Why did Nephi decapitate Laban?

[William Schryver]

Your welcome.

Given your answer, have you received assurances via your faith, the spirit - as to your apologetic approach? How can you speak so presumptuously when you admit to lacking the very experience of which you write about?

my regards, mikwut

I've visited Dead Horse Point state park in eastern Utah several times over the years. I've never once felt the urge the climb over the guard-rails in order to "get a better view." Nevertheless, I have felt what I'm certain were "assurances"--via logic, faith, the "spirit," etc.--that I could confidently assure my children (and others, for that matter) that climbing over the guard-rail was not a wise course of action. Would you say I have been "presumptuous" to project my beliefs in this matter?

.

.

.

[Redefined]

Supposing that God is all-knowing, and everything is possible for him. How come he couldn't just restore the gospel if everyone had dwindled into unbelief?

[David T]

Exodus 21:12-13

12

[mikwut]

I've visited Dead Horse Point state park in eastern Utah several times over the years. I've never once felt the urge the climb over the guard-rails in order to "get a better view." Nevertheless, I have felt what I'm certain were "assurances"--via logic, faith, the "spirit," etc.--that I could confidently assure my children (and others, for that matter) that climbing over the guard-rail was not a wise course of action. Would you say I have been "presumptuous" to project my beliefs in this matter?

No, not on that matter on the matter I specifically referred to in my question, that is the matter I am interested in you answering. In your analogy you are with certain experiences (i.e. falling, gravity, risk on ledges etc..) that allow you to avoid presumptuousness. I asked you a question that you specifically admitted to not having experience with. Can you please directly address that?

regards, mikwut

[William Schryver]

rockslider:

Am I disaffected? Through 7 years, I've remained in my G's, I've put 2 sons on foreign missions, I've seen all 3 of my children to their own endowments and Temple marriage sealing's. I have continued to pay fast offerings, and supported my wife and children's full TBM activity. It was a wilderness experience. I worked twice a week for 8 years as an ordinance worker. I'm a Mormon through and through.

I must admit I'm curious about one thing: if you are, as you claim above, "a Mormon through and through," then why, pray tell, (as you have mentioned on the board that shall remain unmentioned) are you attending the Exmormon Foundation Conference this coming weekend? Is this part of your "faith-building" effort?

[Jason]

Howdy folks. I have a lot of questions.

Actually, I rather suspect these are intended as rhetorical.

1. Thou shalt not murder is a pretty clear commandment.

Murder indicates unjustified killing. Nephi's killing of Laban was just. Not only was it a commandment of God, it was self-defense. Sure Laban didn't present an immediate danger to Nephi while lying drunk in the gutter, but he had tried to the family of Lehi before and would have again.

2. Having our Hero recognizing that it's wrong to kill and then having the Spirit convince him otherwise in sort of an exception-basis sets a dangerous precedent. For one, it shows that there's really only one commandment -- obedience.

One might as well argue that Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac when commanded to do so sets a dangerous precedent, or God's commandment to Jesus to allow himself to be killed sets a dangerous precedent.

Yes there really is only one commandment "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, and strength." All the others flow from it, and someone who really follows it follows all the others as well.

3. Laban was so drunk that he wouldn't have presented much of a tactical challenge in his drooling, unconscious state. Why didn't Nephi just take his clothes, tie him up and leave him somewhere?

(A) because he was commanded to kill him. ( Because it's likely if he hadn't killed Laban, Laban would have gotten his men together, hunted down and killed Lehi and his family in the desert for the offense.

4. Laban's bloody clothes should have set Zoram and any other guards or even passersby around the domicile grounds and treasury into DEFCON-1. If God himself intervened in making Laban's clothes un-bloody, then why wouldn't He also intervene to make it so Nephi didn't have to slaughter Laban?

Perhaps Nephi removed Laban's clothes before he killed him? Or perhaps Nephi knew how to cut a head off without getting blood on himself from having done it with animals before? Maybe it was dark enough that Zoram didn't spot any blood, or thought any visible stains were wine stains? He certainly didn't look close enough to recognize that it wasn't Laban he was dealing with (although Zoram may not have known Laban all that well).

There is no need to invoke a miracle here.

