Nephi'S Beheading Of Laban

[Stone holm]

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?

Especially if God was already intervening to make you look and sound like Laban

[volgadon]

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?

It would stink, though.

[volgadon]

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?

Who said that he didn't make a mess.

[Maidservant]

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.

Hmm. Where to start. I had not encountered Girard before.

So I have to say that in reading the Stirling piece and being presented with Girard, I was disturbed spiritually. And I mean that not in the purely negative sense--just disturbed. Something stirred deep inside me to the point that I gasped out loud a couple of times. I recognized some bits of things I had already been learning but let's just say some walls fell down. This is not to say that I swallowed Girard whole (although I have nothing substantial to contradict either), but that what he has to say has lit my own fire of some things I am thinking that may or may not be a direct match. Okay well I suppose this is all personal and nothing to discuss.

I can't argue for or against the psychological basis (rivalry mimetics) for Girard's theory since I do not possess that kind of knowledge about the psychological workings of human beings. But I think that however he arrived at it, I do think that the spiritual condition of bloodshed that he describes is spot on as well as his descriptions of sacrifice. I think what he has to say is a healthy way to approach the Old Testament at least until a person would want to make a deep examination on their own. I do take with a grain of salt any type of teleology, which is in Girard as "archaic religion" and which I would subtitute "the natural man", but that's a small point and one on which after all Girard may be more correct than I would be, when looking at history as it has unfolded.

Interestingly, I would think that God was already trying to break into people's heads and neutralize because a thought that has occurred to me in the past is that the very act of stoning (a punishment in the Mosaic law) requires everyone to consent and to pick up a stone and in that image we have it--WE stone. WE condemn. WE each have a piece. If we will NOT--then there is no "God's punishment" either. In any case, my point would be that I don't find Mosaic law to be a total ungodly wash as Girard seems to (as explained by Stirling) although I still appreciated having my thoughts expanded by his perspective.

Also I kept thinking about Cain and Abel (sibling rivalry image) and I don't know how more clear it could be where the God figure is saying that even the murderer is to live. So it's all set up, right there in the beginning of the Bible collection as we have it. So it does seem clear that Girard has got the number on the Old Testament, for the most part. (And on the New, I appreciated what he had to say about Christ as well.)

As far as the Nephi v. Laban story, I think both Stirling and Spencer have something to contribute. Even though it seems like they contradict (i.e. the moment of killing is the mimetic moment (Stirling), or the break from the mimetic moment (Spencer)), I can see how they could be happening at the same time. In any case, Nephi never said, "Gee, this is my mimetic moment." He just lived, one step forward, two back I'm sure, like the rest of us. He just reflected back on it. He was fashioning a story for his audience (as per the Val Larsen article shared by Kenngo). It's us who find the frames and the deeper meaning that WE need--which is also what is supposed to happen I think (God is not through with us yet!).

So in any case, I think the Nephi-Laban story and further, the Book of Mormon as a whole, has just become that much more valuable to me. Because it is an understanding that is NOT saying: here is a scripture hero, take his example in order to be righteous. It is saying: here is a human who did this, good, bad and ugly, and situated in culture and in personal development; and I'm (God talking) not finished with you lot of people on earth, there's a lot more you need to know that isn't even in the scriptures, that is LIVED, and yet, here it is in the scriptures as well if your eyes continue to open. So it is THIS kind of understanding that causes me to affirm the saying that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book--because it (and the gospel entire) reveals the blood on our hands, and the way to wash our garments from the blood and sins of this generation.

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.

Okay. Thank you for sharing. For me, it seems like a lot of effort for such a result. I mean, one could have come up with a smaller pamphlet from smaller gold plates for something like that or created a back-to-basics Bible-only movement that focused on the patriarchs' marital practices (Abraham, etc).

[The Nehor]

It would stink, though.

