Nephi'S Beheading Of Laban

[Stone holm]

GENERAL Smith met with Gov. Ford to plea his case. This discussion was written down by I believe Pratt. It really is enlightening to understand where the side against Mormons were coming from. They knew Smith and pals had total control of their city with no checks. The council led by Smith was the judge, jury and executioner. An example is when they destroyed a printing shop that printed stuff contrary to what the council wanted out, controlling information. Smith argued it was justified because it was written in the town charter. The problem is the Constitution supersedes a town charter, they violate e d th first amendment when that happened. That story just illustrates why sim we body would want that story in their holy writ, it gives them even greater control

I do not know what the Illinois State Constitution provided at that time, however, a municipal action would not have at that time violated the Federal Constitution. The First Amendment did not constrain State and local governments until after the passage of the 14th Amendment and actually the Bill of Rights was only selectively made applicable to the States by the Supreme Court via the 14th thereafter with the 2nd being relatively recent. Massachusetts still had an established church until into 1830, I believe. He may, however, have violated the State Constitution.

[Maidservant]

GENERAL Smith met with Gov. Ford to plea his case. This discussion was written down by I believe Pratt. It really is enlightening to understand where the side against Mormons were coming from. They knew Smith and pals had total control of their city with no checks. The council led by Smith was the judge, jury and executioner. An example is when they destroyed a printing shop that printed stuff contrary to what the council wanted out, controlling information. Smith argued it was justified because it was written in the town charter. The problem is the Constitution supersedes a town charter, they violate e d th first amendment when that happened. That story just illustrates why sim we body would want that story in their holy writ, it gives them even greater control

Thank you for your insight on that.

One thing that comes to my mind however is the time frame of when Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon (very early on) versus the time frame of these events (much later) and whether or not one really hinges on the other. Are you saying that anyone who reads the Book of Mormon ought to be afraid of getting their head cut off (or some other bad thing) by Joseph Smith if they don't do what he says in times contemporary to Joseph? Or is there a little more nuance to that that I'm not getting yet, in your mind?

I will share, in general to everyone, that I do not remember an exact 'first time' that I ever read this story. I don't think I particularly had any qualms about the death of Laban per se, as a youngster. I comfortably categorized him as BAD GUY, so of course the Lone Ranger should shoot him, right? He's a Klingon, Nephi is Captain Kirk! So of course there is going to be a battle and the GOOD GUYS WIN. So I have never had any childhood qualms about death and killing in the Book of Mormon, Bible, or tv shows. I just thought the world ran that way.

I did wonder if I would ever be in Nephi's position in one sort of hazard or another (not necessarily killing) where I might have to personally hear the Lord's instruction and maybe get it wrong! I felt for Nephi.

I dont maintain these views now, of course, but my point is that I always framed it as a personal spiritual struggle. These larger cultural and institutional frameworks are things I've never considered, so I appreciate what everyone is sharing.

[Kenngo1969]

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.

I would add a couple things, Cucumber. Welch points out that 1. Nephi originally shrank from slaying Laban; and 2. Being commanded of God was considered, at least in part if not totally, to be "legal cover" (my phrase; that is, it makes what otherwise would be an unjustifiable act justifiable).

[volgadon]

Welch gets close, but ultimately he is looking at the wrong legal arguments in the Talmud.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

You make the conflation of my assertion with general life: to assume that talents and other individual interests, such as politics or music, translate into publishing religious apologia is making a fallacious connection. It is entirely reasonable to be interested in history generally, to become highly regarded in a field of study and publish within it from an intrinsic interest in the subject, and have no doubts galvanizing the research, writing and publishing or lecturing, etc. And at the same time to publish religious exegesis and apologetics for completely different reasons. Nibley went through his young period of doubt too. That's why, in my estimation, he was so focused on apologetics. At the same time he was the "church's gadfly critic" (Maxwell). He was armoring himself throughout his life against the critics and showing that their positions were always without merit. You can have "two" Nibelys, the professional historian, and the Church defender from a position of belief and doubt. It is rare or even non existent to find a person who is simply one or the other. And the great doubters are the ones who produce the most material....

Also sprach Zarathustra!!

[Robert F. Smith]

I just checked the source, and legislator is all in lowercase. So apparently not an issue for this outspoken Habad scholar. He also writes God in full, without ommiting the 'o.'

I just can't help taking "legislator" there as meaning God. Do you concur?

[Robert F. Smith]

Whatever Nephis motivation all we have is what he wrote down many years after the event.