5. Later in 1st Nephi Lehi finds his faith-energy-powered-gold-compass, the Liahona, lying in the desert outside his tent door one fine midsummer's morning. Since God was willing to craft and deliver a compass to Lehi, why couldn't he just do the same with the brass plates? Why was He willing to do one but not the other?

Killing Laban was a test of Nephi, quite similar to Abaham's test. Nephi needed to pass this test to strengthen him for what was to come. The Lord did it in this particular fashion for Nephi's benefit, and secondarily for the benefit of everyone who would hear Nephi's account.

6. Why was any of Lehi's, Nephi's & co. retrieval of the brass plates even necessary? Wasn't Lehi a prophet? Didn't he already know the scriptures (you know, don't kill people, don't steal, don't lie, etc.)?

See 5 above.

7. Going back to vs. 13 -- GOD is supposed to be the one slaying the wicked, such as how God slew all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians. Why didn't God just cause Laban to have a bloodless stroke or something while laying there face down in the street?

See 5 above.

[William Schryver]

No, not on that matter on the matter I specifically referred to in my question, that is the matter I am interested in you answering. In your analogy you are with certain experiences (i.e. falling, gravity, risk on ledges etc..) that avoid you being presumptuous. I asked you a question that you specifically admitted to not having experience with. Can you please directly address that?

regards, mikwut

The answer, dear mikwut, is quite simple: I consider disaffection and apostasy from the restored gospel as the effective equivalent of climbing over the guard-rail at Dead Horse Point. Having previously observed the outcome of such actions, I can confidently (even presumptuously, if you will) predict the future of those who take the same course of action that has resulted in tragedy for those who have done so before. I feel, therefore, obligated to issue warning where and when I feel such is warranted, and especially to argue forcefully against those who, from the dangerous side of the rail, are encouraging others to join them there.

[mikwut]

The answer, dear mikwut, is quite simple: I consider disaffection and apostasy from the restored gospel as the effective equivalent of climbing over the guard-rail at Dead Horse Point. Having previously observed the outcome of such actions, I can confidently (even presumptuously, if you will) predict the future of those who take the same course of action that has resulted in tragedy for those who have done so before. I feel, therefore, obligated to issue warning where and when I feel such is warranted, and especially to argue forcefully against those who, from the dangerous side of the rail, are encouraging others to join them there.

Of course, but your experience doesn't tell you that, would if God allowed for someone to venture into to the "dangerous" realms you give warning of - in order to teach them, deepen and edify their faith - even mold them to help others that could be edified from their experiences? I had a client in a divorce, in fact several, who insisted to their friends or loved ones that had to go through the horrible ordeal to fight like hell, trust nothing and get whatever you can, he like you felt the need to warn because his experience only consisted of such a battle and his wounds from unwittingly trusting still remained, but alas, experience teaches that many have amicably, peacefully divorced.

Surely, you could at least reflect that maybe your approach to those that are "disaffected", "apostate" etc... is counter productive? If we extend your analogy - it isn't warning others of the possible dangers over the rail, it is screaming down at those already over the analogously constructed rail that they should not climb over the guard-rail, silly, and surely you would recognize that isn't deepening their experience of the path back? And then, saying that you were just warning them, if they were to make it back, isn't going to softly or logically land either.

my best and you can have the last word.

my regards, mikwut

[Zakuska]

Why?

Perhaps he was already Circumcized?

[William Schryver]

Of course, but your experience doesn't tell you that, would if God allowed for someone to venture into to the "dangerous" realms you give warning of - in order to teach them, deepen and edify their faith - even mold them to help others that could be edified from their experiences? I had a client in a divorce, in fact several, who insisted to their friends or loved ones that had to go through the horrible ordeal to fight like hell, trust nothing and get whatever you can, he like you felt the need to warn because his experience only consisted of such a battle and his wounds from unwittingly trusting still remained, but alas, experience teaches that many have amicably, peacefully divorced.

