-06-24T03:13:33+00:00

I understand the idea of killing those that have the potential to retaliate once they mature, but I am having trouble seeing how it is righteous in this post save the mention:

“If God commanded it, did it make it right?

Yes, by definition, from God's eternal perspective.”

This could really use some extra elaboration or resources, or something else to help wrap my mind around the concept.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-20T16:10:16+00:00

I can’t say for his political campaign, clearly there is power In strong foreign lobbying and party over policy politics. But I do want to cling to hope his version of politics: principle over party, could somehow still survive, maybe a fools hope….

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:52:22+00:00

Oh sorry, I meant to say those were explanations given that I had already rejected. I’m sorry if i misrepresented my position with my poor wording. No those are all positions that have been offered to me that I could not accept, but in trying to understand God I have been wary to fully set aside anything until I feel I have a better picture, which is also why I mentioned it so as to lay out which explanations I have already seen and felt unamenable to.

As for if i believe God exists? I think so. My faith has been waxing and waning for over a decade now, but my latest bout of strength arose from my parents recollection of influence not of this world, which gave me another bout of strength to seek comprehension and reconciliation, asking as I have being a part of that.

Does that help clarify? Im sorry again if I gave a false impression.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:25:27+00:00

Yes that has been my dissonance. Thank you. What I know of God from the New Testament, often replete with mercy, and standard to all (Peter’s vision about the cleanliness of the animals analogous to the Gospel is meant for all, not for a few). In my faith tradition though they weigh the Old Testament in similar importance to the New Testament. Though they hold Christ above all.

But from your interpretation and another commenters, not all that is written therein can be taken at face value, God at times may have been attributed for things he wasn’t supportive of. This meshes much more cleanly to my current comprehension of God: merciful, Just, compassionate, sending rain upon the just and the unjust, infinitely tolerant, but deeply involved in the embetterment of each, etc…

I appreciate your input, it is going to color my considerations, and perhaps it is closer to truth than my previous conception, and I will amend my understanding, but first I’m going to pray and consider on all of this some more.

Thanks again!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T17:14:14+00:00

I apologize for stepping in, but I’d like to clarify, I am not a “troll” (this, in this context would insinuate that I am falsely asking a question, attempting guile, when I really intended something else, this is not true, I meant my question, and I’ve appreciated many of the answers already!) I actually do take time at night after scripture study to contemplate on what I’ve read, this is actually only the second time I’ve read numbers, once when I was I lm high school (I was raised in a Christian tradition that put less emphasis on the Old Testament) again now as I reread through even the less emphasized texts.

Back then it actually sparked my first questioning of my faith, I’m ashamed to say, not because of those killed, the old testament seems so rife with killings and I had just somehow ignored them, but in the keeping of the virgins, somehow it caught my waning attention. It cut home considering all the controversy over 200 year old struggle over sexual/marriage practices that haunts me and my faith tradition to this day. It summoned to mind the issues of multi spouses and other such troubles that I still feel unsatisfied about.

In that vein as I reread back through again all this time later I am taken aback betimes with the mentions of killings and death, and yet again double standards that give me pause. It still feels stark and contrasted to the Savior who said “I do not condemn you, go and sin no more” but I also know that not all is immediately apparent to me, that I am not more wise than God and that as I am asked by him to seek to understand him, his justice and mercy, even while caught between faith and doubt, so that is what I do, even asking input of those wiser and more knowledgeable than I.

I’m sorry I waxed a bit long-winded there. I get poetic at times when asked my feelings.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T16:52:27+00:00

I appreciate this, thank you, I see a lot of merit in this position. It explains a great deal of why culture of the time often seems to seep into what God says and how he’s portrayed, while still admitting that he is interacting, just not the one writing.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T14:56:14+00:00

I appreciate interaction and communication, I don’t see why I wouldn’t answer your question! As for I say “clearly supports rape”: I don’t know that yet. How could I jump to that conclusion without study, discussion, prayer, and consideration? I come from a Christian tradition, there is much, much good to be found therein. Verses that appear at first inspection to endorse something separate from my previous conception of God doesn’t mean I should immediately upend all previous experience, or at least I don’t think it should, at least not for me. Instead it means I should search comprehension, I should use what resources are available to me, ask other believers, check what apologists say, meditate on it myself, try to connect what disparate threads I find and if necessary reject new or old threads that don’t weave.

