Killing Laban: The Birth Of Sovereignty In The Nephite Constitutional Order

[urroner]

I was reading the article Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order, by Val Larsen in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 16 Issue 1 and found it very insightful. It gist was that Nephi was acting as a sovereign power when he beheaded Laban. It also did a comparison between what was written in the scriptures about David killing Goliath and Nephi killing Laban. Good stuff people.

Anyway, I have a question about something mentioned in the article. The article said:

The first symbolically sovereign act that marks Lehiâ??s family as a separate people, no longer a part of the society or subject to the authorities in Jerusalem, is Lehiâ??s offering of a sacrifice when the family first arrives at the river Laman in the Valley of Lemuel. In offering this sacrifice, Lehi violates the mandate that sacrifices be offered only at the temple in Jerusalem and only by the Levites.

Can one of you OT scholars explain this a little bit more. I have often heard that it was custom to offer a sacrifice when one was a three days' journey away from Jerusalem at this time, but now it seems that what I heard was wrong or that I misheard.

[LeSellers]

The first symbolically sovereign act that marks Lehiâ??s family as a separate people, no longer a part of the society or subject to the authorities in Jerusalem, is Lehiâ??s offering of a sacrifice when the family first arrives at the river Laman in the Valley of Lemuel. In offering this sacrifice, Lehi violates the mandate that sacrifices be offered only at the temple in Jerusalem and only by the Levites.

Can one of you OT scholars explain this a little bit more. I have often heard that it was custom to offer a sacrifice when one was a three days' journey away from Jerusalem at this time, but now it seems that what I heard was wrong or that I misheard.

Aside from the logistics of going back into the city which God had told him to flee, and into the hands of men who'd already sought his life, I believe there are two points from which we may assume the veracity of the act:

1. There are two laws in the Old Testament. The Mosiac Law dominates for many reasons, not least of which is that the records keepers were, largely, Jews under that law. But there was also the original law of sacrifice, given to Adam and restored under Noah and then again with Abraham. Every man was his own priest as it were, under this law, evne as today.
   
2. Lehi, a prophet called of God, was fully capable of offering sacrifices on his own account because of the calling he held, and because that calling doubtless (in my view) included an ordination to the Mechizedek Priesthood.
   

Some may object that the two reasons above are restatements of the same thing, and to a certain extent, they would be correct. Why? Because the original law of sacrifice as revealed to Adam, etc., operated under the Melchizedek Priesthood and is the higher law â?? a blood sacrifice version anticipating the Gospel as fulfilled in Christ.

However, the significant part is that not all men held the Melchizedek Priesthood after Moses (see, e.g., Ex 20:18~21). We know it operated among the Nephites because the Melchizedek Priesthood is a requirement for the Church to function. The Nephites definitely had the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints among them. (No, I do not know under whose hand Lehi received his Priesthood.)

Lehi

[Billy]

I was reading the article Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order, by Val Larsen in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 16 Issue 1 and found it very insightful. It gist was that Nephi was acting as a sovereign power when he beheaded Laban. It also did a comparison between what was written in the scriptures about David killing Goliath and Nephi killing Laban. Good stuff people.

Anyway, I have a question about something mentioned in the article. The article said:

Can one of you OT scholars explain this a little bit more. I have often heard that it was custom to offer a sacrifice when one was a three days' journey away from Jerusalem at this time, but now it seems that what I heard was wrong or that I misheard.

Maybe both events were allegory or inspired fiction.

[LeSellers]

Maybe both events were allegory or inspired fiction.

Cute, and about what we should expect.

However, the two are factual accounts of actual events based on this reasoning:

1. Both events were pivotal to the rest of the story.
   1. 
      
   2. David's slaying of Goliath is the foundation of the Davidic line of Kings through which Jesus would be born.
      
   3. Nephi's slaying of Laban was the means by which the Nephites obtained the brass plates, and were able to preserve their culture, including their religion, as opposed to the Mulekites who, without such a record, lost their culture, including their language
      
      
   4. Both events have corroboration in the following stories
      1. David's slaying of Goliath lead to the fleeing of the Philistines, and the establishment of the independent Israelite monarchy under Saul (and then David)
         
      2. Laban's death brought Zoram into the Lehite colony; we see the effects of this in 2 Nephi when Lehi blesses him and his posterity, and then later when people called Zoramites rebelled against the Nephite monarchy (Alma 30, 31, 54).
         

