Freedom Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 We also have to put the story into historical context. The version we have of the events is meant to convey a specific message. Here we have an angel appearing so it was much more than a spiritual prompting. Also, Nephi is being established as a davidic king. There is a remarkable comparison between Nephi and David and this parallel is used to justify Nephi's kingship. 1) David faces faithless Goliath who is commander of the Philistines, Nephi faces faithless Laban who is a commander of 50.2) Israel were dismayed and greatly afraid, Laban and Lemuel murmer3) Both cite miracles as the basis for their faith4) David says Goliath will be killed as was the bear, Nephi says Laban will be killed as were the Egyptians5) Both claim that their enemy was delivered by God into their hands6) The men are killed so that Gods power will be known7) Both kill their foe with their own sward and take their armor http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/18/1/S00004-5074648ca9094McGuire.pdf http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1085&index=8&keyword=nephi%20king 1
Gray Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 Which I still don't understand how you can believe that way and accept the prophets and the restoration.Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith SAW Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham etc. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon saw Moses (and presumably had his hands laid upon their heads) and the same for Elias (Noah) and Elijah. The prophecies of Adam-Ondi-Ahman and the grand council all feature the historical Adam turning his family over to Christ. We would have to no longer believe in that prophecy. There would be SO much gospel I would have to disbelieve to deny the historicity of these prophets. I understand those to be visions, not literal visitations. 2
JLHPROF Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I understand those to be visions, not literal visitations. So God is in the business of creating visions of imaginary people that didn't exist? And Joseph and Sidney imagined having physical hands laid on his head? And the council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman will only be a vision of imaginary people? Sorry, that makes zero sense. God might as well send Mickey Mouse to provide revelation if he's sending visions of people that don't exist. 4
Gray Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So God is in the business of creating visions of imaginary people that didn't exist? And Joseph and Sidney imagined having physical hands laid on his head? And the council at Adam-Ondi-Ahman will only be a vision of imaginary people? Sorry, that makes zero sense. God might as well send Mickey Mouse to provide revelation if he's sending visions of people that don't exist. No, I don't think God is in the business of creating visions in the way you suggest. People have been having visions for as long as there have been people. They can be interpreted in many ways (like dreams), but I understand them to be natural phenomena 3
Brian 2.0 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 It isn't really useful to posit our modern day mores, and laws onto someone of a entirely different culture and 2600 years ago. It must be remembered that Laban stole Lehi's son's money and threatened/tried to kill them. According to the laws of the time Nephi was justified in killing Laban as an act of self defense. I'll never understand why this argument gets used, yet it's trotted out all the time. Why should the law of the land have anything to do what is moral/ethical/right/wrong in God's eyes?
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I'll never understand why this argument gets used, yet it's trotted out all the time. Why should the law of the land have anything to do what is moral/ethical/right/wrong in God's eyes? The ethics of capital punishment is debatable, what Nephi did was legal under the law of Moses. but I agree that the law of the land is not always right. I do believe that sometimes we have to break the law under extreme circumstances. Capital punishment - "The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime." Edited June 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Mystery Meat Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 I'll never understand why this argument gets used, yet it's trotted out all the time. Why should the law of the land have anything to do what is moral/ethical/right/wrong in God's eyes? In this case, it probably helps that Jehovah gave the law.
Brian 2.0 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 The ethics of capital punishment is debatable, what Nephi did was legal under the law of Moses. but I agree that the law of the land is not always right. I do believe that sometimes we have to break the law under extreme circumstances. Capital punishment - "The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime." In this case, it probably helps that Jehovah gave the law. So you are saying the Nephi killing Laban as described in the BOM does not violate the Law of Moses?
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) So you are saying the Nephi killing Laban as described in the BOM does not violate the Law of Moses? No, it was required under the law of Moses, it is called capital punishment. Capital punishment - "The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime." Edited June 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) So you are saying the Nephi killing Laban as described in the BOM does not violate the Law of Moses?I don't think it can be justified as self defense (when the guy is laying on the ground passed out), but given that Laban had made multiple attempts on their lives, had stolen their property, and would likely try to kill Nephi on sight, I can see how it would be justified. It's not like there was some court system that Nephi could have gone to to get reddress. Edited to add: I am personally opposed to the death penalty in modern society, but I do not think that the death penalty in ancient times would have been amoral. We have the capacity to lock people up indefinetly and a justice system that does an okay job at not being too corrupt most of the time. Not so throughout history. Edited June 3, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
The Nehor Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 It makes the world more interesting when there is a non-zero chance that someone might be commanded to kill me. 1
Brian 2.0 Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 No, it was required under the law of Moses, it is called capital punishment. Capital punishment - "The legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime." So what's the punishment for stealing? Because that sweet sweet precious steel sword definitely wasn't Nephi's.