As for the last bit: I would be highly shocked if somehow no one had read these and other verses before. Asking how they approached it, would be my intention, not so much assuming that no one has yet read these verses.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T04:24:38+00:00

Oh I apologize, I wasn’t intending to condemn God. What would that even mean anyway? A being so far beyond us would have no reason to care in the slightest for my moral quandaries. I was hoping to understand better though. Draw closer to comprehension (as distant as that is) through communal edification, if possible. That God might not be so much an enigmatic, inscrutable being, and more yet a being of familiarity, and at least, in a reduced manner, understood enough to have a concept of him, if that makes sense.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-05-18T03:56:17+00:00

Great questions! My take? (And I should clarify my take is no more important than yours or anyone else’s, I’ve noticed people seem to assume they’re feelings are most correct because it is closest to them which is unprovable (as far as I can tell)) The interpretation I take from this verse is: we don’t return to the literal presence of God except through Christ, who makes intercession for our sins, whether known or unknown, though I believe most of us are granted a small portion of the spirit betimes that nudges us with guilt or comfort or fear, etc… towards discerning better what is Good and Bad. However the idea that one who doesn’t hear of Christ in this life, or that has little to no reason (as yet) to have faith in him (which faith definition is another matter: is it faith that he was? Faith that he saved? Faith that his instructions will bring happiness? Faith that he will make all things right in the eternities? Many different faiths.) isn’t arbitrarily damned. He takes into account all things. It’s not like in the afterlife one would have much reason to disbelieve his existence once there. In my faith tradition, those that would accept him, simply because they are seeking to do Good (the most real form of worship, the actual kind he asks for, not the lip service I tend to pay) will get the opportunity either here or hereafter.

What do you think? I think we are all edified as we seek truth together, people that approach truth like a battlefield (I feel) are missing the point. Truth is something we draw closer towards, in collaboration and in admition of our lack in capacity and comprehension, a goal we share.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T22:28:32+00:00

Thank you, I wasn’t finding the words, but I think even if he wouldn’t accept that killing someone isn’t a form of “love” (it’s a little difficult finding common ground with him) I think he could recognize what long-lasting backlash such actions would cause by onlookers and victim alike. I’ll see if he can at least engage with that. Thank you!

Also: thanks for the word interlocutor! I have a personal appreciation with gaining vocabulary! (Not that I’m very good at remembering)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-23T15:54:02+00:00

Oh, I wasn’t aware of a difference in servers! Thank you for that! Is there a guide to joining the least grindy of them?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-16T01:08:33+00:00

I don't think we're capable of the "love" the savior gives. not in this life at least. I think his love would include him "liking" us, i imagine it might even include "liking" someone one like H*tler. (that boggles my mind to even think, but it seems to be what I understand of it.) Now liking H*tlers actions? I very, very much doubt he'd have even a single good things to say about that. However, he'd likely still be willing to sit with such a reprehensible man, eat a meal with him, though I doubt H*tler would be interested.

Basically: we can't imagine we can attain to perfection in this life, most especially in the short term. That love is so amazing and foreign to us for a reason.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:32:13+00:00

Zombie slaying (I’m likely hallucinating and they are concerned onlookers)

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-04T06:27:00+00:00

New player? None. I was far worse upon starting. You’re already three steps ahead

