Nephi'S Beheading Of Laban

[Maidservant]

I began to reply to this brother, and then I realized that it would be a derail of the thread it was in; plus I find this story worth a thorough investigation so I am starting a new thread for anyone to share their insights or struggles regarding it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Yes, various mythological stories include a beheading motif. Joseph Smith was certainly familiar with the Goliath myth, but at least the Goliath myth took place during a battle. Smith's own 19th century Laban myth depicted the Christian God as telling Nephi to take the law into his own hands by executing a man in cold blood so that he

could impersonate him, steal his property, and kidnap his manservant, all for a "higher purpose." Unlike the ancient myths, this 19th century myth is a justification for vigilante murder, theft, and kidnapping when the ends justify the means. It is breathtakingly relativistic and therefore thoroughly modern, and as such is completely out of place among ancient myths.

OR . . . *if* there really was a Nephi who really made a record, then I find it on the order of amazing that he just told the truth and wrote the story into his record and did it with a sense of anguish rather than bravado . . . no cover up (i.e. missing entirely or some other vague explanation) and no sense of heroism (a la David and Goliath as was brought up). Certainly there is the still the question of whether or not God actually asked for this, but ultimately that's between Nephi and God and Laban I daresay. . . . . *if*

If it is only a product of Joseph Smith, what would be his motivation of adding that in as a foundational myth?

[volgadon]

I began to reply to this brother, and then I realized that it would be a derail of the thread it was in; plus I find this story worth a thorough investigation so I am starting a new thread for anyone to share their insights or struggles regarding it.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

OR . . . *if* there really was a Nephi who really made a record, then I find it on the order of amazing that he just told the truth and wrote the story into his record and did it with a sense of anguish rather than bravado . . . no cover up (i.e. missing entirely or some other vague explanation) and no sense of heroism (a la David and Goliath as was brought up). Certainly there is the still the question of whether or not God actually asked for this, but ultimately that's between Nephi and God and Laban I daresay. . . . . *if*

If it is only a product of Joseph Smith, what would be his motivation of adding that in as a foundational myth?

Cobalt's assertion that this account is "breathtakingly relativistic and therefore thoroughly modern, and as such is completely out of place among ancient myths," is (not surprisingly) untenable. I haven't gotten round to posting it, but I have written a large part of an upcoming blog post on the ancient category of "sin for the sake of heaven."

[Thinking]

If it is only a product of Joseph Smith, what would be his motivation of adding that in as a foundational myth?

The ends justify the means.

[strappinglad]

I am a bit curious about the beheading business .Is there symbolism involved ? Beheading is a very messy procedure , the heart keeps pumping and squirts blood all over. The clothing likely would have been covered in blood. It is an interesting message that is sent with such a death. If done fast enough it stops any calls for help I guess.

[HairBear]

If you read Nephi's beheading of Laban in light of Deuteronomy 19:16-19 then there is nothing shocking or controversial about it. Laban beared false witness, branded Nephi's brother, Laman, a robber and attempted to have him killed, therefore under the Law Laban deserved to be put to death. As it was God's Law, and God, through the angel, ordered Nephi to do it, where's the problem?

[Kenngo1969]

I don't want to derail a thread that was started so as not to derail another thread (after all, that would kinda defeat the purpose of starting the non-derailing thread in the first place! ) but there are a couple of articles which I think provide useful perspective and context of what Nephi did as Nephi might have understood it. Sure, we see things (especially the past) "through a glass, darkly." But there's far less peril in attempting to understand things from Nephi's point of view than there is imposing 21st-century laws, norms, and mores on an incident that reportedly happened ca. 600 BCE.

To that end, I offer these:

Val Larsen (2007) “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 16, iss. 1, pp. 26-41, 84-85, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute. http://www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=16&num=1&id=430

John W. Welch (1992) “Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, iss. 1, pp. 119-141, Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute. http://www.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/pdf/jbms/792565429-1-1.pdf

Happy reading! (And, I'm back to only being able to write one long paragraph again! Hooray! )

Edited August 1, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[David T]

In light of the previous post, I think these papers linked below could be useful to bring some fascinating alternate additional perspectives to the story (the Nephi beheading Laban record is used as a key example in both papers):

Violence in the Scriptures: Mormonism and the Cultural Theory of Rene Girard, by Mack C. Stirling (Dialogue 43:1)

Rene Girard and Mormon Scripture: A Response, by Joseph M. Spencer (Dialogue 43:3)

The ideas contained in here have gone a long way in causing my re-thinking of how I approach ancient scripture, and especially violence claimed to have been ordered by God. Whether or not you'll ultimately agree with the conclusions, it's still definitely worth the time reading both of these.

