'Better That One Man Should Perish Than That a Nation Should Dwindle and Perish in Unbelief'

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Do you believe you can be sure enough to kill an unconscious "Laban"? Would you accept that if you were the Laban? Would you accept that reasoning if the Laban was someone you love or are called to protect?

Laban was a heartless crime boss and murderer who thought nothing of stealing the entire treasury of Lehi’s vast material wealth and them ordering his henchmen to murder Nephi and his brothers In order to cover up his crime. Only if Laban had a sociopathIc mind could he possibly imagine that he wouldn’t be getting exactly what he richly deserved at the hand of Nephi after committing such horrific offenses against God and man..

If after suffering for his sins for thousands of years in the spirit prison Laban can’t honestly finally admit that what he did was most terribly wrong and that God was fully justified in ordering his execution, he will be like unto the sons of perdition who utterly refuse to take ownership for their crimes and sincerely repent before God. I honestly can’t wrap my mind around why this perfectly clear example of egregious crime and just punishment is so hard to understand?

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Laban was a heartless crime boss and murderer who thought nothing of stealing the entire treasury of Lehi’s vast material wealth and them ordering his henchmen to murder Nephi and his brothers In order to cover up his crime. Only if Laban had a sociopathIc mind could he possibly imagine that he wouldn’t be getting exactly what he richly deserved at the hand of Nephi after committing such horrific offenses against God and man..

If after suffering for his sins for thousands of years in the spirit prison Laban can’t honestly finally admit that what he did was most terribly wrong and that God was fully justified in ordering his execution, he will be like unto the sons of perdition who utterly refuse to take ownership for their crimes and sincerely repent before God. I honestly can’t wrap my mind around why this perfectly clear example of egregious crime and just punishment is so hard to understand?

It's terribly easy to think about it in retrospect when you accept that in the story, Nephi indeed had it right, and that your view of ultimate divine justice is right. Too easy.

But from the story, Nephi does not know what God wanted, he only believes he did. Killing another human being is too grave a decision, and especially killing an incapacitated person such an unforced decision, both too serious to rely on one's own senses to evaluate the situation and perform the execution.

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Meadowchik

[pogi]

7 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There is another law that what a man seeks to do wrongly, that punishment can be brought against him. So a witness who testifies falsely in a case involving capital punishment in a murder case, can be put to death for trying to falsely kill his brother. 

Deut 19:16-19

The Mosaic law was built upon the principle of an eye for an eye. So if you sought to kill your brother, the right punishment was death. The safeguards were the requirement of judges, often two witnesses, etc. It has hard to prosecute someone under the Mosaic law unless you had very good evidence. That is because men can err, but God knowing our hearts, cannot err. The punishment of Laban was quite consistent under the law and was fair.

Quote

⁶ If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, ¹⁷ then both men in the controversy shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. ¹⁸ And the judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely against his brother, ¹⁹ then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away the evil from among you.

Deut 19:16-19

I don't see how this justifies Nephi in the law. 

Saying that Nephi was justified in the eyes of God is one thing, but that doesn't justify him in the eyes of the law of the land. 

It seems that Latter-day Saints look to Welch as the primary source of apologetics in justifying Nephi, but even Welch would disagree with your interpretation of ancient Israeli law and doesn't think that Nephi was justified for the reasons you mention.  He states in Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban:

Quote

Nephi reasoned with himself, "I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property" (1 Nephi 4:11), but he recognized that none of these rationalizations would justify the slaying of Laban either at law or before the justice of God. 

 

Edited July 12, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't see how this justifies Nephi in the law. 

Saying that Nephi was justified in the eyes of God is one thing, but that doesn't justify him in the eyes of the law of the land. 

It seems that Latter-day Saints look to Welch as the primary source of apologetics in justifying Nephi, but even Welch would disagree with your interpretation of ancient Israeli law and doesn't think that Nephi was justified for the reasons you mention.  He states in Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban:

It needs to be recognized that the "law of the land" in ancient Israel was largely unwritten, and it fell upon extra-kingdom structures (families, tribes, village constructs) to administer according to custom, on their own terms. As a youth, I think it hardly the case that Nephi "recognized that none of these rationalizations would justify the slaying of Laban either at law or before the justice of God" at the time of the slaying. And by the time he got around to writing these things down as a mature adult, had his own laws to administer in a new land. A fortunate legal loophole that was accommodated by whatever was written on the brass plates, which presumably he honored!