I'd love to see the Hollywood film version, if it is ever made, and I can imagine the hero asking the director, "What's my motivation?"

[Kenngo1969]

Welch gets close, but ultimately he is looking at the wrong legal arguments in the Talmud.

I suppose I should recognize the significance of that instinctively, but, alas, I am not a Talmudic scholar! Would you care to elaborate?

[volgadon]

I just can't help taking "legislator" there as meaning God. Do you concur?

You ar eright, of course. There is probably a better way to formulate this, but it seems to me that Mondshine (the Habad scholar) is merely following the written convetion of spirit, letter, and law, none of which are capitalised in that context, whilst introducing yet another dimension. The article, though, really does cast light indirectly upon certain aspects of LDS teachings.

[Calm]

I suppose I should recognize the significance of that instinctively, but, alas, I am not a Talmudic scholar! Would you care to elaborate?

I second this...

[volgadon]

I suppose I should recognize the significance of that instinctively, but, alas, I am not a Talmudic scholar! Would you care to elaborate?

Most of the non-biblical evidence examined concerns "surrendering a specific named individual to be killed when heathens threaten to kill a whole group unless that one is delivered up." Nephi's case is different. He is not being asked to deliver up a member of the covenant community to be killed by outsiders. A minor point, perhaps, but the practice of law revolves around the finer points of it. There is a category closer to Nephi's act, and it employs the same rationale of preserving greater community.

[Robert F. Smith]

Most of the non-biblical evidence examined concerns "surrendering a specific named individual to be killed when heathens threaten to kill a whole group unless that one is delivered up." Nephi's case is different. He is not being asked to deliver up a member of the covenant community to be killed by outsiders. A minor point, perhaps, but the practice of law revolves around the finer points of it. There is a category closer to Nephi's act, and it employs the same rationale of preserving greater community.

I am unable to find and read this important opinion by Rabbi Mondshine. Is it online?

[canard78]

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?

See this is when I start to feel uncomfortable. Let's just go and kill all the people causing people to dwindle in unbelief. Let's line up the editors of MormonThink and shoot them. Then we can go and kill all the Hollywood producers. Except the guys at Pixar... they're the good guys. Once done we'd better kill all the politicians in Holland given their permissiveness. Wait... let's just wipe out the entire Dutch nation - they seem to be a bad apple in the European barrel. Who's next? People on the East Coast? I guess all liberals will have to go too.

The guy was passed out on the floor completed wasted. He wasn't going anywhere. Was a gruesome execution really needed?

I'd have to agree with QB, that's always been a scene that's made me go 'huh?'

[The Nehor]

See this is when I start to feel uncomfortable. Let's just go and kill all the people causing people to dwindle in unbelief. Let's line up the editors of MormonThink and shoot them. Then we can go and kill all the Hollywood producers. Except the guys at Pixar... they're the good guys. Once done we'd better kill all the politicians in Holland given their permissiveness. Wait... let's just wipe out the entire Dutch nation - they seem to be a bad apple in the European barrel. Who's next? People on the East Coast? I guess all liberals will have to go too.

Of course the primary difference was God directly commanding it. As soon as I get the go-ahead it is time to go Danite on all of them. Except the liberals. I am personally more likely to go after Tea Party members.

[volgadon]

I am unable to find and read this important opinion by Rabbi Mondshine. Is it online?

Sadly, it is not. It is included in the thick volume "Hasidism Reappraised," but a few quotes can be found here. http://www.kolel.org/tastytreats/mod8.4.html This one, especially the quote as it appears in full, is strikingly similar to Joseph's famour statement.

Rebbe Elimelech of Dinov writes:

"We have a tradition handed down by righteous people, whereby no day is like another, and sometimes what is done one day is a mitzvah and the next day the same thing is a sin... and no hour is like another... You should understand this, for it is impossible to expound everything in writing; but one who understands, will understand." (Translation Mondshine 306)

[volgadon]

See this is when I start to feel uncomfortable. Let's just go and kill all the people causing people to dwindle in unbelief. Let's line up the editors of MormonThink and shoot them. Then we can go and kill all the Hollywood producers. Except the guys at Pixar... they're the good guys. Once done we'd better kill all the politicians in Holland given their permissiveness. Wait... let's just wipe out the entire Dutch nation - they seem to be a bad apple in the European barrel. Who's next? People on the East Coast? I guess all liberals will have to go too.

The guy was passed out on the floor completed wasted. He wasn't going anywhere. Was a gruesome execution really needed?

I'd have to agree with QB, that's always been a scene that's made me go 'huh?'

