Calm

You are too entertaining… IMO, what got people banned when lying about things was lack of civility, vulgarity, etc. IOW, it was more how they did it than what they did.

What environment would have this variety in your analysis?

After how many years?

Meaning?

Discussions on the brass plates: https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/a-backstory-for-the-brass-plates https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/interpreter/vol34/iss1/8/ https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/interpreter/vol45/iss1/8/ Dropping this here to look at later.

If the record was much older, the plates Laban had could have been a personal copy made for Laban off the original that was the record his fathers kept. Nehor was thinking it had to be pretty new as there is no evidence of something like it existing for all that time, but maybe it wasn’t identical, but just some of the collected stories, etc. It’s logical to me that a record of the kings were kept by the court and if the prophets were supported by the court that their prophecies became a part of that…and if not supported, but condemning the court, still makes sense to include them. Still why would Laban’s family have that. There is no claim of royalty or even family leadership though descending from Joseph. Maybe they were a family of scribes and were the court historians and kept their own copy modified with their own genealogy added. If the family was typically devout, would explain all the prophecies being included. The genealogy of Laban’s family who had custody of the plates makes sense as well. If you are going to keep records in the family, of course you would track the genealogy. The five Books of Moses is the biggest problem that I am aware of. The Book of the Law, which was most likely one of them was said to be found in the temple not that many years before. It would hardly have been a lost text if Laban’s family had a copy of it. Does seem to be something special given the elders of the Church were interested in it. If they were a family heirloom treasure or even a treasure if the kingdom (that’s seems unlikely as it would have been in the King’s treasury), so a clan/tribe thing) there’s an excellent reason for pursuit even if Laban was dead. They might be irreplaceable. Killing Laban and taking Zoram with them might delay the discovery of the missing plates since it seems like no one saw Zoram and Nephi leaving…though surely there were guards at the city gates. But if so, then they would know it wasn’t only Zoram but someone dressed up in Laban’s armor (since they would find his body in the city, not outside it). The servants might not bring attention to the theft out of fear of punishment, but a murder of an elite commander? Seems like there would still be some pursuit. What happened to the body? Did he hide it to delay discovery? Got to wonder if Joseph was making up the story, why would he have his hero do such a morally disturbing killing?

At that age with no children? Seems unlikely, they would likely have married quickly again, especially Laman as the firstborn and expected heir. Having his own heir would make his expected position more secure. Makes more sense not to see them as that old. Makes it more believable if closer in age that they gave into Nephi as much as they did even if they constantly whined about him. I don’t see any advantage to making the two that much older and a lot of advantages not to (makes Sariah having two more kids under a great deal of stress more likely if she is younger than 50 or more when she had them).

Which has nothing to do with the fact Nephi was still a kid. Kids can be smart…smarter than many adults, but they are still kids. We don’t know their ages, I am just speaking to your “they weren’t young kids”. If you are thinking Nephi was 14, he qualifies as a kid in my view based on brain development even if in that society he was viewed as an adult (but certainly not equal to someone of Laban’s age even if they happened to be same social class). Laman and Lemuel likely weren’t kids even if Nephi was 14, they seem quite preoccupied with more adult type thoughts early on to me, no sense of adventure, more concerned with living well. Seems unlikely there was a huge age gap though. I don’t care how well spoken Nephi is or physically powerful, if they were teens and out doing ‘adult’ stuff when Nephi was in nappies, they wouldn’t forget that. And Laman obviously looked on himself as the rightful heir/leader after Lehi with Lemuel backing him up. Age matters when it comes to accepting authority and one doesn’t yet have the angel as a backup. Giving up all their treasure because their baby brother thought that was a great idea when they were in their 30s? Nah. Laman and Lemuel as 20ish and still new to the I am an adult thing, brains still not fully mature but closer and most important still being treated by lots of people older than them as youngsters probably and therefore less confidence and therefore easier to be swayed, that seems more reasonable. I also find it hard to believe they were in their 30s and unmarried, so I would place them early to mid 20s at the latest. With the family wealth, they wouldn’t need to wait as long to be able to afford a family. I don’t know about Sam as not much said about him in the text. I see him as not much older than Nephi as Nephi treats him as his shadow more or less, no distinct personality, but they had a good, seems like close relationship.