Some of the key ideas in the Spencer paper are revisited in his fantastic book on the Book of Mormon, Another Testament: On Typology by Salt Press (where it's available to download as a free PDF),which I understand is soon to be re-released under the auspices of the Maxwell Institute.

Edited August 1, 2013 by David T

[CV75]

If it is only a product of Joseph Smith, what would be his motivation of adding that in as a foundational myth?

I think the argument is that Joseph Smith couldn't help it, he was just doing what any other 19th century relativist would do in inventing a myth.

But by using pejorative terms like taking the law into his own hands, cold blood, impersonate, steal, kidnap, vigilante murder, and theft, perhaps the poster is accusing Joseph Smith of being consciously or subconsciously motivated by a need to express and justify criminal urges under the guise of religion, and not by the Spirit of God.

It is far too easy to make a claim of wrongdoing, or to peceive it where it does not exist, or to twist things around to formulate an accusation; who knows what the noble motivation might be for such behavior.

[Kevin Christensen]

Eugene England also brought in Girard in considering 1 Nephi and the Book of Mormon.

http://maxwellinstit...109&chapid=1255

I'm also very impressed with this use of Joseph Campbell by Todd Harris:

http://maxwellinstit...=6&num=2&id=146

I should not forget Ben McGuire's brilliant study of allusion:

http://www.fairlds.org/fair-conferences/2001-fair-conference/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

And there is the famous report by Hugh Nibley of the comment of his Arabic students. "Why did Nephi wait so long?"

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 1, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[Stone holm]

I daresay if it happened today, it would involve more than just Nephi, God and Laban. And I don't think even a "stand your ground" jury would likely believe in the defense except possibly to intern the person in a high security prison -- except in Texas, there they would probably execute him....then again maybe not, they seem to kind of go for the God told me to claim.

[The Nehor]

I daresay if it happened today, it would involve more than just Nephi, God and Laban. And I don't think even a "stand your ground" jury would likely believe in the defense except possibly to intern the person in a high security prison -- except in Texas, there they would probably execute him....then again maybe not, they seem to kind of go for the God told me to claim.

Since Nephi and his family were already traitors to the nation for preaching capitulation a modern trial would be as farcical as Laban's unofficial sentence of death and seizure of property.

[thesometimesaint]

I daresay if it happened today, it would involve more than just Nephi, God and Laban. And I don't think even a "stand your ground" jury would likely believe in the defense except possibly to intern the person in a high security prison -- except in Texas, there they would probably execute him....then again maybe not, they seem to kind of go for the God told me to claim.

I don't believe that we today are any more moral than they were in Nephis' time. But yours is a claim to presentism that even the Saints don't make.

[Stone holm]

I don't believe that we today are any more moral than they were in Nephis' time. But yours is a claim to presentism that even the Saints don't make.

Presentism? Well I suppose the bit about incarceration would be presentism, back then execution would have been the response. Makes you wonder how many prophets got executed.

[Maidservant]

the ancient category of "sin for the sake of heaven."

Lovely. Starting with Adam and Eve, neh?

The ends justify the means.

Certainly. My point in the question. But I'm interested in any elaboration.

And there is the famous report by Hugh Nibley of the comment of his Arabic students. "Why did Nephi wait so long?"

Eep. Lol.

I daresay if it happened today, it would involve more than just Nephi, God and Laban.

Certainly. I thought of that too, my statement was more regarding the eternities. Back then I'm sure more would be involved also in some way, except that Nephi and family escaped.