Surely, you could at least reflect that maybe your approach to those that are "disaffected", "apostate" etc... is counter productive? If we extend your analogy - it isn't warning others of the possible dangers over the rail, it is screaming down at those already over the analogously constructed rail that they should not climb over the guard-rail, silly, and surely you would recognize that isn't deepening their experience of the path back? And then, saying that you were just warning them, if they were to make it back, isn't going to softly or logically land either.

my best and you can have the last word.

my regards, mikwut

My only last word would be this: in my experience, very few, if any, "experience ... the path back." Quite to the contrary, once the guard-rail border is breached, the almost-inevitable consequence is a fall into the chasm below. Indeed, those who climb over the guard-rail of faith rarely even look back, let alone seek to trace the path.

Of course, at some point, even this analogy breaks down in the face of the complex realities of human nature and the dynamic elements of our present existence. Suffice it to say that the analogy suits my purpose in terms of this necessarily brief discussion.

In your judgment, my voice in these matters amounts to "screaming down" at someone. I can only offer the suggestion that perhaps the issue is not one of my voice--its tone, its volume, or whether the words themselves have any real meaning. I am reminded of the experience of the Nephites in the land Bountiful when the voice from the heavens spoke to them:

... they heard a voice as if it came out of heaven; and they cast their eyes round about, for they understood not the voice which they heard; and it was not a harsh voice, neither was it a loud voice; nevertheless, and notwithstanding it being a small voice it did pierce them that did hear to the center, insomuch that there was no part of their frame that it did not cause to quake; yea, it did pierce them to the very soul, and did cause their hearts to burn.

And it came to pass that again they heard the voice, and they understood it not.

And again the third time they did hear the voice, and did open their ears to hear it; and their eyes were towards the sound thereof; and they did look steadfastly towards heaven, from whence the sound came.

And behold, the third time they did understand the voice which they heard ...

And so apparently the ear is an instrument requiring calibration. Therefore I am not at all surprised that my voice is heard differently--and understood differently--by different people.

[Euthyphro]

God provided the allowance in the Law, and even pointed this out to Nephi before he committed the act. According to the Mosaic Law, what Nephi did was legal, and broke no commandment.

You

[Doug the Hutt]

Just a minor point - Nephi's "predetermined end-goal" was to obtain the brass plates, not to "destroy Laban."

Then again, there's THIS explanation:

"Nephi's beheading of Laban might also symbolize an attack on Joseph Sr.'s tendency to intellectualize and allegorize the scriptures, a trait undoubtedly inherited from his own father, Asael, and reinforced by his Unitarian-Universalist leanings. In this sense, Joseph Jr. wanted to free the Bible from the intellectualizing grip of his father and those like him, to interpret the scriptrues for himself more literally and through the spirit of God." (Vogel, Joseph Smith, The Making of a Prophet, p. 135)

Yeah...what HE said.

Thank you for your response. Maybe it's better stated that his first goal was to retrieve the brass plates, but after all their bartering power was rudely taken from them Nephi did add destroying Laban to his list of things to do and declared it openly before doing it:

1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands? 2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea. <a name="3"> 3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians

That's an interesting Vogel quote and I'm interested in reading that book. It certainly makes sense when looking at the Book of Mormon as if it were a modern religious construct by a 19th century author who drew upon his personal life situations as source material to express his own the spiritual tides and struggles in his quest for salvation.

From a literalistic perspective I'm left wondering why Laban being "delivered up" to Nephi had to result in Nephi whacking off the head of a lone, defenseless, inebriated, unconscious Laban since obtaining the plates at that point didn't really hinge on him losing his head(literally).

Thanks for your insight (and for keeping it civil).

[David T]

You

[rockslider]

rockslider:

I must admit I'm curious about one thing: if you are, as you claim above, "a Mormon through and through," then why, pray tell, (as you have mentioned on the board that shall remain unmentioned) are you attending the Exmormon Foundation Conference this coming weekend? Is this part of your "faith-building" effort?

http://www.mormonapo...-of-the-temple/

I feel to go. and hence is an action based on faith,

the documentory might be just what you need ... would you like to join me?

[William Schryver]

You

[Nemesis]

You

[Benjamin McGuire]

Doug - you really should try to get your hands on a copy of my article. It's in the current issue of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture from the Maxwell Institute. I think the latest FARMS Review also had an interesting relevant article as well (should be on-line with the current issue at the Maxwell Institute web site).