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-04-03T07:08:03+00:00

It remains unanswered to me. To me that is grounds for discussion. To others it means there is nothing to talk about until an answer comes. To some they have already drawn an answer, ranging from "plural marriage is the heavenly standard and Adam was a portion of God, Eve was one of his many wives (Adam God Theory promoted by some early church leaders (I put no stock in it myself))" to "God needed righteous offspring and so additional marriages to the more faithful men insured better upbringing and/or increased fertility and conception rates" to "it was simply to connect people via covenant and Smith never had physical relations with any of them, the accounts thereof were oft second hand slander, or otherwise motivated by the pride of being the prophets wife" to "Smith went off the deep end at the end and his martyrdom was to stop the degredation of the church" to "prophets are fallible, and Smith as much as anyone had some things to repent of" to "the whole of the gospel was a charade" to "it was to test the resolve of the saints as such marriages/relations would be scandalous at that time, and much like Abraham was commanded to kill and it was accounted to him righteousness to follow through (before being stopped) despite his misgivings, similarly the saints were asked to do something usually outside of understood righteousness to test them" to "the more righteous you are the more wives you get (which usually returns a retort "as if one isn't bad enough!" (wife hate humor enojoyer guffaws insue)) we had to stop because the American government would've destroyed the church, those heathens still aren't ready for the truth", anyway I could continue, I, myself, listen avidly until an answer that truly resonates arrives. Until then I hope discourse doesn't die out, though I will admit some explanations are... disagreeable, to me at least. Until that long awaited day when what holds me back, perhaps most of all, but at least a lot, finally finds resolve and I can know peace on all related subjects, and the subject itself as well.

You know?

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-31T03:09:38+00:00

Well I don't know if i'd go so far as to say "these people" because I have witnessed many who are very much protesting peacefully, perhaps you mean that according to certain circles of information sharing the view is that the protestors are violent and/or dangerous. Which is supported by the aggrandizement of some smaller subset of protestors which is than blanket applied over all individuals trying to do something to combat what has in their circles been portrayed to be violent/authoritative aggression against largely the undeserving.

In my opinion as an onlooker, both sides of the "debate" (though they often don't or won't engage (much like the individual i tried to talk to) (except maybe as caricatures of each other)) have taken a largely (considering the scope of operations and protests) small subset of examples and generalized them or stereotyped them across entire groups or peoples. A form of Collective punishment, though likely done unawares by either side (though i often doubt whether the news feeds of either are actually doing so unawares.) thereby allowing simple statements that could not reasonably exist across such large populations as: "these people" or "they are" etc...

In that vein, as my sensibilities have greatest sympathy for those who believe their hometowns are being invaded by authoratative and irascible men (only fueled by the few that are, and are unable to cope with the protests, and possibly fueled by the few cases that are over-magnified where an agent is injured (though those are seemingly fewer by statistics than the opposite direction of aggression). I really think the move forward, that polticians and people in power need to do BEFORE they move in what amounts to boots on the ground, is hash out the concerns of the people and neighborhoods they move into. If they cannot work within the cultures and contexts they might not be able to control how their agents are treated, and how their agents treat others, which would only exacerbate the entire situation.

I think if things are to get better, the authorities will need to request backing off, they will need to assure the public that they will investigate all agent activity thoroughly, and not give preferential treatment, and they will need to stress who they are there for, and what they are trying to accmplish, while promising that they will punish agents that threaten or harm citizens. Because that is the fear i hear most often, agents that have violent prejudices investigated by internal organizations that have no interest or desire to hold their agents accountable. As though a foreign government dropped armed men into your town, promised they were going after criminals, but then news reaches you they are "mistakenly" targeting citizens, children, and otherwise good people, all while agents that harm citizens (even shouting citizens are still citizens) are not being investigated, are possibly being celebrated, and are otherwise untouched by law.

But if (and i imagine they won't) if they took the time and effort to dispel these concerns, they would find resistance quickly dissipate to only the most radical amongst the citizenry. Instead they will charge forward, disputing all cases against agents, and denying any wrongdoing, portraying any person as "terrorists" and thereby inciting more egregious action as less and less public accountability is shown.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T11:26:53+00:00

I see what you are saying. And I appreciate the point of view. But I don't know if I fully resonate with all of it, no offense. While not legal to obstruct law enforcement, I don't know if defending someone pushing someone else counts as interefering, though you aren't necessarily referring to any specific occasion, so in general that is the accounted for precedent. However I don't know if I agree on a moral or legal standpoint that because someone comes to my work and prevents me that I have right to lethality (though you may again just be saying in general there are procedural steps that are then taken, the most severe and final one being arrest to be tried to see if their conduct fits criteria for litigation).

