Do Ends Ever Justify Means In Mormonism

[thesometimesaint]

So did God "deliver" Laban to Nephi or not?

Why was Nephi's trial breaking one of the very laws of God? Was not Nephi tested in other ways as well? Were they not a trial?

Do you have any problem with others that say "God delivered this bus load of Jews to me, and God told me to blow the bus up?

Godwin's Law.

God didn't make Laban falling down drunk Laban did. God merely allowed Laban the consequences of his Agency.

Read Exodus again. A few paragraphs later God commands the Hebrews to utterly destroy.

Yes I do. But that is neither here nor there. Does God allow for us to blowup a bus load of enemy soldiers headed to combat?

[Calm]

We don't know that god did command nephi to kill Laban. All we k ow is that nephi reported that god did and that nephi felt it was through inspiration.

Nephi was not perfect... He could have got it wrong.

However, it seems less likely to me that in this case Nephi is confused about the Spirit while in others where there is external evidence that the Spirit is directing him (success at building the boat, the appearance of angels to support him, etc.). I am not saying that prophets don't make mistakes as I believe that when a human is on one side of the conversation, mistakes are a given; it is just that this would be a huge mistake/misunderstanding if the Spirit was actually present (one where the Spirit was telling him not to do it and he interpreted it as an insistence that he kill Laban) and I believe he was familiar enough with the Spirit to be able to accurately judge (especially since there had just been the appearance of the angel which had expressed support for his actions when Laman and Lemuel had attacked him).

One cannot exclude what the angel stated unless one believes Nephi is making that part up...which gets complicated imo if one assumes the plates are real and what they say they are.

1 Ne 3:29 And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, anangel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying: Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.

We have here a clear statement that it is the Lord who has placed Laban in Nephi's control in such a way...that he then either misreads the Spirit's instruction in such a wrong way or intentionally goes against the Spirit and kills Laban when he was not supposed to...and lies about it in the plates seems unlikely as the Spirit continues to attend and guide him later on...which if he misused the Spirit in such a way seems unlikely to me.

IOW, I think there would have been consequences of Nephi killing Laban if he was not supposed to that do not appear in the story while the elements that do appear seem to indicate a continued presence and approval of the Spirit.

Edited April 20, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I think the legal system back then moved quicker than it does today, and it seems the death penalty was proscribed for a wider array of crimes than now too.

If Laban was part of the establishment and had been confident enough to attempt to kill them in the first place, he was likely familiar enough with the implementation of the legal system of the time to know that whatever the outcome, it would have favoured him (the legal system itself might not have been corrupt as it was meant to be set up, but if the Bible and BoM are to be believed, how it was used was a different matter).

[pogi]

I hear you on this. And as I said in my recent post above, in order to "lay aside" my cultural upbringing or expectations in order to do something as huge as killing someone, my certainty that the "spiritual witness and confirmation" was from God has to be at basically 100%.

Me too.

I found this interesting: http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Nephi's_killing_of_Laban/Could_Satan_deceive_Nephi

[Kenngo1969]

We don't know that god did command nephi to kill Laban. All we k ow is that nephi reported that god did and that nephi felt it was through inspiration.

Nephi was not perfect... He could have got it wrong.

I think you need to read this episode, recorded in chapter 4 of 1 Nephi much, much more carefully. I don't think you're giving Nephi nearly enough credit. No, he wasn't perfect (and he knew it; read 2 Nephi 4) but also ... no, he wasn't a murderer. There's a huge, huge gulf between those two extremes that I think you're dismissing entirely too blithely. First of all, don't forget that the Book of Mormon is an abridgment. The only reason why we even have this account is because Mormon chose to include it in his abridgment. Why? Do you think it was wrong of Mormon to include it in his abridgment? If so, would you care to expain why? Do you think Mormon simply included it because he wanted modern readers to conclude that, "Hey, I can kill whomever I want. All I have to do is to say God told me to do it, and I'm covered! Cool!"? Preparing his abridgment wasn't easy. Do you think, after he did so, he simply said to himself, "Oopsie! I don't want those 21st-century folks to get the wrong idea, but I can't exactly erase these engravings. I guess it's too late now"? Or do you think he actually made careful decisions about what to include?