Speculation: People with high status generally have others who deal with those looking for favors unless they are of equal or superior status…at least to screen them to see who would be worth their master’s time. I don’t see why that would have been different back then. Laman also went to speak with Laban with no retainers himself, not impressive. His clothing might have still been in decent repair and was likely high class given the family’s wealth, so that would have been in his favor assuming he took the time to tidy up. The family connection makes more sense, but still seems like with Lehi being out of favour with the community (as in they were going to try and kill him if he stuck around), seems like Laban would not have been friendly to begin with, though perhaps he might have indulged in some diplomatic fishing for information. Can’t decide if Laman was more likely to put off asking for the plates as long as possible or would just get to the point to get it over with so he could get out of there. Laman had nothing to trade to begin with, it is strange to even expect Laban to consider giving them up even if they were close family members, which given Laban’s reaction seems highly unlikely. I don’t understand why they didn’t first go get the riches….except for wanting to hold on to them so they could return to wealth when they returned as Laman and Lemuel wanted to do, but it would make sense to take substantial gifts at least. Makes me wonder what Nephi left out. Maybe Lehi originally had higher standing in the family, so they thought that prestige would add weight to the request.

I never knew who they were even when my son was in his teens. I may register now who they are if talked about on the board (but will forget who they are pretty quickly), but I never heard them referred to in church…I was in Primary or the library so that might have had something to do with it. I will have to ask my son, who was very active in youth activity when young if he remembers any from that time or if they had influence on him in his view. Will also ask my grandson, who is 19 iirc. I will have to ask my granddaughters about the female leaders as my daughter withdrew socially when she hit teens. None of my grandkids have ever mentioned such leaders around me, but that doesn’t mean much, lol. There are people like Bytheway who wrote books and did the talk circuit and youth conferences, who had an impact on youth in the past in my experience…at least they talked about them and bought their CDs when I worked in the bookstore (privately owned, but similar to Deseretbook), I don’t know who the current ones are. Many in the past didn’t hold church positions at that time. I assume with the internet options there are more opportunities to influence, whether they actually influence is another thing though.

What makes you think that? Laban was an important man, why would he sit and chat with any of these young and youngish men whether Laman or Nephi (assuming your ages are right)? Not a challenge, want to know what leads you to that besides pure speculation (which is what I do above). BTW, 14 is still a kid in my view. While the culture may have treated the youth differently back then in giving them adult responsibilities, that doesn’t mean the brain was fully developed by the age of 14. It is not just how one is treated that allows someone to think and plan in more adult ways, brain development matters too.

