Laban's decapitation and blood loss

[Jason]

Decapitation is a mess. Blood stinks. So does vomit. So does lying in a gutter. I think it speaks volumes to Laban's character that Zoram did not consider that anything was out of the ordinary.

I have wondered how well Zoram even knew his master, really. He may not have even really known Laban's face - he just recognized the armor and sword and couldn't think of anyone else getting a hold of them.

[Lamanite]

I also have to add that this issue is waaaaaaay down on the list of important items in this chapter. At a minimum there is oath and covenant making, and there is a fine example of God preparing a way for Nephi to accomplish his task; this has personal applications for me. There are other things as well.

So the beheading specifics, although interesting, are tangential to the weightier matters of the law.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Vance]

Decapitation is a mess. Blood stinks. So does vomit. So does lying in a gutter. I think it speaks volumes to Laban's character that Zoram did not consider that anything was out of the ordinary.

I think Laban was a blood thirty man and likely came home on occasion with blood on his clothing. Zoram wouldn't have questioned him for fear of his own life.

[Lamanite]

Hey Ben,

So I've been over your study regarding literary allusions in the BoM, and I think the parallels and allusions are fascinating.

I'm wondering if you'd be up to discussing these key elements of your study.

"There are several reasons to formally introduce a methodology: (1) to reduce as much as possible personal subjectivity in the analysis of the evidence, (2) to produce empirical results as opposed to purely theoretical results,⁴ (3) to involve the reader as much as possible in the process of discovery, (4) to allow the reader to find additional instances of intertextuality following the same model of discovery, and (5) to allow for criticism of the process, as well as of the conclusions."

It would completely derail my thread but I don't care.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Benjamin McGuire]

Sure - what did you want to talk about specifically?

[Lamanite]

Sure - what did you want to talk about specifically?

I'm not educated so I'll kind of have to take things slow. If you're patient it may help me grasp some of these concepts more fully.

My first issue revolves around your introduction of "a methodology" i.e. singular. Does this this imply that there is only one method for interpreting the BoM?

Second issue as that this methodology is employed to reduce "personal subjectivity." Are we not to "liken" these scriptures unto ourselves? Is it wrong to view the scriptures through the lens of our own life experience?

I guess I take issue with the idea that there is a singular methodology whereby we should approach and interpret the BoM. Have I misinterpreted your intent?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Benjamin McGuire]

Lamanite writes:

My first issue revolves around your introduction of "a methodology" i.e. singular. Does this this imply that there is only one method for interpreting the BoM?

This part of the paper has little to do with the Book of Mormon itself, but a discussion of how to look at literary allusions.

One of the long standing issues in Book of Mormon studies (but one that is not unique to Book of Mormon studies) is how we deal with parallels. Parallels can be found between just about anything. Isolated and taken out of context, parallels can be given a lot seeming weight and authority. Within Book of Mormon studies, parallels are often used by both believers and critics. However, there has been very, very little done in terms of laying out a formal methodology to look at parallels - and to establish significance using an external set of criteria.

In my paper (which has two parts), I first lay out my methodology - that is, what I am looking for, how I use it, what criteria my decisions are based on, and to some extent, how I weight the different kinds of evidence. Once I have a methodology that is fully described, I use it on the Book of Mormon text to point out a certain set of parallels between that Book of Mormon text and the Old Testament text. This second part is the case study - where I apply the theory to the text.

As far as interpreting the Book of Mormon, if the author provides us with a literary allusion, and we understand it properly, this provides us with some insight as to the intentions of the author. This may or may not be very valuable to us as we interpret the text for ourselves. But if we are interested in understanding the author at all (through his text), it could be very useful.

Second issue as that this methodology is employed to reduce "personal subjectivity." Are we not to "liken" these scriptures unto ourselves? Is it wrong to view the scriptures through the lens of our own life experience?

There are very many different ways to read a text. We might "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" - but this way is very similar to reader-response theory or a post-modern reading of the text. And this kind of reading really doesn't need to involve an author, or an intention by that author. We might decide that we really are interested in what the author had to say. After all, he wrote it, and he intended to convey something to us when he wrote it. We might decide that we are interested in a polemical reading of the text - in this case (and we can find several examples of this here and over at Shade's board right now) where we read the text looking for the "holes" which are the primary purpose and focus of the reading. At any rate, there are all sorts of ways to get meaning from the text. It is up to us individually to decide which meaning we are interested in at the moment - and one reading doesn't necessarily exclude the value of another reading.

In a sense though, this discussion is very much a philosophical debate - because at some point we encounter the issue of God as the author of scripture - and should we be allowed to "liken unto ourselves" what God wrote without consideration of God as author. That's a very interesting debate which has been going on for a very long time - and worth getting into if you find these kinds of questions interesting.