Lehi

[LifeOnaPlate]

Maybe both events were allegory or inspired fiction.

In a way, the narrative itself was constructed by Nephi to emphasize the meaning of what had occurred; it was history written with a purpose: to demonstrate Nephi's right to "rule over his bretheren." Nephi wrote his account about 30 years later when he was commanded by the Lord to make a record of his proceedings. This occurred after the followers of Nephi had split from the followers of Laman and Lemuel.

Noel B. Reynolds explained it as follows, and makes, I think, a good case:

Every people needs to know that its laws and rulers are legitimate and authoritative. This is why stories of national origins and city foundings are so important to human societies throughout the world. Such stories provide explanations of the legitimate origins of their laws and their rulers. Not untypically, such traditions also deal with ambiguous elements of the founding, explaining away possibly competing accounts. When Nephi undertook late in his life to write a third account of the founding events of the Lehite colony, it appears that he wanted to provide his descendants with a document that would serve this function. His small plates systematically defend the Nephite tradition concerning origins and refute the competing account advanced by the Lamanites. Several factors indicate that Nephi carefully structured his writings to convince his own and later generations that the Lord had selected him over his elder brothers to be Lehi's political and spiritual successor. Thus, the writings of Nephi can be read in part as a political tract or a "lineage history," written to document the legitimacy of Nephi's rule and religious teachings.

see BYU Studies 27 (Fall 1987):15-37. A brief overview is here: http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=19

As pointed out above by LeSellers (Lehi), this practice of using historical instances as founding myths ("myths" not in a sense of being false, however) is highly biblical.

[Avatar4321]

im impressed with the article. I liked it.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] I have often heard that it was custom to offer a sacrifice when one was a three days' journey away from Jerusalem at this time, but now it seems that what I heard was wrong or that I misheard.

See "Lehi's Altar and Sacrifice in the Wilderness," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2001, pp. 63-69

Purportedly, in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QT 52:13-16), after giving mention to Deuteronomy 12, it gives the 3-day caveat.

Edited to add:

Link to JoBoMS article.

[Billy]

Cute, and about what we should expect.

However, the two are factual accounts of actual events based on this reasoning:

1. Both events were pivotal to the rest of the story.
   1. 
      
   2. David's slaying of Goliath is the foundation of the Davidic line of Kings through which Jesus would be born.
      
   3. Nephi's slaying of Laban was the means by which the Nephites obtained the brass plates, and were able to preserve their culture, including their religion, as opposed to the Mulekites who, without such a record, lost their culture, including their language
      
      
   4. Both events have corroboration in the following stories
      1. David's slaying of Goliath lead to the fleeing of the Philistines, and the establishment of the independent Israelite monarchy under Saul (and then David)
         
      2. Laban's death brought Zoram into the Lehite colony; we see the effects of this in 2 Nephi when Lehi blesses him and his posterity, and then later when people called Zoramites rebelled against the Nephite monarchy (Alma 30, 31, 54).
         

Lehi

There has been a lot of discussion recently on this board concerning the OT and the B of M with reguard to whether or not it is inspired fiction or true history. A lot of posters think that the B of M and the OT are no more than inspired fiction/allegory. Van Hale says both the OT and the B of M fall into this latter category. How do we know that these stories are not just a fictitious account?

Also the reasons that you give for being a factual event does make it a factual event. It still could be inspired fiction.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A lot of posters think that the B of M and the OT are no more than inspired fiction/allegory. Van Hale says both the OT and the B of M fall into this latter category.

Can it not be a mixture of both?

[Billy]

Can it not be a mixture of both?

It could be,

but how do you separate out truth from fiction?

[Doctor Steuss]

It could be,

but how do you separate out truth from fiction?

The same way you milk a mouse.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It could be,

but how do you separate out truth from fiction?

The same way you milk a ...hey, wait a minute

[urroner]

It could be,

but how do you separate out truth from fiction?