Speculation and thinking out loud: And likely a sacred responsibility as well. Not that fond of the custom order to create the brass plates instead of being given the responsibility (added: I have changed my mind, see below). I wonder what his position was that Nephi speaks of his fifty and even tens of thousands. Zoram thought Nephi as Laban wanted the plates to take to the “brethren of the church”. This seems more than just showing off to the neighbors. We are told Joseph Smith went through much suffering and difficulty when he was the custodian of the plates to keep them and Moroni devoted his life and afterlife as far as we know primarily to the care and safety of records that included them. Why would Laban not be as invested in their protection and care even if he was a greedy, ruthless *******? Why would he think losing the plates for the community (which could even be the kingdom and not just the extended family/clan/tribe) would be an acceptable idea since apparently Lehi and company were traveling far off, more than just a trade caravan since they abandoned their land…which was a major thing biblically speaking. Especially since the brothers couldn’t even manage to protect themselves? Why would he expect the plates to even stay in the possession of Lehi/Nephi and not get ripped off by bandits, slavers, soldiers patrolling the lands the wanderers were going to pass through? Thinking of their home/land of inheritance….. I wonder if the Lehites told extended family to move in, never thought of that before because of the ease the brothers got the treasure…the context makes it seem like their home was abandoned and empty of people when they went to retrieve the loot because it doesn’t speak of any complications. Still it speaks of the land of their inheritance and not the house, so before they had left they could have chosen to bury the treasures somewhere away from the house on the land while giving/selling/trading their home for needed supplies. They could have had the house in the city and the land outside the city. I assume once it became clear they were gone, the land would revert to the clan or maybe a sibling or cousin of Lehi’s. Another aside….Lehi just says “Laban” without details, not Laban the general or Laban who lives in that ostentatious mansion a few blocks away from our house…you get the idea I hope. Now Nephi may have left those out, but it is also possible that Laban was well known to them, perhaps a close family member since Lehi’s family genealogy was on it. Seems like he might have even been a half brother or cousin of Lehi, someone who wasn’t fond of Lehi or his kids as half siblings can often be, of a different branch that was perhaps in competition with Leah’s branch…making it more likely that Laban’s go to solution was murder. Being family would also explain why they thought Laman could just waltz in there and ask for the records. Maybe they figured a family member would respect Lehi’s calling as called of God and turn over the plates. If so, it would make it more logical if the plates were something Laban had made for himself rather than had the custody of where he wasn’t the actual owner in the sense they belonged to the tribe or the church community. Now that I think of it, they wouldn’t likely try to buy the plates if Laban was only a custodian more or less rather than outright owner. So it does make more sense to think of the brass plates as something Laban either had made for himself that could be replaced with effort or it was a gift that someone else had made for him and not something tied into the family wealth an eldest son was caretaker of to pass down to his eldest son, etc for the overall benefit of the family.

Nah, he’s talking about the whole crime boss storyline that has no evidence in the text for it. At least I put a speculation alert on my storytelling when I do it (or at least try to remember to do it). Using personal speculation for justification is dangerous, it can become a habit for justifying anything including personal behaviour imo. I probably look like I am doing the same thing, but I am just creating scenarios, filling out details in narratives for fun (intended fan fiction). I do it for everything. I don’t feel the need to justify scriptures as I believe it’s the individual interacting with them that matters the most (hopefully in partnership with the Spirit), not what others tell us we should see in them.

Are you bored? Nothing to do? It’s only obvious if you ignore the following sentences and the history of Easter observance in the Church. We have always discussed the last week of Christ’s life heavily in church, had Easter lessons in our manuals (primary at least as I was always in there so wouldn’t know what was going on in adult classes), did Easter activities in Sharing time. When I was a child I remember an Easter egg hunt at church on a Sunday. I remember primary activities semireenacting the events of the last week, talks discussing visits to the Holy Land including retracing the Saviour’s last steps. Church magazines focused on Easter for April as long as I can remember. To say we don’t celebrate Easter is ignoring all the evidence we do, imo. There is a relatively recent shift in language and emphasizing a Christ-centered Easter celebration in the last fifteen years or so and use of “Holy Week” is now showing up in conference though I found a Ensign article from 2009 using that term and a 1970s article talking about teaching about Christ for Easter rather than the Easter Bunny or thinking about new clothes (though we got Easter dresses as little girls in my family). To say we shouldn’t celebrate Easter because we acknowledge we don’t follow the “religious observances” of other faiths for Holy Week, Lent, Ash Wednesday is bizarre to me. Why can’t we have our own version of Holy Week? Why are we banned in your mind from even using the term “Holy Week” or “Easter” to mark our observances, whatever they entail, because other faiths use those same labels and we state we don’t follow their religious observances? By your interpretation, I wonder why you aren’t protesting our having the Sacrament each Sunday as that connects back into Holy Week/Last Supper and mirrors in some ways other faiths’ religious observances. Do you really approach your life in such an all or nothing way, no overlaps allowed, even of labeling? Do you insist on precise interpretations of everything you and others say, no unmentioned but generally understood details allowed? Even in the talk you quote to justify this strange ban on all Easter observances or terms, immediately following the part you quoted it describes the typical LDS version of Easter celebrations, so the page you are using to support your premise does not support it: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/easter?lang=eng