[David T]

Doug - you really should try to get your hands on a copy of my article. It's in the current issue of the Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture from the Maxwell Institute. I think the latest FARMS Review also had an interesting relevant article as well (should be on-line with the current issue at the Maxwell Institute web site).

I subscribed a few weeks ago, and haven't gotten my copy yet. Is this normal? I got my welcome packet and free Isaiah book right away, but not the actual item I subscribed to...

[William Schryver]

http://www.mormonapo...-of-the-temple/

I feel to go. and hence is an action based on faith,

the documentory might be just what you need ... would you like to join me?

You might be interested to know that I've replied to the thread you linked above.

[Doug the Hutt]

I rather like the recent speculations that Nephi's killing of Laban was the sine qua non of the founding of the new Lehite Polity. By killing him and taking his sword, Nephi establishes independence from and conquerer status over the polity represented by Laban.

That is an interesting perspective, but that opens up more questions:

1) If Lehi and company were heading off into the wild desert-like yonder, why would making some sort of outward gesture such as killing a ruler even matter? Lehi had intentions of taking his family out of Jerusalem and into a new land of inheritance. Their actions of packing up and going off establishes a defacto state of independent governance -- and does it without anyone dying. It also begs the question as to the authoritarian position Laban would have had in Jerusalem and whether this sine qua non that you describe would be truly significant. Was he the ruler of the kingdom? No, that honor belonged to puppet-king Zedekiah. Would killing someone who's not at the top of a governing body really represent a true breakaway from an old polity and a formulation of a new one? It would be like trying to symbolize the succession from the State of Disbelief not by sniping the Governor but by going after the Secretary of Agriculture -- it would only be meaningful by going to the top, and 1 Nephi makes it clear that Zedekiah would have been the one to challenge.

2) Would obtaining the status of "conqueror" make any difference to Lehi and company? To the victor goes the spoils but they only wanted a brick of plates and to run away to a far away place. And remember that they lost all their land, valuables, ties to friends and family left behind, etc. only short time before Jerusalem was supposed to be destroyed. Seems their satisfaction of survival from the destruction of Jerusalem was that which would have satisfied their sense of justice, but I can't see how there was a need to prove themselves to be "conquerors". Maybe I misunderstand.

[Zakuska]

That is an interesting perspective, but that opens up more questions:

1) If Lehi and company were heading off into the wild desert-like yonder, why would making some sort of outward gesture such as killing a ruler even matter? Lehi had intentions of taking his family out of Jerusalem and into a new land of inheritance. Their actions of packing up and going off establishes a defacto state of independent governance -- and does it without anyone dying. It also begs the question as to the authoritarian position Laban would have had in Jerusalem and whether this sine qua non that you describe would be truly significant. Was he the ruler of the kingdom? No, that honor belonged to puppet-king Zedekiah. Would killing someone who's not at the top of a governing body really represent a true breakaway from an old polity and a formulation of a new one? It would be like trying to symbolize the succession from the State of Disbelief not by sniping the Governor but by going after the Secretary of Agriculture -- it would only be meaningful by going to the top, and 1 Nephi makes it clear that Zedekiah would have been the one to challenge.

Well lets put this in a religious context instead of a Political one. Perhaps Laban was some sort of religious leader. He had the religious texts after all and that is what they went back for.

[notHagoth7]

...the documentory...

I'm intrigued.

Please fill in the blanks.

What are you working on?

[Sargon]

Concerning Nephi's killing of Laban, one explanation I recently heard was very interesting. Paul Hoskisson of BYU explains that Nephi was merely following the Law of Moses in killing Moses.

In Hammurabi's code, if somebody falsely accuses another of a crime, and it is discovered that the accusation was false, then the accuser is given the punishment that would have been given. This law is replicated in the Law of Moses:

Deuteronomy 19:18-19.

"...if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother..."

If you recall, Laban accused Laman (Nephi's brother) of being a robber, and as punishment had planned on killing Laman (I Nephi 3:13). Now, that accusation against Laman was a false. Laman had stolen nothing. Therefore, by the law of Moses, Laban was deserving of the punishment meant for Laman, death.