If it makes any difference, to disclose my approach to these things, I hold a lot in suspension with the recognition that I am not knowledgeable to assess the text and its purported history. However, when I do come across knowledge and information as regards culture, literary, etc, I find it more or less compelling that it is likely that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text, and at this time until I am convinced otherwise, that is what I accept that it is. I am convinced that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon based on 1) the lack of a single text voice in the Book of Mormon; 2) the lack of any text voice that matches Joseph Smith's other writing samples (my opinion). (I am capable of separating the idea that Joseph Smith did not write the book from making any further assertion about who did. I don't need to know it all at once, and my journey to know is going to take several ways of knowing.) I am not averse to any "19th century" influence as well (I don't consider that a flaw), not necessarily as to the book itself but the development of Joseph Smith and the early Church was not only revelatory but historically situated as well, and I like learning about that too and I think it's important to understand those things. I have never had a classic spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon, and at this point in my life do not seek to have one, but I am not the kind of person to discard something that so plainly is of great worth on so many levels even if in the end it cannot be said to be exactly what I once thought it was (IF that's where I may end up).

Continuing, even as I accept that the Book of Mormon is what it is claimed to be, it does not follow that I need to confirm that every act by every person in its pages is right before God. I would rather say that it is the experience of that person. And I find it of great value to take these great questions (such as can killing ever be justified) and wrestle with them, just as they did, even if I end up at a different conclusion. But I do keep in mind that I haven't walked in their shoes and haven't been influenced (i.e. culturally etc) they way they have--I have my own story.

So I just share all that so you know I am not proposing one sort of thing or another on this question, I just would like to learn about anyone's ideas. Thanks!

Edited August 1, 2013 by Maidservant

[thesometimesaint]

Presentism? Well I suppose the bit about incarceration would be presentism, back then execution would have been the response. Makes you wonder how many prophets got executed.

Presentism. The application of present day norms, and morals to those of the past, particularly the ancient past.

More than a few. But not for killing a human being, even with a jaw bone of an donkey.

Edited August 1, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Maidservant]

I was just reading through some of the articles y'all suggested, and I find it rather telling that while he did kill Laban, he did not kill Zoram. If his sole and only object was to get away with the plates, or revenge, or any other selfish reason that might be ascribed as to Laban's murder--as soon as Zoram had shown him where the plates were, Nephi could have disposed of him. It was quite a risk to offer Zoram a place to live with them, to bind him by a promise instead of just doing the easy thing and killing him.

[David T]

I was just reading through some of the articles y'all suggested, and I find it rather telling that while he did kill Laban, he did not kill Zoram. If his sole and only object was to get away with the plates, or revenge, or any other selfish reason that might be ascribed as to Laban's murder--as soon as Zoram had shown him where the plates were, Nephi could have disposed of him. It was quite a risk to offer Zoram a place to live with them, to bind him by a promise instead of just doing the easy thing and killing him.

I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts whenever you get around to reading the two Girard-themed papers I linked to - especially after reading Spencer's response paper.

[ERayR]

I daresay if it happened today, it would involve more than just Nephi, God and Laban. And I don't think even a "stand your ground" jury would likely believe in the defense except possibly to intern the person in a high security prison -- except in Texas, there they would probably execute him....then again maybe not, they seem to kind of go for the God told me to claim.

It seems you obviously consider your moral code superior to that of Nephi but why does that give you license to impose your supposed superiority on his actions?

[Kenngo1969]

Working my way through the first Dialogue article. The theories contained therein work really well ... if one accepts the premise that the Book of Mormon is less history than literature. Alas, I don't accept that premise. I think it is what it claims to be, so I'm more inclined to accept Nephi's proffered reasons for killing Laban and Welch's efforts to understand those reasons according to a ca. 600 BCE legal context. More later, perhaps (but no guarantees. Busy studying for the MPRE in a little less than 3 weeks.)

[David T]

Working my way through the first Dialogue article. The theories contained therein work really well ... if one accepts the premise that the Book of Mormon is less history than literature. Alas, I don't accept that premise. I think it is what it claims to be, so I'm more inclined to accept Nephi's proffered reasons for killing Laban and Welch's efforts to understand those reasons according to a ca. 600 BCE legal context. More later, perhaps (but no guarantees. Busy studying for the MPRE in a little less than 3 weeks.)