Why would his servants care, it was Laban who wanted them dead, not the servants? Unlikely Laban is trumpeting his pursuit of the brothers to others because if others catch the brothers before Laban, how can he hide his theft of their treasure? Also if Zoram was the only one who knew about the plates being appropriated by Nephi, would the other servants immediately connect the death of Laban with the brothers? Why not just assume theft and murder by the usual suspects since as far as the servants knew the brothers had fled the city. Speculation alert: Laban was likely not a generous and kind master. If we assume they knew about the plates…..the brass plates would not be theirs and drawing attention to their loss could get the servants in big trouble if the plates weren’t recovered. Zoram also missing on top of finding Laban dead might suggest the brothers were more formidable than expected if they made a connection, the servants likely had no way of knowing Laban was dead drunk at the time. Why risk being forced to go on an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous hunt outside of Jerusalem? Servants could have even decided if they hid the presence of the brothers getting the plates, they could hide Laban’s theft as well and take the stolen treasures for themselves and instead blame Zoram for killing Laban. If he was an abusive master (someone so quick to kill seems likely to be to me), they could claim Zoram just had enough and took advantage of Laban’s drunkenness to be free. Once the loss of the plates was discovered, they blame that on Zoram as well. It would just complicate their lives to bring up Nephi and company when there was no obvious evidence apparently that Nephi was the killer.

Isn’t the bold doing what you claim didn’t occur, giving them a reason to wonder because his teaching was contrary to their expectations? Why do you think they would be able to immediately process and accept that teaching without questions?

No, would not see it like that, but I would hope those truly defending their own lives and the lives of others who did not initiate killing would have some sort of loving emotional protection from God shielding them from the worst mental and emotional damage (in this case I see it as pure self defense as even if Nephi let Laban go, I believe Laban would have most likely have continued to send men after them to cover his crime of stealing their inheritance if he found out where they were). However, I suspect it is often the most conscientious soldiers that get hit the hardest emotionally, so I think that may be wishful thinking…at least as far as emotional states in mortality (I think the veil protects our eternal selves that I assume we are still connected to in some fashion from the harms of mortality as well as allowing us mortals to act in more independent ways from what is likely the overwhelming presence of the Father and other exalted beings in our lives).

That I very much agree with. I have enjoyed the discussion even if the topic of genocide is not particularly palatable. This requires me tease out the details of my thinking and it’s always interesting to hear others’ detailed thoughts (well, for sure on subjects I am interested in at least, lol; can’t guarantee it’s the same if the topic doesn’t grab me 😛 ).

