Nephi'S Beheading Of Laban

[volgadon]

Oh! Howso?

This pericope and Abraham 2:22-24 paved the way for the famous “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another," statement.

In the words of a prominent Habad scholar, “One might say that the hasid seeks to obey not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law and the intention of the legislator.”

Bolding mine.

[Stone holm]

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

Is this a statement or a question?

[David T]

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.

Awesome. I very much agree. Thanks for the thoughts. I'm glad the papers resonated with you.

In her preface to "The Revelation of Jesus Christ", Margaret Barker made an insight that sticks with me stronger than anything in her book itself. In talking about a book she read, she says, "She had the courage to suggest a new approach...although there are many points on which I would disagree with her, she sowed ideas in my mind, the sure sign of a good book."

I apply that to one-off papers as well - and at times even message board posts *grin*

[cdowis]

Been doing some research on beheading. If done properly, it is virtually painless so it would have been more humane than stabbing him with the sword. Instant death.

Also see the article below regarding the use of an appropriate weapon.

A friend of mine, who is an archaeologist specialising in ancient weaponry, once performed a set of experiments using a large supply of sheep necks and several swords of various constructions. He concluded that if you're using almost any kind of broad-bladed cutting weapon (from a short-sword upwards), it only takes a single blow to sever the spinal cord. It doesn't even have to be particularly sharp to work. Some of these experiments were broadcast last year in a C4 film about a decapitated body found buried in the centre of Stonehenge. To require several blows from an axe or sword apparently requires a ludicrously high degree of incompetence on the part of the executioner, and reliable records of multiple-blow beheadings are very few and far between.

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-23456,00.html

[Stone holm]

Been doing some research on beheading. If done properly, it is virtually painless so it would have been more humane than stabbing him with the sword. Instant death.

Also see the article below regarding the use of an appropriate weapon.

http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-23456,00.html

Are you suggesting that necks are an evolutionary design defect?

[The Nehor]

Are you suggesting that necks are an evolutionary design defect?

The whole human body is a jury-rigged mess.

[Questing Beast]

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.

How did I "get it backwards"? I listened to the Nibley lecture (or read it in one of the "Collected Hugh Nibley" books, can't remember which at the moment) wherein he told the story of his Arabic students' reaction in his religion classes. How he got to the topic of this thread and waited for the objections, and instead got a wholly different objection than he expected. Are you suggesting Nibley was misremembering the story or what?

I know about his WW2 experiences in part, He was on the beach at D-Day and described the chaos quite vividly. How does his earlier knowledge of the Arabic language, and his WW2 experiences make his surprise at the Arabic students' reaction to Nephi killing Laban suspect?

I don't have "contempt" for Muslim Justice, which is merely Arabic justice transferred into "revealed religion". It is what it is. God works with cultures of people where they are.

It is my observation that generally those scholars devoted to controversial topics are drawn to them by their own doubts. In the case of Nibley a whole career is spent looking for evidence to prove faith. I think he was rather successful at it. We "pick at" what bothers us, we can't let it alone, it won't let us alone, and we worry and pick at it ceaselessly. When we have no questions, we don't spend years producing volumes on topics that don't concern us....

[Maidservant]

Although I would not say that having questions and having doubts are the same thing at all. I have experienced my journey with God largely as a question-and-answer format. It's a matter of faith, not doubt, to have questions.

[Questing Beast]

I don't doubt anything, then. Ignorance is not blissful to the questioner! I trust totally, as possibly can be mustered, that "God" is in the "information business", that humans are meant to always ask questions and receive answers the most beneficial way. We are also impatient, which is not a virtue, and must be "unlearned".

Imho, most "doubters" here and everywhere else are not really such, but seekers of answers. So the distinction between questions and doubts is probably unimportant. A hasty question wanting a hasty answer is going to produce what is IDed as "doubt". A considered question, with the research that accompanies it, will be seen as such and not as doubt....

[Stone holm]

The whole human body is a jury-rigged mess.

Well it is pretty good to last longer than most cars, but I have to concur with Robin Williams that it is not clear why a recreation area is located right next to the waste disposal discharge.

[S.Ferreira]

I listened to the Nibley lecture (or read it in one of the "Collected Hugh Nibley" books, can't remember which at the moment) wherein he told the story of his Arabic students' reaction in his religion classes. How he got to the topic of this thread and waited for the objections, and instead got a wholly different objection than he expected. Are you suggesting Nibley was misremembering the story or what?