Finally, we can only read through the lens of our own experience. We cannot get away from it. But, we can try to recognize that this is what we are doing - particularly if we are looking to read texts in other ways than merely through our own perspective.

So there you have it. If I were to go back and look at this issue from the perspective of my article, I would say this -

Nephi's purpose in writing this bit about Laban and killing Laban has more to do with the then present day issue (contemporary with Nephi's actually writing this, decades after it happened) of kingship of the new Nephite colony. The events that are portrayed in it, are portrayed in such a way that it brings to mind the dynastic shift in Israel from Saul to David (as opposed to from Saul to Jonathon). And it was written to show that Nephi was intended to become the king by his actions which he had taken in Jerusalem. I am not saying that nothing happened, I am merely suggesting that some care is taken in crafting this narrative to present a particular point of view and understanding of these events - and other perspectives and explanations are going to be incomplete and speculative because of it. The text is already (before we even start to read and reinterpret ourselves) a highly developed interpretation of whatever events allegedly took place that night.

Now, none of this background has to matter at all if we choose to liken it unto ourselves in some way.

[Lamanite]

...

This is really good stuff. What you just wrote has helped bring your study into a much sharper focus. It is especially applicable because I generally read sacred texts through three different lenses.

1. Faith

2. Personal experience

3. Contextually- I think I would place your methodology in this category.

There are no conflicts with these three approaches in my opinion. In fact, I believe they compliment one another.

OK...

I love the idea of discovering textual allusions. It is something I haven't trained myself to do very well, but I think I'm familiar with enough scripture that I think I could begin to recognize textual allusions. A couple of questions.

How do avoid the great Latter Day Saint tradition of proof texting?

Within the realm of textual allusions what would you consider empirical evidence?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Scottie]

I have a question...

Surely God knew that He would be commanding Lehi and Company to get outta Dodge, so why didn't He command Lehi, years prior to their exodus, to make his own copy of the brass plates? I would assume that Laban didn't own the sole copy, right? God could have provided a way for Lehi to gain access to a copy and make his own copy?

[Bikeemikey]

If I had time to premeditate, then yes. But if some guy stumbled out drunk and the Spirit told me to kill him, I would have just leaned him over and bled him out. But maybe the spirit gave specific instructions that are not listed.

Nephi did have time to premeditate. Time and intelligence enough to take the sword from Labans unconscious from prior to being inspired. Nephi is a reasonable individual, despite is aversion to dancing. He disarmed the unconscious man to protect himself in case the context changed, to give him advantage. Then after this "uninspired act" of reason he was inspired to kill Laban. I don't think the spirit would have minded a brief delay while Nephi disrobed the man prior to cutting his head-off, it may not have been part of the spirits direct command but it is not as though we become robots are inspiration. I am sure Nephi, the reasonable man for foresight enough to disarm an enemy while he had the chance would also have had foresight enough to know that if I cut his head off while he is wear clothing its going to be messy.

Moreover, given the time period chances are an undressed naked body beheaded in the streets would have taken much longer to be identified than a body wearing the armor and emblems of a wealthy land-holder. Had Nephi not intended to wear the clothing prudence and reason would likely have prompted him to get rid of the key identifying items (Clothing, Armor, sword) to ensure his family the greatest head start in their escape back to their father.

It is a gross error on our part to assume that because Nephi was inspired to kill laban that he lost all other faculties of reason and observation. Note that the spirit did not constrain Nephi to cut off Laban's head, rather simply to kill him. Nephi as an independent reasonable agent was able to determine the method of dispatching Laban that worked best. Perhaps he even hid the head so people would have a more difficult time to ID the body. Also note that the scripture does not say that after beheading Laban he took off the garments and put them on, it says "after I had smitten off his head with his own sword, i took the garments of Laban and put them upon mine own body". Maybe Nephi did the classic clothing switch in the back alley move, perhaps he dressed Laban in his own clothing.

The point is that the revelation to slay laban did not retard Nephi's preexisting natural capacity toward reason and rational thought. Unless we think that in the absence of detailed revelation Nephi was a total TOOL then it stands to reason that we ought to give Nephi credit enough to understand that cutting off the head of a clothed man with the intention of then using his clothes was going to present some substantial problems.

Even though this particular point in the scriptures is substantively trivial it is interesting the response.

Two distinct groups have emerged:

Those who are interested in the scriptures containing the entire story...nothing additional could have occurred beyond the scope of the brief record's account.

And those who feel that in the absence of what is obviously a full account it would be reasonable to treat Nephi like a compotent individual and assume a reasonable solution was found.