1 and 2 Nephi are foundational (constitutional?) documents written by a King substantially later in his life. I am quite willing to accept it as a true ancient work and still note that the author surely went through substantial paradigm shifts in the course of his life, and found (or needed to find) different significance and meaning in his life's events as time went by as he crafted, codified, (and for all intents and purposes canonized) his colony's Sacred Founding Story. The needing to accept an either/or "this is a literal accurate recounting of history" OR "this is a fanciful literary fiction" is anachronistic if one is a proponent of the ancient view - which I am.

There have some been some masterful works on approaching the BoM from the narrators/editors' perspectives lately, such as Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide, and Brant Gardner's massive and beyond amazing 6-volume "Second Witness: An Analytic and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon".

Edited August 1, 2013 by David T

[Thinking]

Certainly. My point in the question. But I'm interested in any elaboration.

In the story of Laban, Nephi was justified in killing Laban in order to safely obtain the sacred record. In other words killing is justified if the end result is important enough. Then in Jacob plural marriage is condemned unless necessary to raise up seed. Again, what is normally a sin is justified for a greater good. Putting these into the Book of Mormon would make it easier to introduce things like plural marriage and have the church accept them.

[oremites]

In the story of Laban, Nephi was justified in killing Laban in order to safely obtain the sacred record. In other words killing is justified if the end result is important enough. Then in Jacob plural marriage is condemned unless necessary to raise up seed. Again, what is normally a sin is justified for a greater good.

The main point of those stories isn't that the "greater good" justifies committing what is normally a sin. The main point is that it was justified because God commanded it.

I'm not aware of any scripture that teaches us we can commit sin as long as we feel it's for the greater good.

Putting these into the Book of Mormon would make it easier to introduce things like plural marriage and have the church accept them.

That's a pretty obscure reference to polygamy in the Book of Mormon if the point of it was prepare the church for plural marriage. You'd think they would have made the point a little more prominently.

I'm not an expert by any means, but the few accounts I've read of the early saints who accepted polygamy told of their personal spiritual experiences on the matter. Did any of Joseph's associates cite those verses in their acceptance of plural marriage? (That's a serious question. I don't know.)

[Questing Beast]

Intellectuals who end up writing volumes of exegesis on scripture are convincing themselves first. Nibley was a great doubter, or he would not have produced so much stuff! Modern proponents of the BoM as history perspective are delving for evidence to keep convinced, simply because the real world evidence is so much in want, or is contradictory on the surface with much or most of the BoM. The simple view, that JS wrote it under some "muse" of spiritual inspiration, complete with the anachronisms and 19th century content, makes the most sense of the BoM, imho , of course.

That said, the beheading of Laban story was one of the first things to make my eyebrows go up, even as a youngster. I could not imagine it. All the blood, the ruined clothing that shortly thereafter fooled Zoram. How had Nephi managed to behead an adult male without making a mess? The excuse for it never bothered me, since the OT is crammed with "God" commanding Israel to kill, kill, kill them all. I reckoned that Nephi was hearing the voice of God to his satisfaction, and if he was wrong, at least he was justified by his culture in thinking he was right.

I loved it, much later, when Hugh Nibley shared his Arab students' reaction to the beheading of Laban story; how he saw the hands go up, and thought, "here it comes, the objection to killing in the name of God", and instead his students wondered why Nephi had hesitated at all. Laban was guilty of death many times over according to the Arabic pov of justice. Lovely....

Edited August 1, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Stone holm]

Off with their heads! I guess that is the surest way to make sure your opponent is dead.

[The Nehor]

That said, the beheading of Laban story was one of the first things to make my eyebrows go up, even as a youngster. I could not imagine it. All the blood, the ruined clothing that shortly thereafter fooled Zoram. How had Nephi managed to behead an adult male without making a mess? The excuse for it never bothered me, since the OT is crammed with "God" commanding Israel to kill, kill, kill them all. I reckoned that Nephi was hearing the voice of God to his satisfaction, and if he was wrong, at least he was justified by his culture in thinking he was right.

I wondered this too and then remembered how dark the night would be in the ancient world. Would you be able to pick out blood on clothing (even drenched) when you are likely seeing barely more then a silhouette in the dark?