Here are two places where Hugh Nibley describes this event with the Arabic students:

Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Semester 1, Lecture 7

I might as well tell you the story about Nephi's successful encounter with the drunk Laban and his deception of Laban's servant to gain access to the treasure in the archives. Notice his night mission. He went where the Spirit led him. We see that Zoram, the servant, had been out with the elders by night, and he was scared stiff when he found out who Nephi was. Then Nephi found Laban lying drunk after the meeting. He was out there dead drunk in the streets, in his full ceremonial armor. Nephi wondered what he was supposed to do. Then he had a long debate with himself (we should mention that). At the time when I had to have all Arab classes here (I should say all Moslem; but they were all Arabs—some Persians). There were two sitting in the front row, Salim and Fayek Salen down in New Mexico now. He became a physician to Qadhafi. He was only seventeen years old when he came here, and he lived at our house. He was a very bright little guy. He knew all the Mu^callaqāt, the seven Hanging Poems by heart. That's really something; they were written before Islam, you know. Well, I told the story of cutting off the head of Laban there, which has always shocked everybody as being immoral. Well, it is. It shocked Nephi, too. He had to argue with himself for an hour. He wouldn't do it (I'll tell you about that when we get to it). But anyway, these boys were worried. I could hear murmurs all over the class. They didn't like this story of cutting off Laban's head like that. Fayek Salim raised his hand and said, "Mr. Nibley, there is something very wrong about this story; this is not a good story. When he found Laban lying in the street like that, why did he wait so long to cut off his head? That doesn't ring true—any Arab would have done it like that, of course." In other words, the story does ring true. I explained that Nephi was a city boy, and he was rather squeamish about cutting people's heads off and things like that. But that's just the natural thing. That would have been the natural impulse. The streets, of course, were pitch dark; they were not illuminated by night. He could have gotten away with it by moonlight.

Teachings of the Book of Mormon: Semester 1, Lecture 11

But he is so reluctant to kill Laban. I told you the story about the two Arabs, where little Fayek Salim said, "There's something wrong with this story." It's always criticized: "This is such a bloody thing that should never have happened. This shouldn't have been put in here," [people say]. But this is the way Arabs do things. After the class Fayek and [another student] were really quite worried. They said, "Why did he wait so long to cut off his head? That was not according to Arab custom or behavior. It was his chance." But he had waited a long time. He had a real struggle here, you'll notice.

[Robert F. Smith]

This pericope and Abraham 2:22-24 paved the way for the famous “That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another," statement.

In the words of a prominent Habad scholar, “One might say that the hasid seeks to obey not the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law and the intention of the legislator.”

Bolding mine.

Would that Hasid put caps on Legislator?

[Robert F. Smith]

Been doing some research on beheading. If done properly, it is virtually painless so it would have been more humane than stabbing him with the sword. Instant death.

Also see the article below regarding the use of an appropriate weapon.

http://www.theguardi...,-23456,00.html

Samurai swordsmen were famous for removing the head in a single swing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Questing Beast said:

Posted 2 days ago

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....

How did I "get it backwards"? I listened to the Nibley lecture (or read it in one of the "Collected Hugh Nibley" books, can't remember which at the moment) wherein he told the story of his Arabic students' reaction in his religion classes. How he got to the topic of this thread and waited for the objections, and instead got a wholly different objection than he expected. Are you suggesting Nibley was misremembering the story or what?

I know about his WW2 experiences in part, He was on the beach at D-Day and described the chaos quite vividly. How does his earlier knowledge of the Arabic language, and his WW2 experiences make his surprise at the Arabic students' reaction to Nephi killing Laban suspect?

I don't have "contempt" for Muslim Justice, which is merely Arabic justice transferred into "revealed religion". It is what it is. God works with cultures of people where they are.

It is my observation that generally those scholars devoted to controversial topics are drawn to them by their own doubts. In the case of Nibley a whole career is spent looking for evidence to prove faith. I think he was rather successful at it. We "pick at" what bothers us, we can't let it alone, it won't let us alone, and we worry and pick at it ceaselessly. When we have no questions, we don't spend years producing volumes on topics that don't concern us....