In my experience blood does not have that strong a smell unless you get really close. Nephi would have kept his distance from Zoram. In the scripture he meets Zoram on the way, asks him to conduct him to the treasury, and tells him what to get. Zoram goes in alone with the keys and gets the plates. The confusing part of the story to me was why Nephi took Zoram. Surely it would have been smarter to grab the plates and go alone. Could he have been worried that if he got that close the mess of the blood and his face would have been too visible and the deception would fail?

[Rob Osborn]

I dont see what the deal is with Nephi slaying Laban. Laban was a wicked man who was a cause of a qhole lot of people dwindling in disbelief. His removal from power was peefectly justifiable. Why the devatw?

[volgadon]

In my experience blood does not have that strong a smell unless you get really close. Nephi would have kept his distance from Zoram. In the scripture he meets Zoram on the way, asks him to conduct him to the treasury, and tells him what to get. Zoram goes in alone with the keys and gets the plates. The confusing part of the story to me was why Nephi took Zoram. Surely it would have been smarter to grab the plates and go alone. Could he have been worried that if he got that close the mess of the blood and his face would have been too visible and the deception would fail?

I dunno, in my experience a large amount of blood does stink. Why take Zoram? Did Nephi know where the plates were kept? Probably not, and you are right on time being of the essence.

[Thinking]

If Nephi was going to steal the plates anyway, what was the purpose of killing a passed out drunk who God could have caused to stay passed out while the precious plates were retrieved? Nephi and his brothers had already escaped into the wilderness and regrouped, so Laban didn't know where they were camped.

[The Nehor]

If Nephi was going to steal the plates anyway, what was the purpose of killing a passed out drunk who God could have caused to stay passed out while the precious plates were retrieved? Nephi and his brothers had already escaped into the wilderness and regrouped, so Laban didn't know where they were camped.

Okay, let's say Nephi strips Laban while he was drunk without him waking (dubious, but possible) because otherwise there is no way Zoram would have unlocked the treasury. Then they run. Laban wakes up the next day. Whether Zoram went with or not is immaterial. In less then a day Laban knows that the plates are gone. It would not take a genius to reason out that the people who took it were probably the four men who tried to buy it yesterday and who you just robbed.

Before this Lehi is a traitor and a nuisance people wanted to kill but he was safely gone. Now he stole a national treasure. Laban mobilizes everything and goes after them. It never says Lehi slipped out by night. It is very possible people in Jerusalem knew which way he left.

Of course God could have knocked out Laban. He could have given him amnesia the next day. He could have confused any following search parties. He could have had Laban fall and break his neck in his drunken stumbling through the streets. He could have had an angel grab the plates and deliver them to Lehi personally without Laban being any the wiser. He could have killed Laban and had an angel tell Zoram to take the plates out to the camp. He could have had an angel dictate the whole thing to Lehi and have him write it down. He could have made his own copy in heaven and delivered it. He could have miraculously put the whole thing in the brain of the whole party and all their descendants so there was no need for a written copy.

God wanted Laban dead. For some reason he wanted Nephi to do it. We treat inflicting death as a very serious thing and we are right to do so because we do not know enough. Despite this God has decreed that virtually all of us are going to die and he has no qualms about taking his children home with or without their consent or desire. Laban is a son of God. Maybe it was time to die. He may have even been glad of it. Maybe he was saved from a sin he was about to commit. Maybe the cup of iniquity was full and his death limited what he must endure in the next life. Maybe he was somewhat insane and not responsible for his actions. Who knows?

It has been my experience that God rarely does for us what we can do for ourselves. In this heist God let Nephi do as much as he could and helped in areas Nephi needed the help.

If there is one great lesson to be learned it is a repudiation of the Benjamin Franklin quote the Coveyite followers love to quote about how a failure to plan is a plan to fail. Applying that quote universally means Nephi should have failed.

[Thinking]

Okay, let's say Nephi strips Laban while he was drunk without him waking (dubious, but possible) because otherwise there is no way Zoram would have unlocked the treasury. Then they run. Laban wakes up the next day. Whether Zoram went with or not is immaterial. In less then a day Laban knows that the plates are gone. It would not take a genius to reason out that the people who took it were probably the four men who tried to buy it yesterday and who you just robbed.