Freedom Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So what's the punishment for stealing? Because that sweet sweet precious steel sword definitely wasn't Nephi's.What if there was a massive catastrophe such as an earthquake, would it be considered steeling if you needed food to stay alive? Would it be murder if, in the event of a catastrophic event, if you found a person who was on a rampage and the only way to protect people was to kill him? Was it murder when Noah refused to allow anybody else onto his ark? There is so much more to this story that is being missed, and most of the concerns are the result of imposing 21st century standards on a bronze age civilization. 1
ERayR Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 So what's the punishment for stealing? Because that sweet sweet precious steel sword definitely wasn't Nephi's. See: The Sword of Laban as a Symbol of Divine Authorityand Kingship byBrett L. Holbrook
ERayR Posted June 3, 2015 Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) What if there was a massive catastrophe such as an earthquake, would it be considered steeling if you needed food to stay alive? Would it be murder if, in the event of a catastrophic event, if you found a person who was on a rampage and the only way to protect people was to kill him? Was it murder when Noah refused to allow anybody else onto his ark? There is so much more to this story that is being missed, and most of the concerns are the result of imposing 21st century standards on a bronze age civilization. That would be 21st Century North American standards. Edited June 3, 2015 by ERayR 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) Why should the law of the land have anything to do what is moral/ethical/right/wrong in God's eyes? Nephi did nothing wrong, even non-religious people would agree In this case, it probably helps that Jehovah gave the law. Today someone that receives a "revelation" to commit an atrocity needs to go see a psychiatrist. The brethren at Mountain Meadows "received" a revelation to commit an atrocity. Edited June 4, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
Kenngo1969 Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Val Larsen argues that killing Laban was the birth of sovereignty of the Nephite nation. (Do those who think Nephi committed a crime or a sin also oppose, e.g., the shedding of blood that precipitated the founding of the United States of America?) https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/20115/18675 John W. Welch argues that Nephi's slaying of Laban is legally defensible: https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/JBMRS/article/viewFile/19665/18232 I think I brought these up the 1,900,600,300,150,075th time this subject came up on the Board, as well. 2
Calm Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) The brethren at Mountain Meadows "received" a revelation to commit an atrocity. CFR there was ever a claim to revelation to kill the members of the wagon train by any of the murderers of the MMM. Edited June 4, 2015 by calmoriah
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2015 Popular Post Posted June 4, 2015 A month or so ago, in EQ I brought up Nephi's slaying of Laban. I did it in this context:The message of the lesson was that personal revelation is as important, at least as I recall, as any other form of revelation. That sometimes it ought to take precedence. I thought out loud, a little, "well Nephi knew the command to not kill, or so it seems, so when confronted with a defenseless person he inherently knew not to kill. But personal revelation kicked in saying, in this case, you can break the commandment, and you need to break it."He went ahead and did it, causing the dwindling of a whole nation in unbelief to be delayed a little longer than it otherwise would have. Or so the story goes.The reaction of the brethren was interesting. No one seemed to flinch at the notion of having exceptions to murder unarmed people, but were very uncomfortable with the notion of feeling justified to break a commandment because of personal revelation. I was the opposite--I say break commandments as God instructs personally, except for when it comes to things like murder. Maybe a line ought to be drawn there. It fostered a little discussion there, but as you know discussion doesn't really happen in a Church environment. So I thought I'd bring it here.What say you?How do you know the commandments are correct and that you should follow them in the first place? By personal revelation. How would you know if a commandment was wrong in a given situation? The same way you know when it's right. Without personal revelation, obedience becomes blind 5
mfbukowski Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 If you think you've gotten a revelation to behead someone, that's a prime indicator that the revelation is false. Suppose they are Stalin and all you have in your hand is a sword ? Stalin gave an order to his guards to never enter his bedroom. One night he screamed in terror to come in, and shot them as they came through the door. Nice guy. He took personal pleasure in killing people,
The Nehor Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Today someone that receives a "revelation" to commit an atrocity needs to go see a psychiatrist. The brethren at Mountain Meadows "received" a revelation to commit an atrocity. Probably and nope.