We are not talking carte blanche for murder, but rather a specific incident.

[canard78]

Of course the primary difference was God directly commanding it. As soon as I get the go-ahead it is time to go Danite on all of them. Except the liberals. I am personally more likely to go after Tea Party members.

You're very welcome to take out your Tea Party lot... they scare the rest of us.

But if you're going Danite I might have to go all Thomas Marsh on you.

[cdowis]

I already knew his credentials. How about you share with me what he says in the book.

It is rather detailed, and I am not a lawyer. As I remember, there were two basic conclusions:

1. The legal doctrine of "freedom of the press", while a part of our contemporary culture, is based on relatively recent court decisions. The press at that time did not have the protection that it enjoys today.

2. The newspaper was declared a "public nuisance", viz. inciting civil unrest against the community. ( Of course, this is virtually unknown today ) The mayor and city council had the authority to declare it as a nuisance.

However the destruction of the press based on that declaration was a rather grey area of the law, and was a civil issue for the courts and not a criminal one. After the death of Joseph Smith, another participant in the action was found innocent and no other legal action was pursued.

Again, this is based on my memory.

Edited August 5, 2013 by cdowis

[Stone holm]

It is rather detailed, and I am not a lawyer. As I remember, there were two basic conclusions:

1. The legal doctrine of "freedom of the press", while a part of our contemporary culture, is based on relatively recent court decisions. The press at that time did not have the protection that it enjoys today.

2. The newspaper was declared a "public nuisance", viz. inciting civil unrest against the community. ( Of course, this is virtually unknown today ) The mayor and city council had the authority to declare it as a nuisance.

However the destruction of the press based on that declaration was a rather grey area of the law, and was a civil issue for the courts and not a criminal one. After the death of Joseph Smith, another participant in the action was found innocent and no other legal action was pursued.

Again, this is based on my memory.

Correct except there might have bee State Constitutional issues. It was a questionable thing to have done. The real problem was that when Joseph ran for President the Mormons ceased to be a critical swing voting block and therefore neither of the political parties needed to curry their favour.

[cdowis]

Correct except there might have been State Constitutional issues. It was a questionable thing to have done.

He was strongly advised against this action by some members of the city counsel. There is evidence that the whole thing was a deliberate trap, and JS fell into it.

Edited August 5, 2013 by cdowis

[The Nehor]

You're very welcome to take out your Tea Party lot... they scare the rest of us.

But if you're going Danite I might have to go all Thomas Marsh on you.

If you steal my milk strippings I will cut you.

[Kevin Christensen]

See this is when I start to feel uncomfortable. Let's just go and kill all the people causing people to dwindle in unbelief. Let's line up the editors of MormonThink and shoot them. Then we can go and kill all the Hollywood producers. Except the guys at Pixar... they're the good guys. Once done we'd better kill all the politicians in Holland given their permissiveness. Wait... let's just wipe out the entire Dutch nation - they seem to be a bad apple in the European barrel. Who's next? People on the East Coast? I guess all liberals will have to go too.

Despite the founding nature of Nephi's narrative, no one in the Book of Mormon seems to have taken this carte blanche interpretation. Later writers affirm that there is no law governing a man's belief. Every subsequent narrator treats the story as of an exceptional instance, not a general principle.

The guy was passed out on the floor completed wasted. He wasn't going anywhere. Was a gruesome execution really needed?

I'd have to agree with QB, that's always been a scene that's made me go 'huh?'

If the question, "Was a gruesome execution really needed?" is an actual question, and not an immoveable rhetorical barrier, then the question should not be so much directed to very different modern circumstances, but back to what the action actually produced for the participants. This is why I cited Todd Harris's JBMS Study looking at Nephi's story in light of Campbell's Hero with a Thousand Faces. The surprising thing to me is how neatly the exceptional circumstances of Nephi's story so neatly unfold along archetypal lines that do cast light on what was really accomplished in Nephi's Heroic journey, and therefore, what was really needed.

But the hero is never truly alone; the supernatural help he has earned in successfully passing the threshold guardians remains with him. In explaining this aspect of the monomyth, Campbell writes:

Once having traversed the threshold, the hero moves in a dream landscape . . . where he must survive a succession of trials. . . . The hero is covertly aided by the advice, amulets, and secret agents of the supernatural helper whom he met before his entrance into this region. Or it may be that he here discovers for the first time that there is a benign power everywhere supporting him in his superhuman passage.