Before this Lehi is a traitor and a nuisance people wanted to kill but he was safely gone. Now he stole a national treasure. Laban mobilizes everything and goes after them. It never says Lehi slipped out by night. It is very possible people in Jerusalem knew which way he left.

So now that Laban is dead in the street with his head cut off, who are the people going to assume killed him?

[jim_mason]

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.

Consider the nature of the oath to Zoram, Brant Gardner can fill in the rest.

[The Nehor]

So now that Laban is dead in the street with his head cut off, who are the people going to assume killed him?

Probably suspect Zoram. When you are holding secret conspiratorial meetings outside the walls of Jerusalem in the middle of the night it is a pretty fair bet you have lots of enemies. When you die and your servant/slave vanishes in the middle of the night I think the suspect is obvious. If I was the firlm noir detective on the case I would guess one of Laban's political enemies bought off Zoram and had him off Laban or Laban was a harsh master and brought it on himself. I would begin a massive citywide hunt for Zoram. If I was really good and inventoried the treasury within the next few days I might have found the plates of brass missing but all indications still point to Zoram as the thief as he had the keys.

[Robert F. Smith]

Maidservant said:

*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?

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.

Very astute observations by both of you! As Rene Girard has pointed out (especially on his visit to BYU many years ago), violence and the sacred go together. The thing about the Bible and the Book of Mormon is that they unmask naivete about the true nature of violence as a brutal scapegoat mechanism. Unlike the histories of other cultures, the Bible and Book of Mormon tell it warts & all. Violence is not glorified and the prophetic word is harshly condemnatory. See Rene Girard, Violence and the Sacred (1977); Robert North, "Violence and the Bible: The Girard Connection," Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 47 (1985), 1-27.

Joe Spencer's An Other Testament is brilliant.

Of course, Joseph Smith never considered the killing of Laban a foundational myth, unless he was the kind of super-sophisticate that Dan Vogel seems to think he was.

[volgadon]

Of course, Joseph Smith never considered the killing of Laban a foundational myth, unless he was the kind of super-sophisticate that Dan Vogel seems to think he was.

You are right, however, it did excersize an influence on Joseph's thought.

[Robert F. Smith]

....................................................

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

[Robert F. Smith]

You are right, however, it did excersize an influence on Joseph's thought.

Oh! Howso?

[Maidservant]

Of course, Joseph Smith never considered the killing of Laban a foundational myth.

No problem and I am sure you are right. I am sure that there is a certain set of criteria for "a foundational myth" that I don't even know, so I was just using it loosely. I could have just said, "What was Joseph Smith's motivation for writing it in?".

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Well, Jeremiah nearly died in that pit, while the prophet Uriah ben-Shemaiah of Qiryat-Yearim was executed by Judahite officials, after fleeing for his life to Egypt, and then being extradited, during the reign of King Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20–23). Both events took place contemporary with Lehi, but it isn't possible to give a date before or after the exit of Lehi for Jeremiah's near demise. It does, however, lend credibility to the claim that Lehi's life was on the line.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[strappinglad]

Nephi was young, correct? He was large for his age and strong but with how much martial training? He was, in the near future , to be involved with fighting and killing his relatives. Laban was a relative sort of. Might as well learn early on about death.

As for a dead Laban in the street, Laban was a powerful man and would have had powerful enemies so it would not be immediately apparent who the killer(s) was/were.

[Robert F. Smith]

No problem and I am sure you are right. I am sure that there is a certain set of criteria for "a foundational myth" that I don't even know, so I was just using it loosely. I could have just said, "What was Joseph Smith's motivation for writing it in?".

I thought that you were making a rhetorical statement, Maidservant, and that you knew that the suggestion was absurd. I even gave you a rep point . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

Nephi was young, correct? He was large for his age and strong but with how much martial training? He was, in the near future , to be involved with fighting and killing his relatives. Laban was a relative sort of. Might as well learn early on about death.