Secondly, Nephi didn't slay Laban out of simple bloodlust. Look at verse 10. It says that Nephi was constrained to slay Laban. Do you know what the word constrained means? Look it up at Dictionary.com. In verse 11, Nephi offers up four reasons for potentially killing Laban. Do you know enough about Jewish law ca. 600 BC to say (without resorting to presentism) that none of them were legally cognizable? (I suggest you read the article I (and Calmoriah) linked earlier, by BYU law professor Jack Welch, "Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban.") Thirdly, do you remember what happened to the Mulekites? They brought no records with them, their language became corrupted, and they fell into apostasy. Look at verses 13 and 15. Nephi considers that possibility and concludes that he doesn't want a similar fate to befall his people. Are you prepared to say that, in fact, it is better that a whole nation should dwindle in unbelief than that a single man should perish?

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

It does seem to me like people are forgetting that Laban was not just some drunk found in the street, but the man who had stolen their possessions and attempted to murder them for gain.

I know in today's world if Laban was caught, there would be the legal process...a period alloted to get an attourney, time to build a case, selecting a jury, scheduling courts, possible plea bargaining, a years long court case, etc...

I think the legal system back then moved quicker than it does today, and it seems the death penalty was proscribed for a wider array of crimes than now too.

Other than your use of the word proscribed (i.e., "prohibited") where I think you actually meant to write prescribed (i.e., "mandated" or "recommended" or "used"), I agree with you 100%!

Edited April 21, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Stone holm]

My feeling on this is that basically Lehi was at or pretty near a state of war with the Jewish establishment in Jerusalem. Under such circumstances the normal cultural and legal restraints no longer apply to the rebels if they are successful in their bid to breakaway from the dominant culture. My Covenanter ancestors posted armed guards at the chapel doors when their outlawed clergy conducted Sunday services in Scotland . Not much difference here I suppose.

[Flyonthewall]

Other than your use of the word proscribed (i.e., "prohibited") where I think you actually meant to write prescribed (i.e., "mandated" or "recommended" or "used"), I agree with you 100%!

Indeed I did mean prescribed, good catch.

[Bikeemikey]

Yep he coulda and this whole thing might just be a college lab experiment too.

Pretty sure my scenario is about a million times more likely than yours, but then again for all I know I may be a banana having a dream.

[Kenngo1969]

What if the BoM is fiction along with the Bible or Quran?

Methinks, with all due respect, that thou paintest with too broad a brush, there, melady! While I would hesitate to take the Holy Bible, from cover to cover, literally, to say that it, in its entirety, is fiction, is to do it a grave injustice. I know next to nothing about the Quran; perhaps I should take Professor Peterson's course on it. From what I do understand, however, (though my understanding may be mistaken), the Quran is not a narrative or a collection of narratives, but rather a compendium of teachings, and that, since it doesn't claim to be a narrative of events, by definition it cannot be fiction.

And while there is a contingent of Latter-day Saints which has concluded that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction in order to "resolve" such questions as, e.g., an alleged lack of horsies in the New World during the time period it purports to cover, such a "resolution" actually raises more questions than it answers: Joseph Smith reported interacting with real, live, flesh-and-bone participants in the Book of Mormon narrative; he (and others) reported handling actual objects which played major roles in that narrative (not only plates, but other objects, as well). In order to accept the inspired fiction theory, one has to conclude that God said, essentially, "Oh, crap! Since the Book of Mormon is fiction, I guess I'm going to have to create, ad hoc and out of whole cloth, a bunch of things I'll need to support the story. Let's see ... I'm going to need several sets of plates and a sword of Laban ... and I'll need a hologram for that Angel Moroni guy ..."

The foregoing explanation for the Book of Mormon's existence seems even more far-fetched to me than the version promulgated by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I prefer to stick with the latter, thanks. I believe there were Nephites; that there was a sword of Laban and that there were actual plates; and that there is an actual resurrected Nephite named Moroni whom Joseph Smith actually saw and who "did, in reality, speak to [him]."

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

BikeeMikey, do you have any substantive response to Calmoriah's #77 or to my #80, above? (If not, while I can't speak for her, I would find your silence quite telling.)

[Kenngo1969]

Indeed I did mean prescribed, good catch.

Don't mind me, I'm just rather senselessly obsessive when it comes to trivial things like spelling and typography!