You need to own up to your absurd statement about why Nibley and all scholars study and write about anything: Doubt is your singleminded devotion and obsession, but of course from a non-scholarly point of view. That alone ought to give you pause. Like all major scholars who graduate summa cum laude and publish in a wide array of disciplines, they are both brilliant and well-seasoned in their respective disciplines. Unlike the naive and uninformed, they have strong points of view based on real assessment of scholarly literature and primary sources.

Nibley had vast experience with both life and scholarship. He had been top cadet in his Los Angeles High School junior ROTC class, he was a master outdoorsman and swimmer, he went on his Swiss-German mission at age 17. At the close of his mission he went to Greece on special assignment by the Brethren. After UCLA, UC Berkeley, he began writing and presenting standard scholarly papers in a number of areas, and was published in several academic journals and even had a major article in the Encyclopedia Judaica. In the 1950s, when Sen Joseph McCarthy began attacking innocent people, Nibley wrote a response. You seem to imagine that Nibley probably doubted whether his own views were valid, and that is the reason he wrote an attack on McCarthyism when everyone else was hiding in fear. Just the opposite it true. Nibley, who had been born in 1910, was not some wet-behind-the-ears punk striking out at his elders, but a well experienced, mature man with deep-seated views on a range of issues. Those of us who were privileged to know him, could see a well-integrated personality with very good reasons for his opinions, and very well respected by his fellow, non-Mormon scholars.

Here was a man who enjoyed Shakespeare and ancient Greek playwrights, and could quote long lines of dialogue from them. This was a man who enjoyed fine music, and played the piano quite well. He was also a poet. He wasn't an admirer of Shakespeare or Aeschylus, or of fine music, or of poetry because he doubted any of that. He didn't quote Shakesspeare or write his own poetry or play the piano in order to quell doubts. He actually enjoyed it and it was all part of his life, the same way playing the cello was important to Albert Einstein, who was a consummate musician as well as philosopher.

As usual, you have put the cart before the horse, Beast. Scholars and artists do what they do because they love it or are enraptured by it. Doubt is more likely to infect or infest those without a proper education and who do not have well-integrated personalities. Moreover, the doubters tend to project their own motives and doubts onto others, rather than dealing with substantive issues and rather than accepting that other people have real opinions. This comforts them, and protects them from having to come to terms with cognitive dissonance. Poof!! Any contrary opinion is merely a reflection of doubt, so why bother to take it seriously?

As usual, your statements about the dilemma faced by the Book of Mormon are simply misstated, just as your version of Nibley's experience with the Muslim students was poorly remembered. The real problem you face, Beast, is that you have no doubts about the infallibility of your own opinions -- even when shown to be wrong.

[cdowis]

As I remember of his wartime experiences in the Intelligence Corp, that, among other things, he gave a warning about the Nazi preparation for the Battle of the Bulge.

[Questing Beast]

You need to own up to your absurd statement about why Nibley and all scholars study and write about anything: Doubt is your singleminded devotion and obsession, but of course from a non-scholarly point of view. That alone ought to give you pause. Like all major scholars who graduate summa cum laude and publish in a wide array of disciplines, they are both brilliant and well-seasoned in their respective disciplines. Unlike the naive and uninformed, they have strong points of view based on real assessment of scholarly literature and primary sources.

Nibley had vast experience with both life and scholarship. He had been top cadet in his Los Angeles High School junior ROTC class, he was a master outdoorsman and swimmer, he went on his Swiss-German mission at age 17. At the close of his mission he went to Greece on special assignment by the Brethren. After UCLA, UC Berkeley, he began writing and presenting standard scholarly papers in a number of areas, and was published in several academic journals and even had a major article in the Encyclopedia Judaica. In the 1950s, when Sen Joseph McCarthy began attacking innocent people, Nibley wrote a response. You seem to imagine that Nibley probably doubted whether his own views were valid, and that is the reason he wrote an attack on McCarthyism when everyone else was hiding in fear. Just the opposite it true. Nibley, who had been born in 1910, was not some wet-behind-the-ears punk striking out at his elders, but a well experienced, mature man with deep-seated views on a range of issues. Those of us who were privileged to know him, could see a well-integrated personality with very good reasons for his opinions, and very well respected by his fellow, non-Mormon scholars.