As for a dead Laban in the street, Laban was a powerful man and would have had powerful enemies so it would not be immediately apparent who the killer(s) was/were.

Yes, and, had Laban lived, he would certainly have put the proverbial dogs on the boys' trail. He had to be permanently silenced, not merely because he had stolen the family treasure and threatened the boys' lives, but because he was a powerful Captain of Fifty and posed a real threat to Clan Lehi

.

[Robert F. Smith]

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....

As usual, you've got it backwards, Beast,

Hugh Nibley already had mastered Arabic and a number of other languages and had gotten his PhD in history at UC Berkeley, and then had taught for several years at the Claremont Colleges in Southern California, before going off to World War II with the 101st Airborne Division. He saw plenty of death, including two men he knew who committed suicide. The Hollywood version of war is glorified and tame. The reality was horrific, and makes any sort of contempt you have for Muslim justice seem rather silly. After all, the most civilized and cultured people on the planet (the Germans) had committed the most atrocious acts in the history of mankind (still unsurpassed).

On his return to the USA, he encountered Fawn Brodie's false and absurd claims in her No Man Knows My History bio of Joseph Smith, wrote a review of it, and only then began dealing with the Book of Mormon the same way a scholar would deal with the Bible. Of course, in your mind all biblical scholars are tortured by doubt. That is why they do research (study languages and do archeological excavations) on the Bible. And perforce why you do biblical exegesis, and why you wax theological. It is all based on your fundamental doubt, and everyone is like you and therefore must also be motivated by doubt. Have I got the etiology wrong? Set me straight, Beast.

[Calm]

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.

And Nephi would have had other options available to him when Laban stole his family's money and attempted to kill them.

[gree0232]

And Nephi would have had other options available to him when Laban stole his family's money and attempted to kill them.

Well, it does happen today, albeit not in the US. There was no police force you could go to in Ancient Judea, or, if you did, a man of means and power could thoroughly corrupt the process and walk about with impunity. Rome is a famous example of that in action. Yet in places like Nigeria, Mali, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Burma, Central America, and even parts of Mexico, people face almost exactly the same situation and must bear the exact same test = what price is justice worth?

If a man is bent on evil, enraptured of his own power, routinely prays upon the innocent, is abusive and thoroughly corrupt, bent on continuing the injustice at any cost ... what must man do? Should a people subjected to brutal authoritarianism simply accept their circumstances ala North Korea, or should they rebel like the Egyptians? Like the Israelites did against the Assyrians and the Romans, like they did in the aftermath of WWII? In fact, the old testament is filled with Prophets leading Israel into war, including the elimination of the Canaanites entirely (which, IMHO, takes a rather Pattonesque view of War and uses a a short and brutal amount of violence to end what would otherwise be generational violence that would have prevented Israel from ever forming as a Nation).

Its not a simple question, and the story of Laban puts that judgement of circumstance in these issues where it firmly belongs: with Heavenly Father.

[Samlam]

I am a bit curious about the beheading business .Is there symbolism involved ?

Nephi Slaying Laban Judgment Symbolism

I.Judgment Cycle for Laben

A.Laman Effort

1.1 N 3:11:12 Laman ask for records

2.1 N 3:13 Laman Calls laman a robber

3.1N 3:13 Laban declares Robbers must die.

B.All Brothers Effort

1.1N 3:22 Get all of their wealth

2.1N 3:24 Take it to Laben

3.1N 3:25 He covets and becomes a Robber by stealing their wealth.

C.Nephi Effort

1.1N 4:7 Nephi comes upon the robber Laban

2.1N 4:10 Spirit tells Nephi to slay the Robber Laban

3.1N 4:18 Nephi Slays Laban with “His Own Sword”

D.Summary As Ye Judge

1.Laban declared Robbers deserve death

2.Laban became a Robber

3.Matt 7:2 Laban was judged by his own actions according to the rule of as Ye Judge so shall ye be judged.

4.His “Own” sword is a symbol for Laban being slain by the sword of justice that he himself forged inch by inch over the course of his lifetime by his “Own” choices.