The real question is why hold to a very unreasonable and impractical notion (that is Nephi cut off the head off a fully dressed man and then took his clothes off and put them on) when the scriptures don't even say that? What incentive is there to force a totally unreasonable scenario on the scriptures when we don't need to?

Just my thoughts on this.

[Jason]

I have a question...

Surely God knew that He would be commanding Lehi and Company to get outta Dodge, so why didn't He command Lehi, years prior to their exodus, to make his own copy of the brass plates? I would assume that Laban didn't own the sole copy, right? God could have provided a way for Lehi to gain access to a copy and make his own copy?

That would have eliminated Nephi's learning experience.

[Bikeemikey]

If I had time to premeditate, then yes. But if some guy stumbled out drunk and the Spirit told me to kill him, I would have just leaned him over and bled him out. But maybe the spirit gave specific instructions that are not listed.

I personally think that if the spirit tells you to do something you don't need a step by step list of how to get it done. In the absence of specific instructions from the spirit why would your default assumption that Nephi used what may perhaps by the lest effective and most risky way imaginable to kill Laban and still be able to use his clothes.

In the absence of "more detailed instructions" i would assume Nephi would undress his first. That is what most professional beheaders would do... because it is reasonably obvious cut off a guys head might not be able to wear his clothes to a party afterwards.

[Lamanite]

I think everyone has made great contributions. However, I think the Spirit played a larger role in the minutia of the event than others have intimated. Nephi was not violent and had never spilled blood. And I'm sorry to bust some bubbles but killing someone isn't as rational and pedantic as some have made it out to be. Killing someone is the opposite of reasonable. Killing someone is terrible in so many different ways. It is my opinion, that this event was inspired in its broadest sense and its most intricate details, especially allowing Nephi to see things "as they really are."

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Benjamin McGuire]

How do avoid the great Latter Day Saint tradition of proof texting?

There are, I think, two issues that should be raised at this point. On the one hand, working with literary theory tends to look at a more unified text. We are talking about intentions, we are talking about how the narrative works. We aren't trying to isolate little pieces here and there. In the sense of prooftexting (which isn't just an LDS pastime), we try to avoid this kind of approach in two ways. First we become more aware of context, of rhetorical strategy, and of the narrative flow. This will tend to help keep us from taking things in a way that is foreign to the context in which it occurs. Second, we want to use some kind of formal criteria that helps us determine what is significant borrowing and what seems to be merely coincidental.

Within the realm of textual allusions what would you consider empirical evidence?

In general terms, this is the result of the process. When we have parallels that we have identified, and we can fit these parallels into a rhetorical strategy (or whatever shape our empirical model takes), we produce this kind of evidence. The parallels, just hanging out there, aren't evidence in and of themselves. The methodology is very important here since, once we produce evidence, we have to have some way to evaluate it, compare it, see what is good and what is not good, and so on.

[Bikeemikey]

I think everyone has made great contributions. However, I think the Spirit played a larger role in the minutia of the event than others have intimated. Nephi was not violent and had never spilled blood. And I'm sorry to bust some bubbles but killing someone isn't as rational and pedantic as some have made it out to be. Killing someone is the opposite of reasonable. Killing someone is terrible in so many different ways. It is my opinion, that this event was inspired in its broadest sense and its most intricate details, especially allowing Nephi to see things "as they really are."

Big UP!

Lamanite

Great then you will also agree that the spirit operates with great intelligence and most likely inspired Nephi to disrobe Laban. (edited for Lamanite: such a tough guy name for a sensitive soul)

If you hold that the Spirit was involved in every detail, yet Nephi did not disrobe Laban first then the spirit made a huge lapse in foresight - not surprising as it may not know about blood yet.

If you hold that the spirit was only involved in the process generally, yet Nephi did not disrobe Laban first then Nephi made a huge lapse in foresight.

Either way - if you are strong advocate that the head came off before the clothing you are agreeing that someone made a sequencing error in the process - one where the consequences were Nephi was at risk of being unable to impersonate Laban due to the clothing being all messed up.

They acted in a fashion that reasonable subscribers to the forum would not act. I would be curios to see the results of a poll, not to the question did Nephi take off labans clothes before the cut off the head, but to the question:

"If you had to kill someone who was presently unconscious and then wear their clothes, and you decided to cut of their head, would you first take their clothes off, or would you cut off their head and then take their clothes off?"

As a side note, which is more suspicious, when someone walks past, 1. Nephi in the dark taking the clothes off a drunk with a head, or 2. Nephi in the dark taking the clothes off a drunk without a head and blood all over the ground.