Yes, but I see it differently with individuals where God can control severity of reaction with choosing who he requires and why and how it was done. If Nephi is accurate in his description, Nephi was reluctant, not made bloodthirsty, mindless or otherwise high on adrenaline by the rage of war. He had time to process what he was doing and why it was needed before engaging in the act. The Spirit was with him quite strong at the time and it likely had a protective effect. Plus he had the very, very significant experience of Laban trying to have him and his brothers killed earlier. This was a man with known murder in his heart, not a woman who never even thought of harming him or a child. Much easier to frame it in his head as a just execution rather than a killing on command. The outcome is unlikely to be a greater bigotry against others even if it became easier for Nephi to justify extreme actions (I can’t think of any that he recorded from later in his life, he had many opportunities to kill Laban and Lemuel and never personally harmed them, he had his people flee rather than engage in war with their brethren). Laban being so drunk as to be unconscious and therefore unlikely to suffer at all during the process is a plus, not a minus in my view. The killing is not sadistic as would be in genocide where people suffer terror while knowing the end is coming even if they luck out to be killed cleanly and quickly. Good men having to kill people screaming, running, fighting back in helpless ways, begging to live, including those who never harmed them, children even, is on a very different level of stress. And now Laman and Lemuel knew there was no return as as Nephi’s family would likely be held accountable by Laban’s clan or allies or others desiring the brass plates. There is reasonable justification for the killing of Laban, both practically speaking and according to biblical law if the argument I have read holds (not longer have the book and can’t remember the author). Laban was accountable for theft and attempted murder. Genocide where those involve will include those who will unfortunately get off on killing, likely rape while they are doing it, etc., where those they kill are innocent of major crimes against…creates a very different environment than the legal (in Nephi’s own mind at least) execution of a thief and attempted murderer. The wholesale deaths of harmless and innocent makes genocide exponentially different imo than the death of Laban, in a completely different category even. And if one looks at the behavior of Nephi afterwards, one can at least choose to assume the fruit of the act was good as he remained faithful and righteous, did not harden where killing became easy, etc. May have had PSTD and neglected to mention it, of course.

Would the cost of psychologically twisting and traumatizing his followers be worth it when there were plenty of other ways to destroy people for God if we assume your premise he punishes the wicked himself at times, such as the plagues of Egypt (which I am okay with assuming)? Why would genocide be the best option in this case? More likely to create more evil than remove it, it seems to me, even just from reading scriptures. Add to what we see in history, when was there ever good fruit from such tactics…a more righteous, compassionate, faithful people remaining? How much easier will it become for his people to treat outsiders not with the love and compassion that Christ taught, but with disdain, seeing the stranger’s life as worthless, the cultures who worshipped other gods as apostate and therefore worthy of death or slavery, how much easier would it become for them to view disagreement as a sign of evil when genocide because a godly response in a culture?

It’s not morality, but the fruit of genocide that leads me to believe it’s not of God.

My problem with genocide as opposed to cancer is what killing does to the person doing the killing. With cancer, other humans may ignore it in others and if evil, may even encourage behaviour they know raises the risk of cancer (‘cough’ smoking ‘cough’) for personal and corporate gain, but typically there is compassion for those who suffer from such and even charitable attempts to help. The act of genocide, mass killing of a certain group of people, would have so few ways to look at it as a compassionate act, especially if one is up close and personal at the time of dying and after death. The psychological effect of genocide on the individual killers (even if following orders) and on any survivors….I don’t see that as any way being uniquely helpful to someone’s salvation. I can come up with rationales of why a loving, all powerful God would set up the world such that disease and natural disasters are rampant and to allow men to have the choice of slaughtering their fellow humans or not, but taking it further and actually God encouraging them to slaughter an entire people seems quite unlikely. If it’s about removing influence that will corrupt their souls and cause more harm than death, then why hasn’t this been applied more consistently by God? Plus in the Bible, I don’t believe there are any actual situations where one can point to and say that sin no longer occurred among the Chosen people because they had wiped out their neighbors leading them astray. It seems low effectiveness for increasing righteousness. Very high cost with low benefits…God seems too wise to me to use this method to bring his children back to his side.

No, it is not a given, automatic outcome as there are many with deep authentic faith in my experience that struggle with study, prayerful or not for other reasons than commitment. An obvious impediment might be a learning difficulty, but also just never having developed the skill, distractions from other parts of their lives, just simply naturally interacting with the world in ways that do not accommodate reading, etc. Their faith may be exercised in other ways, of course. But not all the faithful are given the gift of spiritual perception. They may be given other spiritual gifts: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 12&version=NIV

That’s understandable to me, with much of it being used as food, etc, not going to waste. Genocide now….thats top of the list for me.

I very much agree.