Laman runs back to his brethren and tells them about it. Next thing we know Nephi is giving his brothers a pep talk about how the Lord is going to destroy Laban.

I Nephi 4:1-3

1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?

2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

Nephi was already planning on Laban's destruction, but he probably didn't realize he would literally be the one doing it. Nephi likens the destruction of the Egyptians to the destruction of Laban. One wonders why the Lord destroyed the Egyptian armies, when to divert them would have been possible. Nephi is no more to blame then God.

A friend writes:

When Nephi finally reaches the drunken Laban, he is afraid to kill him even though he seems fully comfortable with the principle of Laban's physical destruction. And even though Nephi already set up the story to show that Laban was worthy of death as a false witness, he is still reluctant. One possible reason for Nephi's hesitation is that the law requires that the false witness be confirmed in a court, but Nephi is uneasy about doing this impromptu. After the Lord witnesses to him three times that it is just, Nephi is okay with it. And when the Lord says, "Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes," (1 Ne. 4:13) Nephi's understanding of Mosaic justice would not permit that letting someone free for bearing false witness was acceptable in any way.

Thus we see that Nephi's actions that night were an effort to keep the Law of Moses.

(Hat tip to D for the info)

[Anijen]

Of course, but your experience doesn't tell you that, would if God allowed for someone to venture into to the "dangerous" realms you give warning of - in order to teach them, deepen and edify their faith - even mold them to help others that could be edified from their experiences? I had a client in a divorce, in fact several, who insisted to their friends or loved ones that had to go through the horrible ordeal to fight like hell, trust nothing and get whatever you can, he like you felt the need to warn because his experience only consisted of such a battle and his wounds from unwittingly trusting still remained, but alas, experience teaches that many have amicably, peacefully divorced.

Surely, you could at least reflect that maybe your approach to those that are "disaffected", "apostate" etc... is counter productive? If we extend your analogy - it isn't warning others of the possible dangers over the rail, it is screaming down at those already over the analogously constructed rail that they should not climb over the guard-rail, silly, and surely you would recognize that isn't deepening their experience of the path back? And then, saying that you were just warning them, if they were to make it back, isn't going to softly or logically land either.

my best and you can have the last word.

my regards, mikwut

It appears Will has been faithful to his beliefs entirely and that does not negate him from answering the question in which he did so very succinctly and I might add accurately. If though that still isn't good enough for you and you want experience I can tell you I have taken that leap of apostasy. I lost my membership for some time and after great internal and external struggle I made my way back. Will is very accurate that most never come back once that road has been taken. I relate very well with the likes of WW Phelps, Peter, the prodigal son, and my favorite Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah. My testimony is very strong not because of my journey into darkness mind you and I hold a deep regret for ever going that path, I feel and know that my my testimony is certainly strong but it would be even stronger (hard for me to imagine) if I never ventured through the filth stench world of apostasy. If I can admonish you in anyway and any words I have can not even come close to being adequate but don't go that way, it breaks hearts not just your own, it is lonely it causes bitter feelings, it is wedge that divides you from loved ones and friends, it sours and curdles the sweet things in life and it places a a sad distance with the things you value most like family. Heed Will's advice, you don't need to go over the guard rail to know better. Heed my advice I know you don't need to and I know the pain it will cause.

Anijen

[Cold Steel]

Murder is the shedding of "innocent blood."

Laban was not innocent. He had reneged on his honor and he had attempted to murder Laman and his brothers. Plus the Spirit answered Nephi's objections when he replied that it is better that one man should die than for an entire nation to perish in unbelief. Keep in mind that Mulek, son of Zedekiah, was able to flee to the New World, yet within a few generations they had almost completely lost their culture because they didn't have any written records.

It was imperative that the Nephites have the scriptures so that the same thing that happened to the Mulekites and the Lamanites didn't happen to them. Had Laban been allowed to live, he would have undoubtedly done everything within his power to regain the plates and hunt down Nephi and his brethren.

The Lord determines the deaths of all men, anyway. He can determine when and under what circumstances someone is transferred to the spirit world. He's not wiping Laban out of existence -- Laban did live on -- just not in this world. He may have even be able to accept the gospel in due time.