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's terribly easy to think about it in retrospect when you accept that in the story, Nephi indeed had it right, and that your view of ultimate divine justice is right. Too easy.

But from the story, Nephi does not know what God wanted, he only believes he did. Killing another human being is too grave a decision, and especially killing an incapacitated person such an unforced decision, both too serious to rely on one's own senses to evaluate the situation and perform the execution.

 

You’re not portraying Nephi’s testimony of the event accurately. The Spirt of the Lord commanded him in his own language, no less that three times, and no uncertain terms,, that he must slay Laban. (pleas take note of the highlighted portions of Nephi’s narrative.)

10 And it came to pass that (1) I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 (2) And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 (3) And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

18 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. 1Nephi 4)

Verse 13 tells us that it was actually the Lord who slew Laban, Nephi was merely an instrument in the His hands. So one day you’ll be able to ask the Lord, “why did you slay Laban when he was sprawled out drunk and incapacitated? The only problem is he’ll probably tell you to read 1 Nephi 4 one more time. 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by teddyaware

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

You’re not portraying Nephi’s testimony of the event accurately. The Spirt of the Lord commanded him in his own language, no less that three times, and no uncertain terms,, that he must slay Laban. (pleas take note of the highlighted portions of Nephi’s narrative.)

10 And it came to pass that (1) I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 (2) And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 (3) And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.

15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.

16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.

17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

18 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. 1Nephi 4)

Verse 13 tells us that it was actually the Lord who slew Laban, Nephi was merely an instrument in the His hands. So one day you’ll be able to ask the Lord, “why did you slay Laban when he was sprawled out drunk and incapacitated? The only problem is he’ll probably tell you to read 1 Nephi 4 one more time. 

 

No I am fully aware of what the BOM says Nephi says. I am treating Nephi as a person telling his story. 

Supposing a man you've just met recounts to you this passage, in his own words, as his own story. You believe him to be sincere and not crazy. Are you really going to defend his decision to kill?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No I am fully aware of what the BOM says Nephi says. I am treating Nephi as a person telling his story. 

Supposing a man you've just met recounts to you this passage, in his own words, as his own story. You believe him to be sincere and not crazy. Are you really going to defend his decision to kill?

Not until I know him much better and how he has lived his life.  Also would need to know if his story was accurate. 
 

I leave it as a possibility that God commanded him to if he appears completely sane, has never harmed someone in his life, has been honest and empathetic to others, shows no sign of disorientation or distancing from the act, shows utter distaste for it in that he is really struggling with it, and probably a number of other things about him and sufficient knowledge about his intended or actual victim. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not until I know him much better and how he has lived his life.  Also would need to know if his story was accurate. 
 

I leave it as a possibility that God commanded him to if he appears completely sane, has never harmed someone in his life, has been honest and empathetic to others, shows no sign of disorientation or distancing from the act, shows utter distaste for it in that he is really struggling with it, and probably a number of other things about him and sufficient knowledge about his intended or actual victim. 

And so you would rely on evidence independent of his own testimony, yes?

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

No I am fully aware of what the BOM says Nephi says. I am treating Nephi as a person telling his story. 

Supposing a man you've just met recounts to you this passage, in his own words, as his own story. You believe him to be sincere and not crazy. Are you really going to defend his decision to kill?

What else is someone who has a testimony that God lives and the Book of Mormon is the word of God supposed to conclude?  You are an atheist who participates on a discussion board where you know lots of people who believe in God congregate, yet you appear to want these believing participants to step away from their testimonies and analyze discussion topics from an atheist’s point of view before you will be satisfied with their answers. Is this not a prescription for endless disappointment and frustration?