Are you saying that the Bible is completely true or it's completely false?

[Billy]

Are you saying that the Bible is completely true or it's completely false?

I say that it is FALSE the the Bible is completely false.

[urroner]

I say that it is FALSE the the Bible is completely false.

We agree upon that, but how do you tell what is false and what is true in the Bible. Are there things in the Bible that aren't true, but are taught as truths because they are in the Bible and if so, what are these untruths?

Man, I really have to go now.

[consiglieri]

I say that it is FALSE the the Bible is completely false.

As do I.

But the real question is whether it is TRUE that the Bible is completely true.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Benjamin McGuire]

urroner asks:

Can one of you OT scholars explain this a little bit more. I have often heard that it was custom to offer a sacrifice when one was a three days' journey away from Jerusalem at this time, but now it seems that what I heard was wrong or that I misheard.

This wasn't a custom. There are two things going on here. The first is that in describing the Lehite migration from Jerusalem as a new exodus, Nephi includes this detail.

When Moses is leading the Israelites from Egypt, they plan a three day trip into the wilderness (this is not an uncommon thing for people working under a corvee labor situation, or other similar circumstances). So, Exodus 3:18:

And they shall hearken unto thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God.

This three day trip was between the borders of Egypt and Marah. In Exodus 5:1-3 we read:

And afterward Moses and Aaron when in, and told Paraoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. And Pharaoh said, Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go. And they said, The God of the Hebrews hath met with us: let us go, we pray thee, three days' journey into the desert, and sacrifice unto the LORD our God; lest he fall upon us with pestilence, or with the sword.

Pharoah, of course, refuses to let them go. Moses further explains the necessity in Exodus 8:25-28:

And Pharoah called for Moses and Aaron, and said, Go ye, sacrifice to your God in the land. And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us? We will go three days' journey into the wilderness. and sacrifice to the LORD our God, as he shall command us. And Pharoah said, I will let you go, that ye may sacrifice to the LORD your God in the wilderness; only ye shall not go very far away: intreat for me.

The notion here is that Israelite sacrifices within the cultic boundaries of Egypt would be anathema to the cultic awareness of the Egpytians - so the three day journey was necessary.

The idea that only Levites could perform sacrifices is an overly simplistic view. After all, killing your own cow was an act of sacrifice, and was performed in your courtyard in a ritualistic fashion. So he means more specifically certain kinds of sacrifices. The limitations on performing sacrifices only in the temple in Jerusalem would be quite late - since it would be practical only within a scope of a severely reduced (size-wise) kingdom of Judah that would be seen leading up to the Babylonian captivity and following the return from captivity. In a pre-Josian reform, it is quite likely that the notion of a three day journey (into the wilderness) was seen as the defining distance within which temple observance along with the Levites and such was required. So it is quite possible that there isn't a concern for priesthood issues overlying the episode in the Book of Mormon. However, it is quite likely that in using this information as he does within the narrative, that Nephi is describing their exodus from Israel, and this does several things rhetorically -

1) It makes those in Jerusalem (the Israelites in the city and the land) to be Egyptians.

2) It places Lehi as a type of Moses, leading them into the wilderness towards the promised land.

3) It stands a strong statement of contempt for the temple worship practiced by those at Jerusalem. Theirs becomes an idolatrous worship, to which Lehi's true worship in the wilderness would be anathema.

My article is due out this fall (only a few months now).

[urroner]

Thanks Ben.

So from what you Larsen have said, it seems that Lehi was truly declaring himself and his family not subject to the government of Judah any longer.

What I gather from what you said, Moses wouldn't make any sacrifices to God within a three day journey of Egypt because that was the area of the Egyptians religious or cult and Moses rejected that cult. So, if I have understood that correctly, then Lehi made a sacrifice when he was a three days journey from Jerusalem because he had rejected the apostate religion of Jerusalem.

Wow, honestly wow, I never would have thought that, but having read the JBMS article and what you have posted above is absolutely fascinating and makes great sense. There is so much more to the scriptures than I ever dreamt was in them. Nephi really meant what he said when he said we had to know the Jews of his times to truly understand and a knowledge of ancient Israelite history makes a huge difference.