Edited April 22, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[USU78]

It does seem to me like people are forgetting that Laban was not just some drunk found in the street, but the man who had stolen their possessions and attempted to murder them for gain.

I know in today's world if Laban was caught, there would be the legal process...a period alloted to get an attourney, time to build a case, selecting a jury, scheduling courts, possible plea bargaining, a years long court case, etc...

I think the legal system back then moved quicker than it does today, and it seems the death penalty was proscribed for a wider array of crimes than now too.

Jeremiah might argue the point that, at that time, the justice system in and about Jerusalem were capable of appropriately judging a case: Bigwig with friends [presumably] in high places is accused by outsiders led by an antigovernment radical of stealing their stuff and trying to have them killed. Just what would Zedekiah's justice courts have done?

[Stone holm]

Jeremiah might argue the point that, at that time, the justice system in and about Jerusalem were capable of appropriately judging a case: Bigwig with friends [presumably] in high places is accused by outsiders led by an antigovernment radical of stealing their stuff and trying to have them killed. Just what would Zedekiah's justice courts have done?

So you are saying, ends justify the means, or this was a warlike rebellion, or what?

[USU78]

So you are saying, ends justify the means, or this was a warlike rebellion, or what?

I'm saying that there was no justice to be had . . . party trumped principle . . . and justice was to the highest bidding toady of the controlling "Egypt-loving" majority in government.

Jeremiah . . . and Lehi . . . warned against relying on the broken reed . . . and the sons of "Babylon-loving" so-called prophets would not have gotten a fair hearing.

When civil law breaks down, you must do what you have to to preserve life and property, no matter how distasteful it is. It is a maxim of the civil law that, if, to save your life in a storm, you land on a private pier, breaking it to pieces with your boat, you are not liable for trespass or criminal mischief: it's the same maxim that allows for "justifiable homicide" in defense of self or others. Nephi was defending self, family, and the Lehite nation in embryo from a moral cesspool of a narcissist who just happened to have friends in high places.

Even without the divine Word commanding him, he would have been justified.

[Stone holm]

I'm saying that there was no justice to be had . . . party trumped principle . . . and justice was to the highest bidding toady of the controlling "Egypt-loving" majority in government.

Jeremiah . . . and Lehi . . . warned against relying on the broken reed . . . and the sons of "Babylon-loving" so-called prophets would not have gotten a fair hearing.

When civil law breaks down, you must do what you have to to preserve life and property, no matter how distasteful it is. It is a maxim of the civil law that, if, to save your life in a storm, you land on a private pier, breaking it to pieces with your boat, you are not liable for trespass or criminal mischief: it's the same maxim that allows for "justifiable homicide" in defense of self or others. Nephi was defending self, family, and the Lehite nation in embryo from a moral cesspool of a narcissist who just happened to have friends in high places.

Even without the divine Word commanding him, he would have been justified.

Yeah not sure you could stretch the emergency justification that far, but I agree that if this was the start of civil war against the established authority, and the plates were deemed necessary to preserve the religious heritage, which they were, then it was justified because the ends did in fact justify the means. The extent to which Mormonism accommodates this type of armed rebellion is another matter, and perhaps worth exploring.

[pogi]

Even without the divine Word commanding him, he would have been justified.

Absolutely not.

When civil law breaks down, you must do what you have to to preserve life and property, no matter how distasteful it is.

Nephi was never in threat of life or property after escaping unharmed. They were leaving their property behind anyway. To turn around and kill a man after escaping unharmed is not considered self-defense, it is considered revenge. However, he did not kill Laban out of revenge or self-defense, but he killed him to get the plates and no other reason. This was the way the Lord prepared. Had he killed Laban if another way was prepared, he would have been guilty of a terrible sin.

Edited April 22, 2013 by pogi

[Flyonthewall]

Jeremiah might argue the point that, at that time, the justice system in and about Jerusalem were capable of appropriately judging a case: Bigwig with friends [presumably] in high places is accused by outsiders led by an antigovernment radical of stealing their stuff and trying to have them killed. Just what would Zedekiah's justice courts have done?

I was not trying to imply that it should have been left to Zedekiah's courts, or for that matter, any court.

Only that looking at the goings on back then cannot be looked at with today's standards.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago here in America that you could be hanged for cattle rustling. Today that would be inconceivable.