By the way, it was God who wanted the thief and murderer Laban killed for his extreme criminality, not Nephi. Nephi merely obeyed God’s commandment and thereby fulfilled his Lord’s own sovereign will. And have you ever considered the possibility that since God wanted Laban slain as just retribution for his life of crime, having him put to death while stone cold drunk and utterly oblivious to the world around him was an act of mercy on God’s part? Laban died while in an alcohol induced state of unconsciousness, unaware that death was overtaking him. Unlike millions of others who have had to face death with intense fear while stone cold sober and acutely aware, Laban very quickly died while asleep and didn’t know what hit him. Since God decreed that he had to die for his crimes anyway, wasn’t it more merciful that Laban exited the world while in a profound state of unawareness? Or would you rather that he had been fully awake, terrifyingly aware, and pleading for his wretched life like a sniveling coward?

[mrmarklin]

The reality is that an atheist, who by definition has no moral basis for criticizing anything, should not be judging Nephi. 
 

The ends justify the means. Classic atheist line. 

[stemelbow]

18 hours ago, USU78 said:

This seems awfully dismissive of others and judgy of authority. Am I understanding you correctly?

Beats me.  I'm not sure what your understanding.  But to clarify, in my experience, belief hasn't been the benefit to others as is often claimed.  As the previous point was raised, I was curious since it seems to me the opposite of what was claimed is true--the fears are primarily the concern when it comes to belief.  

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I have seen it.  The rest of the Lord is a beautiful and compelling experience.

More power to you, then.  

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You should try living the slogan "Faith, not Fear".

It works.  Fear is just borrowing trouble before it happens- it's in the imagination.   Fear itself is the opposite of faith- in a way it is putting your faith in the negative.  What you fear hasn't happened to you yet-- why not choose to focus on faith that it won't happen, and hand it over to God and his ability to help us change our attitude!

 

I"m not seeing your point.  Faith and fear aren't mutually exclusive.  One can certainly have faith and be fearful of things.  Many often fear death whether they are believers or not.  Many fear for their family or the unknown, whether they are believers or not.  Are you saying we should just be so hopeful that our fears are drowned out by our hopefulness?  People can change their attitude whether they believe in God or not.  So what are you suggesting gets handed over to God?  

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Beats me.  I'm not sure what your understanding.  But to clarify, in my experience, belief hasn't been the benefit to others as is often claimed.  As the previous point was raised, I was curious since it seems to me the opposite of what was claimed is true--the fears are primarily the concern when it comes to belief.  

You run in interesting circles. I had taken from your prior post that membership is sheeple and leadership is bullying autocrats.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You run in interesting circles. I had taken from your prior post that membership is sheeple and leadership is bullying autocrats.

I see that.  I'm not sure what I said leads to that conclusion, although I grant if one wishes to read into it, they certainly could squeeze something like that out of it.  The statement was made that belief if properly practice leads to a state devoid of fear.  I questioned that only in that as I lived a life in belief, as I mingled with others who so lived, I did not witness such a state.  I certainly granted he might be right.  

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I see that.  I'm not sure what I said leads to that conclusion, although I grant if one wishes to read into it, they certainly could squeeze something like that out of it.  The statement was made that belief if properly practice leads to a state devoid of fear.  I questioned that only in that as I lived a life in belief, as I mingled with others who so lived, I did not witness such a state.  I certainly granted he might be right.  

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Faith and fear aren't mutually exclusive.  One can certainly have faith and be fearful of things. 

Let go and let God.

Do your part and let him do his.

Try it. It might surprise you.

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

certainty lacks the humility necessary to respect truth

Think about the logic of that clause.

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

What else is someone who has a testimony that God lives and the Book of Mormon is the word of God supposed to conclude?  You are an atheist who participates on a discussion board where you know lots of people who believe in God congregate, yet you appear to want these believing participants to step away from their testimonies and analyze discussion topics from an atheist’s point of view before you will be satisfied with their answers. Is this not a prescription for endless disappointment and frustration?

By the way, it was God who wanted the thief and murderer Laban killed for his extreme criminality, not Nephi. Nephi merely obeyed God’s commandment and thereby fulfilled his Lord’s own sovereign will. And have you ever considered the possibility that since God wanted Laban slain as just retribution for his life of crime, having him put to death while stone cold drunk and utterly oblivious to the world around him was an act of mercy on God’s part? Laban died while in an alcohol induced state of unconsciousness, unaware that death was overtaking him. Unlike millions of others who have had to face death with intense fear while stone cold sober and acutely aware, Laban very quickly died while asleep and didn’t know what hit him. Since God decreed that he had to die for his crimes anyway, wasn’t it more merciful that Laban exited the world while in a profound state of unawareness? Or would you rather that he had been fully awake, terrifyingly aware, and pleading for his wretched life like a sniveling coward?

