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

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Thanks for sharing.

According to this definition, it seems that Nephi would be guilty of "culpable homicide".  That is contrary to what Welch argues however.   Welch argues that Nephi was "not culpable" and that the killing was completely "justifiable".

I believe you are substantially misreading Welch's argument, which is laid out in the opening abstract:  "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."

His whole argument of "culpability" has to do with whether or not Nephi's act should be considered a "criminal homicide".  The fact that he is not arguing that Nephi is completely inculpable is equally made clear in the summary of his argument restated again after his brief introduction:

Quote

The following analysis presents several factors that substantially reduce Nephi's guilt or culpability under the law of - Moses as it was probably understood in Nephi's day, around 600 B.C. Nephi may have broken the American law of Joseph Smith's day, but it appears that he committed an excusable homicide under the public law of his own day. This is not to say that Nephi would have been acquitted and declared free to walk the streets of Jerusalem again had he been brought before a Jewish court in Jerusalem and tried for killing Laban, although Nephi could have raised several arguments in his own behalf if such a proceeding had ever taken place.  As a practical matter, however, Nephi's case probably never would have come before a formal court because the required two witnesses were lacking, making a capital conviction technically impossible (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 19: 15). But if an action had been brought against Nephi, early biblical law appears to have recognized two types of killings-excusable and inexcusable-and the slaying of Laban arguably falls quite specifically into the excusable category.  (Welch, p. 121)

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Homicide that I linked previously shows that Nephi's actions would have fallen into the non-criminal homicide area of the law, thus backing up Welch's argument.

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Nephi was completely surprised to find Laban. His deed was not preplanned and, therefore, not culpable. 

...it is clear that culpable slayings under biblical law had to involve some preplanned, treacherous, or hateful state of mind and that such a requirement was lacking in Nephi's case. 

...the killing was on both counts legally justifiable and religiously excusable

All of the quotes you selected above come in the context of Welch's arguments against Nephi's culpability under the criminal charges.    For example, in the context of his discussion on “premeditation”, he wrote the following:

Quote

Several strong clues indicate that Nephi had the ancient definition in mind when he wrote the story of Laban. He trusted implicitly that the Lord in some miraculous unknown way would be "able ... to destroy Laban," even as he had vanquished the Egyptians at the Red Sea (1 Nephi 4:3). He expressly emphasized the fact that he did not know what he was to do as he entered the city of Jerusalem: "I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which I should do" (1 Nephi  4:6). This point is crucial, for it shows that Nephi had not planned to find Laban and that he did not know that Laban would be out with the city elders, where Laban would be, or that he would be drunk. The occasion presented itself spontaneously. Nephi was completely surprised to find Laban. His deed was not preplanned and, therefore, not culpable.  (pp.124-125)

The fact that Welch was arguing that Nephi wasn't culpable of "intentional homicide" is also evident in the other quotations:

Quote

Obviously, the ground in antiquity between the two extremes of intentional homicide and negligent manslaughter was wide enough to raise several legal questions that cannot be answered today with certainty. Although we cannot reformulate a precise law of negligent or excusable homicide with any degree of certainty for the biblical period (and it is doubtful that a codified version of the foregoing principles ever existed), it is abundantly clear that several elements in Nephi's state of mind were relevant factors in proving that a slaying was excusable and protected by ancient Israelite law. Thus, although "the Bible does not contain any abstract principles through which one could determine exactly what criteria the court should use in determining whether a murder was intentional or unintentional,"  it is clear that culpable slayings under biblical law had to involve some preplanned, treacherous, or hateful state of mind and that such a requirement was lacking in Nephi's case.   (p. 131)

So given his opening abstract and stated objective, his statements about Nephi's lack of "culpability" should not be misconstrued to be saying Nephi would have been totally off the hook.  An "excusable" homicide in the context of Welch's argument would be one that did not result in a capital punishment.   To restate the opening of his abstract:  "Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide."