TheSkepticChristian Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 CFR there was ever a claim to revelation to kill the members of the wagon train by any of the murderers of the MMM. Brigham Young did not order the attacks, so why did they do such thing? According to John D. Lee Diaries President Haight has counseled with Bishop Dame, and has orders from him to put the emigrants to death; none who is old enough to talk is to be spared....’ “The Danites then in Council now knelt down in a prayer circle and prayed, invoking the Spirit of God to direct them how to act in the matter. After prayer Brother Higbee said: ‘Here are the orders,’ and handed me a paper from Haight.... Brother Higbee was then to give the order: ‘Do your duty to God!’ Perhaps John D. Lee Diaries are not reliable, but many people in history have committed atrocities because they hear voices telling them to do it. "Scott began to hear strange voices in his head, voices no one else could hear" - Ensign FEBRUARY 1989 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1989/02/mental-illness-in-search-of-understanding-and-hope?lang=eng
Calm Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Perhaps John D. Lee Diaries are not reliable No perhaps about it. Why would a skeptic use such a source?
stemelbow Posted June 4, 2015 Author Posted June 4, 2015 I've enjoyed some of the ideas expressed here. I don't know about anyone else, but Nephi's story sounds a little fantasy laden. He creeps in at night and finds a guy, laying by himself passed out. It's Laban. That's possible. I pulls out Laban's sword and feels compelled to kill him. The way he says it in scripture sounds like he reasoned to himself how it was possible that it would be good to kill him, with the Spirit confirming it for him. Okay. Again possible. many have seemed to have felt justified in killing, even feeling good about it. At that moment, I'd probably think, you know I could tie him up, put a gag in his mouth and accomplish my designs just the same. Maybe I'll do that since I don't want to kill someone, and in so thinking the Spirit very well could have confirmed my new idea as the best option. It makes ya wonder why he didn't think of something like that. and it makes ya wonder that if he did, if the SPirit would have prompted to think that was the best choice. After all, as it is, personal revelation is not foolproof. No one, I've ever known, has seen it as foolproof. Even Elder Holland's recent story of going down the wrong path thanks to personal revelation confirms that--because if it was not foolproof he would never have to second-guess his first answer, as he was worried would have happened. The other thing Elder Holland's story confirms is we can spin all answers we get from personal revelation as coming from God, even if those answers lead us down wrong paths. So Nephi dresses himself in Laban's clothes and goes to his servants and pretends to be Laban. It reminds me of Superman when Superman first sits with Lois Lane. She has no idea that he's really Clark Kent because he shed his glasses and is wearing tight clothes. I've had friends and associates dress up in some pretty appearance altering clothes but I'm still able to recognize them. So this part of the story sounds, well, funny. The servant thinks Nephi is Laban as they travel all the way out of the city in, what seems to be, in the middle of the night. And doesn't think, "wait, this isn't Laban" until he sees Nephi's brothers running away from Nephi, and Nephi speaks with his own voice, as they too think Nephi is Laban. Not very believable. Assuming the story is all true, can we safely say God will command you to kill someone when, as it is, there is an alternative (tying him up, or perhaps even just quietly disrobing him and walking away)? If it's possible that God will do that, then where is the end of it? The other dimension to the story is, if ongoing revelation matters so much, why would God need Lehi to get the brass plates to save people from dwindling from unbelief (which happened anyway), when all things could have been revealed to Lehi, Nephi, Jacob anyway?
Gray Posted June 4, 2015 Posted June 4, 2015 Suppose they are Stalin and all you have in your hand is a sword ? Stalin gave an order to his guards to never enter his bedroom. One night he screamed in terror to come in, and shot them as they came through the door. Nice guy. He took personal pleasure in killing people, I wouldn't call that a revelation. It might be a good idea - then again in the turmoil that follows someone even worse could come into power.
Recommended Posts