Here was a man who enjoyed Shakespeare and ancient Greek playwrights, and could quote long lines of dialogue from them. This was a man who enjoyed fine music, and played the piano quite well. He was also a poet. He wasn't an admirer of Shakespeare or Aeschylus, or of fine music, or of poetry because he doubted any of that. He didn't quote Shakesspeare or write his own poetry or play the piano in order to quell doubts. He actually enjoyed it and it was all part of his life, the same way playing the cello was important to Albert Einstein, who was a consummate musician as well as philosopher.

As usual, you have put the cart before the horse, Beast. Scholars and artists do what they do because they love it or are enraptured by it. Doubt is more likely to infect or infest those without a proper education and who do not have well-integrated personalities. Moreover, the doubters tend to project their own motives and doubts onto others, rather than dealing with substantive issues and rather than accepting that other people have real opinions. This comforts them, and protects them from having to come to terms with cognitive dissonance. Poof!! Any contrary opinion is merely a reflection of doubt, so why bother to take it seriously?

As usual, your statements about the dilemma faced by the Book of Mormon are simply misstated, just as your version of Nibley's experience with the Muslim students was poorly remembered. The real problem you face, Beast, is that you have no doubts about the infallibility of your own opinions -- even when shown to be wrong.

You're amazing. I admire Hugh Nibley. It's nice to read an admirer list his accomplishments and personality strengths and overview of his professional life, instead of the critical crap I've had to put up with for years, for a change!

I've read (and own) all of the "collected" Nibley set (I think they added a couple after "Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints", but I didn't buy/read those, having "moved on" by then), as it was in the mid to late 90s.

I guess you think I am being disingenuous when I say about myself, "I know practically nothing, about almost everything." I am the exact opposite of the self-comfort seeker through cognitive dissonance.

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....

[tyler90az]

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?

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

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Mormons do not believe in prophetic infallibility.

We don't know god wanted Laban dead... All we know is nephi thought god wanted Laban dead.

I am always wondered why nephi appears in the story as though he has labans sword in his hand before he is commanded to kill him.

[The Nehor]

Mormons do not believe in prophetic infallibility.

We don't know god wanted Laban dead... All we know is nephi thought god wanted Laban dead.

I am always wondered why nephi appears in the story as though he has labans sword in his hand before he is commanded to kill him.

I would argue that it was a normal male reaction and seems supported by the text. He sees Laban and the sword. Sword is cool and shiny. First thing he does (probably on the pretext of disarming him) is pull out the sword and then gets caught up in the description of how neato this sword is. While he is admiring it the Spirit tells him to use it. If I was a teenager I think my reaction would have been similar.

[thesometimesaint]

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

[Sleeper Cell]

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

In that case, why didn’t Joseph Smith use the story as part of his argument to the city council? For that matter, doesn’t the Bible already have a number of stories that could be used to justify virtually anything a prophet wanted to do?

BTW, Nephi and his pals didn’t have control of the city. Laban and his pals did. If anything, this story could have been used by Joseph’s enemies to justify “taking the law into their own hands” against him. If I ran the "Nauvoo establishemet" and was trying to tighten my control, the last thing I would want in holy writ would be a story that justifies violence against "the establishment."

[volgadon]

Would that Hasid put caps on Legislator?

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.'

Edited August 4, 2013 by volgadon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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?

What impresses me about Joseph is her published his own rebukes from The Lord. No self proclaimed Prophet would.

[cdowis]

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.

And you are an expert on constitutional law, and the history of law. You need to do your homework -- read Dallin H. Oaks Carthage Conspiracy who examines this issue in detail.

Here are his credentials (Wiki). Now tell us about your credentials.

Oaks then went on to the University of Chicago Law School, where he served as editor-in-chief of the University of Chicago Law Review.^[7][8] After graduating with a Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1957, Oaks clerked for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court from 1957 to 1958. After his clerkship he practiced at the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago. Oaks left Kirkland & Ellis to become a professor at the University of Chicago Law School in 1961.^[9] During part of his time on the faculty of the Law School, Oaks served as interim dean.

(emphasis mine)

Get yourself educated from someone who knows what he is talking about.

Edited August 4, 2013 by cdowis

[tyler90az]

And you are an expert on constitutional law, and the history of law. You need to do your homework -- read Dallin H. Oaks Carthage Conspiracy who examines this issue in detail.

Here are his credentials (Wiki). Now tell us about your credentials.

(emphasis mine)

Get yourself educated from someone who knows what he is talking about.

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

Edited August 4, 2013 by tyler90az