This distinction is made clear in the Homicide article in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Quote

Scripture distinguishes two kinds of unlawful homicide, the voluntary (murder) and the involuntary (manslaughter). Homicide is voluntary when the killing is the result of malice and premeditation (Ex. xxi. 14; Num. xxxv. 20; Deut. xix. 11); it is involuntary when it is caused by accident (Ex. l.c. 13; Num. l.c. 22; Deut. l.c. 4). The criteria of voluntary homicide are the following: enmity, hatred () on the part of the perpetrator (Num. l.c. 20, 21; Deut. l.c. 11); lying in wait, ambushing (; ib.); guile, premeditation (; Ex. l.c. 14); the procuring of the instrument or means calculated to produce fatal results (Num. l.c. 16-20; comp. Ex. l.c. 20). Where these or any of these indices are present the killing, according to the Bible, is to be considered voluntary and felonious. On the other hand, where there is neither lying in wait nor premeditation, neither enmity nor a deadly weapon or other means calculated to prove fatal, the killing is to be adjudged involuntary or accidental (Ex. l.c. 13; Num. l.c. 22; Deut. l.c. 4). 

Another question that would arise would have to do with the "deadly weapon" language in the statement quoted above.  Welch deals with that portion of the law on pages 129-131 of his article.  But that's too much to quote here.

Edited July 14, 2020 by InCognitus

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Besides that, this statement of hers can be seen to apply to all knowledge claims and epistemology in general.

It really doesn't say anything.

I will quote her and change one word which changes the context, to  make my point. Regarding say, physics one might say

"We may want to tap into the "real", we may sincerely believe we have done so, but we cannot know for certain"

Our level of knowledge of anything is always changing.

There is no such a limit on knowledge in general.

That one word does fundamentally change my statement. 

With physics, I can predict the outcome of a collision of a car against a brick wall, then test it, and explain it. Any other person regardless of belief can do this, too. There will be a margin of error for the accuracy with which the outcome can be predicted, but that margin can be made finite by independent testers.

However, when you go back to my original words talking about the "divine," no finite margin of error can be obtained. There are no factors like a car or brick wall which can be agreed upon independent of personal belief.

Nephi's "car and brick wall" are all in his head, the "equation" he uses is without any independent corroboration of other observers. He is making a decision to kill another human being based on his perceptions alone.

[pogi]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I believe you are substantially misreading Welch's argument, which is laid out in the opening abstract:  "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."

His whole argument of "culpability" has to do with whether or not Nephi's act should be considered a "criminal homicide".  The fact that he is not arguing that Nephi is completely inculpable is equally made clear in the summary of his argument restated again after his brief introduction:

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Homicide that I linked previously shows that Nephi's actions would have fallen into the non-criminal homicide area of the law, thus backing up Welch's argument.

All of the quotes you selected above come in the context of Welch's arguments against Nephi's culpability under the criminal charges.    For example, in the context of his discussion on “premeditation”, he wrote the following:

The fact that Welch was arguing that Nephi wasn't culpable of "intentional homicide" is also evident in the other quotations:

So given his opening abstract and stated objective, his statements about Nephi's lack of "culpability" should not be misconstrued to be saying Nephi would have been totally off the hook.  An "excusable" homicide in the context of Welch's argument would be one that did not result in a capital punishment.   To restate the opening of his abstract:  "Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide."

This distinction is made clear in the Homicide article in the Jewish Encyclopedia:

Another question that would arise would have to do with the "deadly weapon" language in the statement quoted above.  Welch deals with that portion of the law on pages 129-131 of his article.  But that's too much to quote here.

Welch uses Exodus and Numbers to try to argue that Nephi's killing would have been equivalent to an accidental homicide, with the legal consequence of exile to a city of refuge.  His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses, and it also varies from the Jewish Encyclopedia in that he tries to argue that if it was not premeditated then he was not culpable of criminal homicide but was "justified" manslaughter.   The Jewish Encyclopedia argues, however, that even non-premeditated killings can be considered culpable and criminal homicide.  Welch neglects to consider the application of culpable homicide, which is neither premeditated murder nor accidental, but is done by choice. 

Quote

Culpable Homicide:

In all such cases the perpetrators are outlaws in the broadest sense of the term: they are criminals, but stand beyond the provisions of the penal laws.

...the law concerning accidental homicide can not be applied to them [Welch clearly tries to apply it to him using Numbers 35:11 and Exodus 21:13], because the slaying was either the result of criminal negligence or the consequence of choice;

"Outlaw", meaning not "protected manslaughter" nor "justified", but "culpable" and "criminal".