20

Of course Nephi is already aware of the "benign power everywhere" (recall his acknowledgment of this when he accepts the call in 1 Nephi 3:7), but it is significant that as he approaches the crux of his quest, he is also cognizant of the presence and guidance of his 'supernatural helper." Nephi confirms that "I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do" (1 Nephi 4:6).

After completing the night-sea journey, and with the ready aid of his supernatural helper(s), the hero now stands at the "nadir of the mythological round"²¹ —he must face the final trial separating him from the boon he has come to win. This final trial is the supreme ordeal, the definitive demonstration of the mettle of the hero and his worthiness to receive the boon. Campbell outlines the severity of this test: "[The hero] must put aside his pride, his virtue, beauty, and life, and bow or submit to the absolutely intolerable."²²

Using an economy of words that makes the statement all the more horrible, Nephi explains that for his final trial, "I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10). As if to underscore the critical role this event plays in the large-scale scheme of his journey, Nephi slows the narrative pace here drastically and explains in ominous detail his wrestle to accomplish what he has been asked to do. His agonized reticence leaves no doubt that to do this thing is "absolutely intolerable," yet he is the hero, and the hero must triumph: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18).

The triumph of the hero in his final test leads to the bestowal of the boon he has come so far to gain. A critical aspect of this stage of the monomyth is that in many cases the hero gains not only some tangible reward, but also an understanding of the divinity of the source of the reward. The intangible aspect of the hero's reward is typically symbolized in one of three ways: sacred marriage, apotheosis, or atonement with the father. This last idea is particularly important to the argument at hand. Campbell writes that the effect of the hero

going to meet the father is to open his soul beyond terror to such a degree that he will be ripe to understand how the sickening and insane tragedies of this vast and ruthless cosmos are completely validated in the majesty of Being. The hero transcends life with its peculiar blind spot and for a moment rises to a glimpse of the source. He beholds the face of the father, understands—and the two are atoned.

23

In what ways is Nephi's particular experience "validated in the majesty of Being"? According to the archetype, by not only submitting to but ultimately surmounting the final test, one of the intangibles the hero gains is the self-confidence necessary to overcome any future challenge. In Nephi's case, by being commanded to perform an act he knows is specifically forbidden by the God who has forbidden the act, and then following through with the "absolutely intolerable" act of taking the life of another, he not only proves himself capable of any of the tasks that he will yet have to endure, but also seems to gain a certain understanding of what it actually means to obey God. As Campbell explains later, "The agony of breaking through personal limitations is the agony of spiritual growth."²⁴ Perhaps it is also the glimpse Nephi gains, not so much of the face of the father but of what the Father will have to face in being required to sacrifice his own Son, that augments this growth. Nothing in the text explicitly suggests this, but such a reading of this difficult episode using "tools from . . . Joseph Campbell"²⁵ allows for one possible insight into it and the reasons for its inclusion.²⁶

Regardless of the magnitude of the victory and the significance of the insights gained, the cycle rolls on. If, despite his accomplishment of the supreme ordeal, the powers the hero is challenging remain essentially unfriendly, rather than have the boon simply bestowed on him, the hero may be required to steal it. In myth this act is symbolized by the "fire theft."²⁷

Joseph Smith hadn't read Campbell, but it is clear from the Ben McGuire's account that Nephi makes several clear allusions to the story of David and Goliath, though, neatly selecting the allusions from the older version of two difference accounts spliced together in our Bible.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited August 6, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[thesometimesaint]

See this is when I start to feel uncomfortable. Let's just go and kill all the people causing people to dwindle in unbelief. Let's line up the editors of MormonThink and shoot them. Then we can go and kill all the Hollywood producers. Except the guys at Pixar... they're the good guys. Once done we'd better kill all the politicians in Holland given their permissiveness. Wait... let's just wipe out the entire Dutch nation - they seem to be a bad apple in the European barrel. Who's next? People on the East Coast? I guess all liberals will have to go too.

The guy was passed out on the floor completed wasted. He wasn't going anywhere. Was a gruesome execution really needed?

I'd have to agree with QB, that's always been a scene that's made me go 'huh?'

Fortunately very few of us will ever be presented with Nephis trial. What we will be faced with is a Noah type trial in that whether will we get on the boat or not.

[Stone holm]

Fortunately very few of us will ever be presented with Nephis trial. What we will be faced with is a Noah type trial in that whether will we get on the boat or not.

I thought there wasn't suppose to be the water thingy again, thought it was suppose to be more like Hiroshima and Nagasaki this time around.

[Calm]

Extreme hyperbole.

One good hyperbole deserves another, I guess.