I also believed in the Book of Mormon, and I understand that beliefs can impact us as human beings. And I know that even as a believing Mormon, this passage with Nephi was difficult to process. Many of my thoughts here are concerns that I had then as a believer. I think they have merit and are important whether one does not or does believe in the Book of Mormon.

From the believing perspective, it might be good to recall the title page of the Book of Mormon:

Quote

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

And so it would follow that those who published it did not intend for us to consider it all good as a foregone conclusion. We can reasonably say, that would-be disciples are expected to study out the words intellectually and spiritually, with all the faculties at their command, using the gifts they possess to seek the goodness and truth in the words.

From a secular perspective, I would say that similar expectations can be put to any reader. Indeed all readers are invited by Moroni to do this.

I would echo 2 Nephi 2:18-26 to say that we're to do more than experience good and evil but learn to distinguish good from evil. This is a concept I still believe in.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2020 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Think about the logic of that clause.

Precisely why I wrote it. I'm sure, going by your words through the years, that you've thought about it too. 

[stemelbow]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Let go and let God.

Do your part and let him do his.

Try it. It might surprise you.

Tried...nothing happened...moving on.  

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

Precisely why I wrote it. I'm sure, going by your words through the years, that you've thought about it too. 

Truth is a social phenomenon and certainty is a psychological phenomenon.

Your statement implies otherwise, and has no basis for justification.

[Anijen]

On 7/8/2020 at 4:25 PM, pogi said:

I agree that it wasn't premeditated, but it was definitely murder.  I don't think that he could have convinced anybody that it wasn't premeditated though.  

I think that any judge or jury today would convict him of murder (I am assuming we are judging this by our standards today) if he was caught and arrested.  We can't argue self-defense against a potential future event - "he might hunt me down and kill me for stealing his property", simply wouldn't fly.  "He tried to kill my brothers therefore I had to kill him in self-defense" wouldn't fly either.  That would be seen more as retribution than self defense.  "God made me do it", wouldn't fly. 

They kept going back for property that didn't belong to them, and which was not going to be surrendered or sold to them, so they had to kill the guy before they could steal his property.  "Kill" is putting it nicely.  Not only did he kill him, he mutilated and dismembered his body by decapitation, then fraudulently impersonated the dead man he just decapitated in order to steal his property.    Ya, Nephi couldn't have talked his way out of that one.  Not even OJ's lawyers could have won this one.  My only question is, how did Nephi cut off Laban's head, then take off his clothes and put them on himself, without having Laban's clothes soaked and dripping with blood?  

It was murder.  It was justified by God, but it was murder.  Just like the genocides of the Old Testament were justified by God, but it was still genocide.

OR, it was a parable.

Here is the opening Abstract from Welch's article. I am in agreement it would have been murder if today's laws were applied. The important thing to remember is if we compare the laws of Nephi's time to our time that is presentism. To best understand this issue is to understand the laws in Nephi's time.

--This article marshals ancient legal evidence to show that Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide. The biblical law of murder demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. The terms of Exodus 21:13, it is argued, protected more than accidental slayings or unconscious acts, particularly where God was seen as having delivered the victim into the slayer’s hand. Various rationales for Nephi’s killing of Laban include ancient views on surrendering one person for the benefit of a whole community. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 corroborate the conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day

Edited July 13, 2020 by Anijen

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

And so you would rely on evidence independent of his own testimony, yes?

Just as I would for any spiritual teachings or experiences he shared with me. I never rely solely on someone else’s testimony for spiritual truth.

[Meadowchik]

35 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Truth is a social phenomenon and certainty is a psychological phenomenon.

Your statement implies otherwise, and has no basis for justification.

On the contrary I think there is some sense in it. It's essentially a rewording of the idea: "True wisdom is knowing what you don't know," an idea which in my opinion has stood well the test of time