More Comments from Readers – Part II

Here are more comments that we have received from readers of this website blog:

Comment #3: ” It has always been my understanding that according to the Law of Moses, robbery was punishable by death where thievery was not. The reason for this is that in a robbery one life is almost always threatened and that is what makes it robbery as opposed to thievery. So as an example, under the Law of Moses, Laban did indeed commit robbery of Nephi's family possessions by not only taking as it was under the Law. And Laban knew the law and tried to use it by saying first that Laman was the them, but also threatening him with death. And since robbery was punishable by death under the Law, the Lord was the judge and jury of Laban, and Nephi became the executioner. That is why Laban was delivered into the hands of Nephi and Nephi was instructed to take his life. That is what made it right robber. And that is why he could kill him, and who would doubt him?”
Response: Excellent commentary on the difference. As another of our readers commented: “1828 Noah Webster dictionary: Thief is one who secretly, unlawfully and feloniously takes the goods or personal property of another. The thief takes the property of another privately; the robber by open force” This difference, obviously, is what escalates thievery to robbery when force is applied.
Comment #2 (Khor Kharfot is Not Where Nephi Launched His Ship) This was very helpful information and although Khor Kharfot could have been Bountiful, it is logical that Nephi was guided to build his ship in Khor Rori where he could get the assistance and expertise necessary to construct a ship of this size. I would conclude that over the time span that the ship was built the Lehites and the Zoramites initially dwelling in Khor Kharfot moved to be closer to the harbor where they ultimately sailed toward the promised land” Chris.

Arabian Peninsula and location of Kor Kharfot and Khor Rori along the coast of whab Lehi called Ireantum

  
Response: It is interesting that you use the term “Zoramites.” While the term is correct, Zoram was not of Lehi’s family or heritage, neither was Ishmael—though this patriarch was dead by this time, his two sons were alive and made up an Ismaelite party to the overall group. So in all there were three family groups leaving Bountiful, though in 2 Nephi 1:30-32, Lehi places Zoram and his posterity within the category of “Nephites.” And, of course, the Ismaelites were eventually listed in the category of “Lamanites” (Jacob 1:13-14). 
Comment #3: “Fascinating summary of the history and "evolution" of "science" in your “Once Upon a Time Series.” You have a gift to be able to understand complex topics and teach them in a simplified and logical manner. Thank you for sharing that gift” David K.
Response: Thank you, and glad you liked it. 
Comment #4: “I came across this argument in my philosophy class and wondered what answer I could logically give to defend that God does, in fact, exist. To recap: the originator of the logical problem of evil has been cited as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, and this argument may be schematized as follows: 1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not; 2) There is evil in the world; 3) Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

The rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement is accepted, and the consequent does not hold, then the negation of the antecedent can be inferred

This argument is of the form modus tollens, and is logically valid if its premises are true, the conclusion follows of necessity. To show that the first premise is plausible, subsequent versions tend to expand on it, such as this modern example: 1) God exists; 2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent; 3) An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils; 4) An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence, and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented; 5) An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence; 6) A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil; 7) If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists; 8) Evil exists, which results in a logical contradiction” Kate T.
Response: Don’t you just love philosophy? Itemization be humorous since one person’s logic is another’s foolishness. While it is supposed to be the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind and language, it often turns out, depending on the professor or philosopher, to be a study in one person’s fanciful opinion(s).
    First of all, for those unfamiliar with philosophy’s “modus tollens,” it is the “the rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (meaning if the first, then the last), is accepted, and the consequent does not hold (first), then the negation of the antecedent at (last) can be inferred.” Stated more simply, “There are two consistent logical argument constructions: modus ponens ("the way that affirms by affirming") and modus tollens ("the way that denies by denying"). This is how they are constructed: Modus Ponens: "If A is true, then B is true. A is true. Therefore, B is true." An example: If cornbread is made with Baking Powder it rises; however, the cornbread did not rise (it remained flat). Therefore, the cornbread was not made with Baking Powder. Another is If Bill was born in Cuba, then he is Cuban; however, Bill is not Cuban (he is Guatemalan). Therefore, Bill was not born in Cuba.

God the Father dwells in a realm we call Heaven, but is a world “nigh unto Kolob,” where we lived as spiritual offspring. Eventually we came to the moral world we call “Earth,” where Satan dwells and has power

Secondly, in answer to the first or modus ponens, “If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists, then evil does not,“ one needs only point out that A) that is an unprovable assumption; however, taking it as a proposed fact, then it should be reworded to make it a little clearer, i.e., “If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent god exists in a world, sphere, or realm, then evil does not.” This is necessary since God’s realm and our realm are not the same, i.e., heaven as opposed to mortality (which can be proven by the modus tollens of: A) God lives in an immortal world, sphere or realm; B) Man lives in a mortal world, sphere or realm; C) Therefore, God and man do not live in the same world).
    Stated as it should be, the modus tollens then reads, A) God cannot tolerate any amount of evil; B) Evil exists; C) Therefore, God does not exist in the area where evil exists—he abides elsewhere. Stated differently, if there is evil in this world, therefore God does not exist in this world—He exists in his own realm, which we call the Celestial Kingdom, where evil does not exist and is one of the reasons why Christ, or the Lord, is our advocate with God the Father, who is separated from evil.
    In the second argument, we need to place steps between #6 and #7, i.e., 6. A being whose purpose is to bring to pass the Immortality and eternal life (exaltation) of man, knows that to do so, man must be exposed to both righteousness and evil so he can choose, of his own free will, whether he will follow God and choose righteousness, or follow Satan and choose evil, and separate himself from God forever. 7. A God whose purpose is to bring to pass the eternal life and immortality of man will separate himself from evil, while allowing evil to exist in man’s world so that man can make his free will choice. 8. Therefore, evil exists on a plane where man dwells, but not on the plane where God dwells. Thus, evil can exist and there still be an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.