Again, unless either the spirit or Nephi are totally unaware of the nature of blood chances are the clothes were off.

And again, why try to claim otherwise when it is clearly contrary to what most of us, and even you yourself would do, neither is it against the verse in question. You are not even having "wrest scripture" to claim the clothes were off.

[Lamanite]

Great then you will also agree that the spirit is not retarded ...

I just can't bring myself to respond to a post that puts a member of the Godhead within that context. I'm sure you meant no offense.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bikeemikey]

I just can't bring myself to respond to a post that puts a member of the Godhead within that context. I'm sure you meant no offense.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Well that is a very disappointing response i must say.

That you can't bring yourself to respond to a post suggesting that two LDS individuals can agree that the Spirit operates with a reasonable faculty of mind would suggest you in some way disagree. Which, of course, I am sure you do not.

Perhaps if we can move past grandstanding over an obviously jest we could continue a very interesting discussion heads getting cut off and stuff like that.

[Bikeemikey]

I just can't bring myself to respond to a post that puts a member of the Godhead within that context. I'm sure you meant no offense.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited original post for your benefit.

[staccato]

That would have eliminated Nephi's learning experience.

Learning how to murder another man? I think that is a learning experience a man can do without.

[Jason]

Learning how to murder another man? I think that is a learning experience a man can do without.

Nephi learned about justice, forgiveness, punishment, obedience, and faith. How to kill someone wasn't the lesson.

[Lamanite]

Well that is a very disappointing response i must say.

That you can't bring yourself to respond to a post suggesting that two LDS individuals can agree that the Spirit operates with a reasonable faculty of mind would suggest you in some way disagree. Which, of course, I am sure you do not.

Perhaps if we can move past grandstanding over an obviously jest we could continue a very interesting discussion heads getting cut off and stuff like that.

My opinion is that in order for Nephi to have pulled this off he would have needed a tremendous amount of help from God. When the Spirit intervened, how the spirit operated, voice vs. feelings, is up for debate.

My original assessment is that no one would have thought to get this guy naked before killing him.

I also think the rational thought that has been ascribed to Nephi is inconsistent with taking a human life.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[staccato]

Nephi learned about justice, forgiveness, punishment, obedience, and faith. How to kill someone wasn't the lesson.

Ah, so you are God's spokesperson now?

[Bikeemikey]

My opinion is that in order for Nephi to have pulled this off he would have needed a tremendous amount of help from God. When the Spirit intervened, how the spirit operated, voice vs. feelings, is up for debate.

My original assessment is that no one would have thought to get this guy naked before killing him.

I also think the rational thought that has been ascribed to Nephi is inconsistent with taking a human life.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I very much agree that the context in question does not lend it self to either the time nor emotional objectivity to really become analytical and extremely rational. The point of the story is also much deeper than the condition of the clothing nephi was wearing.

I am curious why the inclination to come down on the more problematic side of a scenario such as this when the scripture I question does not need us to. We are so used to having to accept unreasonable and non-rational conclusions for scriptural stories because they do require them. It seems that we are also inclined to opt for the lest rational conclusion even when it is not needed.

The false conclusion that can sometimes be mistakenly drawn from this is that when god Is involved the least rational reasonable solution is his preference. This is not a big issue when we are dealing with historical issues, but when dealing with current issues Nd we are the people making the decisions, this belief about the nature of gods intervention patten can lead people to abandon reasonable action with the mistaken belief that it is more likely to be gods will.

Inspiration and gods will do not require us to act contrary to reason. Though in the instances they do we should let inspiration lead the way. It is not however the case that in he absence of reason we see gods will.

That is my bigger point about this thread.

[USU78]

That would have eliminated Nephi's learning experience.

And Laban's . . . he surely had the freedom to choose other than as he did, thereby becoming, even if he only sold the plates or allowed a copy to be made, one of the Founding Fathers of the Lehite nations. Instead, he becomes an even worse blackhat than his sleazy namesake.

[mfbukowski]

I think that you bring up an important point. We assume that the order given in the text is precisely that in which the event occurred. However, Nephi was writing at least 38 years after the event (8 in the Old World, 30 in the New) and for very specific purposes (it is entirely possible that he was much more interested in telling the tale to parallel David and Goliath than to get the order correct). It wouldn't be surprising at all if the order of events were different.

Were I in that position, I would not have said "While he was drunk, I took off all his clothes and then chopped off the head of a naked guy", and I don't think anyone else would have either.

The realities of having to kill someone are not always what one would write in scripture, for the ages following to quote, I would think.

Edit:

I really need to learn, when I come into a thread later on, to read before I post. Actually my point was not that far off I suppose.