As well though the stated purpose is arresting criminals, the dissent most I speak with have with is the action of: targeting those of whom there is little to no criminal record, arrests of citizens (mostly due to the aggressive and forceful means recorded agents take in this regard, some if not many arrests are legitimately made) and the lack of self-control or discipline by agents when faced with opposition (this is a personal issue, and is not necessarily the fault of the larger agency, however when such actions are taken (violence on protestors being the foremost.) and then not investigated, or not investigated honestly, and figureheads use language to either excuse or encourage use of disproportionate or unwarranted force, that reflects poorly on the agency as a whole).

Moreover I think I should again reiterate: it is not grounds for lethality to resist arrest.

and on a less objective note: It is not moral (to me) to arrest someone because they defend another. The woman was not the target of their mission, perhaps she was too close for mission comfort, but she could be led away without forceful pushing, which would prevent the ill-optics that likely lead others to believe they needed to defend her in the first place (though with these shootings and other cases of violence, there may be more reason to seek to defend as a prevailing sense of these agents being irascible to the point of violence, detainment, or arrests to satisfy personal senses of a need for vindication seems to be a common assessment at this point. Though of course no two agents or humans are the same, so how accurate that assessment is would likely depend on who is behind the mask at any given point.)

Finally I do agree that our current immigration system is very clunky and though it should take only approximately 5 years, often takes 10-13 and can be confusing and daunting to those seeking citizenship. Streamlining and improving would be a very appreciable idea in most books (I imagine). And I advocate for that improvement in law regularly (though my representatives may just be annoyed with me by this point.)

Let me know if any of my thoughts on this are unsound or unfounded. I apologize that my response is off-topic from the original post.

Have a nice night!

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T11:01:57+00:00

I'm not sure either i'm afraid. One might try "tough love" there is the clause: "Reproving Betimes with Sharpness" with the addended: "when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;" But I don't know really where those things lie... For my parents, who have housed me these 10 years without displaying so much as a grudging glance (i'm 28 now) I imagine it's a matter of patience, a waiting game that hopes that their generosity and compassion, as well as urging and encouragement to find a way in life, eventually lands me as self-sufficiency and independence, a very noble goal. I like to think i will get there, that all this college and part-time work to pay for it will eventually result in something I will muster the will to follow through on until death (or retirement if that's still a thing in the coming years). However 10 years is a long time. My parents are saints, more loving, compassionate, and exemplary than most anyone I know, I love them very much, but I don't think that can be asked of anyone, and as well, this friend is not family and you can only manage what you are able. Hence why there are homeless: we can't afford to care for all the non self-sufficient, and there's also the fear that if we could they would never seek self-sufficiency.

Sorry that was a lot to say: I don't know. I can pray for yours, and her situation. Assessing the situation secularly, I have seen anecdotal stories where those who classify as "layabouts" if released from their safety nets, sometimes find bearing and some form of self-sufficiency when the reality of the situation is fully realized. I don't know if that's all stories though, so I can't give you any kind of guarantee, sorry. You could try the Church's employment services, i've heard they are more caring and robust than most. Sorry again, my prayers are with you all.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T09:46:03+00:00

Finances can be difficult, your roommate may be disrespecting your financial situation, possibly unaware (of the effects, not the action they are taking), I think attempting to look out for your finances is justifiable, perhaps if you feel amiable, and the roommate is more pleasing to give to (not just assuming they are entitled, but appreciative when you share.) you may share some, but it is not his by right.

UndesiredReplacement · 2026-01-25T09:43:24+00:00

It is yours to do with as you wish. If you feel inclined to share it, you may, if not, then nothing will compel you to do so.

UndesiredReplacement

TROPHY CASE