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Welch uses Exodus and Numbers to try to argue that Nephi's killing would have been equivalent to an accidental homicide, with the legal consequence of exile to a city of refuge.  His arguments varies from other Biblical commentators on those verses, and it also varies from the Jewish Encyclopedia in that he tries to argue that if it was not premeditated then he was not culpable of criminal homicide but was "justified" manslaughter.   The Jewish Encyclopedia argues, however, that even non-premeditated killings can be considered culpable and criminal homicide.  Welch neglects to consider the application of culpable homicide, which is neither premeditated nor accidental, but is done by choice. 

"Outlaw", meaning not "protected manslaughter" nor "justified", but "culpable" and "criminal".

Also, just applying the brain cells to the detailed rules on relatively trivial matters, can we really think that Jewish law would allow for such a trivialization of killing? Really?  Killing a defenseless person? Deciding on your own as judge and executioner? Ugh.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

If slaying is only used in reference to war, why was it used when Nephi killed Laban?

Slay and murder are used synonymously in these verses:

Nephi slew Laban, but did not murder him. My point was: 

- kill and slay appear together in the same verse only once (God kills with nature, man slays with the sword).

- slay and murder appear together only twice,. In each instance*, slay is used in a battle context and murder is used in a sin context.

- never do the three words appear in the same verse.

* RE: these particular verses: 

24 Now when the Lamanites saw this they did forbear from slaying them [in battle, or so they thought]; and there were many whose hearts had swollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done.

25 And it came to pass [this is an interesting phrase because it could have been sooner or later chronologically -- sometimes it is even used to place an event before, not after the present, but let's say some repented after they got home, and some repented sooner and left the field] that they threw down their weapons of war [when / "And it came to pass"], and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders [they came to realize that this was not a battle, and were not killing / slaying in a bona fide battle after all, and killing outside of battle is committing murder] which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them. [Note that the repentant are not described as getting slain in battle, but they joined the people of God (vs 26-30)]

Alma 24

Edited July 14, 2020 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That one word does fundamentally change my statement. 

With physics, I can predict the outcome of a collision of a car against a brick wall, then test it, and explain it. Any other person regardless of belief can do this, too. There will be a margin of error for the accuracy with which the outcome can be predicted, but that margin can be made finite by independent testers.

However, when you go back to my original words talking about the "divine," no finite margin of error can be obtained. There are no factors like a car or brick wall which can be agreed upon independent of personal belief.

Nephi's "car and brick wall" are all in his head, the "equation" he uses is without any independent corroboration of other observers. He is making a decision to kill another human being based on his perceptions alone.

Google "physics ultimate reality"

You have a lot to learn about where knowledge stops. It doesn't.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schrodingers-rats-and-the-search-for-ultimate-reality-excerpt/

Edited July 14, 2020 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

On 7/13/2020 at 7:38 AM, stemelbow said:

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

Go to the Social Hall and read the thread is it wrong to pray for evil people to die. Then read the prayer request thread Above It by me.

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Nephi slew Laban, but did not murder him. My point was: 

I'm not arguing that he did murder him.  

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

- slay and murder appear together only twice,. In each instance*, slay is used in a battle context and murder is used in a sin context.

Slaying in "battle" was shown to be murder in the verses.  The use of the word "slay" and "murder" are therefore synonymous in these verses.  Not that any of this means anything. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

ISlaying in "battle" was shown to be murder in the verses.  The use of the word "slay" and "murder" are therefore synonymous in these verses. 

Not necessarily.

When the Laminates thought they were in battle, "slay" is used. When they realized they were not, "murder" is used. This distinction is made by the Nephite author(s) who are interpreting the events for us and showing that a changed heart sees things differently. It is interesting to me that the author(s) are empathizing with their repentant Lamanite brethren to this degree.

Also, the Nephites considered murder a serious crime in their law, whether secular or religious, and for this reason it is used in teaching the Atonement of Christ (Alma 34): "10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last ^asacrifice; yea, not a ^bsacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an ^cinfinite and ^deternal ^esacrifice. 11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is ^ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. 12 But the law requireth the ^alife of him who hath ^bmurdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. 13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a ^astop to the shedding of ^bblood; then shall the ^claw of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. 14 And behold, this is the whole ^ameaning of the ^blaw, every whit ^cpointing to that great and last ^dsacrifice; and that great and last ^esacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, ^finfinite and eternal."

As there are various degrees of murder, it is interesting that the repentant Lamanites in Alma 24 were received among the believers and permitted to live according to Nephite law.

 

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, pogi said:

God made the Israelites get lost in the desert for 40 years, he couldn’t have caused Laban’s men to get lost or lose the trail of Lehi?  The same God who put a deep sleep over the captors of the Nephites, allowing them to escape without shedding blood, could have done the same to Laban and his men.   If this is simply a story about getting the plates, then it seems there are much less drastic measures that could have been taken.  There has to be more to the story.

”It is better that one man should perish...”. The answer must lie in that moral of the story somewhere, but it is mysterious to me.  It almost sounds like the Spirit is making Laban a type of Christ - but that just seems messed up.  Did it have to be an either or scenario? Was there really no other way?  

Imagine yourself in Nephi's place. He didn't really want to kill Laban but the Spirit of the Lord told him to do it.  Would you have tried to reason with the Lord about it?  Or would you just do it as Nephi eventually did it?

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Imagine yourself in Nephi's place. He didn't really want to kill Laban but the Spirit of the Lord told him to do it.  Would you have tried to reason with the Lord about it?  Or would you just do it as Nephi eventually did it?

I probably would have consulted a psychiatrist (something I wish the Daybell's would have done).

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I probably would have consulted a psychiatrist (something I wish the Daybell's would have done).

I hope you feel more comfortable receiving assurances from the Lord now.  I think Nephi was spiritually more mature than most people his age.  Like Abraham, it seems he could tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I hope you feel more comfortable receiving assurances from the Lord now.  I think Nephi was spiritually more mature than most people his age.  Like Abraham, it seems he could tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

Anyone willing to kill in the name of God obviously feels assured and probably feel "spiritually more mature".  That is the dilemma. 

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Anyone willing to kill in the name of God obviously feels assured and probably feel "spiritually more mature".  That is the dilemma. 

It's a dilemma only for people who can't tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's a dilemma only for people who can't tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

Or have enough ego to put down other people's spirituality, thereby displaying their own lack of humility and pride, and automatically labeling themselves as misguided.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Or have enough ego to put down other people's spirituality, thereby displaying their own lack of humility and pride, and automatically labeling themselves as misguided.

That doesn't make sense to me.  It's a dilemma for people who have enough ego to put down other people's spirituality, thereby displaying their own lack of humility and pride, and automatically labeling themselves as misguided?

Does that comment make sense to you?

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Does that comment make sense to you?

It does to me.

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

It does to me.

Okay,  I still don't see  it.  But all that matters is that we are able to tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

[pogi]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

Okay,  I still don't see  it.  But all that matters is that we are able to tell the difference between the Lord and Satan.

I'm sure the Daybell's agree.  That is the dilemma. 

As long as one perceives that they can discern, then they should feel justified in killing in the name of God, according to you.  

You will likely reply "no, they have to have the actual ability to discern, and not merely the perception that they can."

To which I will reply, all we have are our perceptions. 

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm sure the Daybell's agree.  That is the dilemma. 

As long as one perceives that they can discern, then they should feel justified in killing in the name of God, according to you.  

You will likely reply "no, they have to have the actual ability to discern, and not merely the perception that they can."

To which I will reply, all we have are our perceptions. 

But I wouldn't call the fact that we all have our perceptions a dilemma.  A dilemma is a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.

When a person can actually tell the difference between the Lord and Satan, that choice is not difficult, at least not when someone's desire is to do the will of the Lord.

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When a person can actually tell the difference...

I told you that you would say that!

Edited July 14, 2020 by pogi

[mrmarklin]

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sorry, but you don't know my experiences, so even by your own standard, you cannot say what position I am in.

Here's another way to ponder what knowledge means: I agree that people know about their experiences which they believe are divine. That, however, is not the same as divine knowledge. 

You can test this by examining people's testimonials about their experiences, including those who say they know God.

If you believe the sincerity of all these people, all throughout the world and history, how do they all know what they say they know of God?

I'm not trying to play gotchya, so I'll just conclude by answering the question. Of course feel free to answer it yourself if you wish:

The answer is that you or I or noone can know who "knows." The reason is that using "know" in this context is incorrect usage of the word. People may know how they feel about God, they may know what they believe, they may know about their experiences they belief are with the divine. But that is not "knowing" God. It is personal interpretation at its very best. 

 

You don't know what you don't know. 

I don't know your experiences, but that give you no right to discount those of others.

Spiritual experiences are very real, but of course a non-believer would not believe them!

Divine knowledge can be obtained and in fact, we are specifically invited to do so.

“This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Google "physics ultimate reality"

You have a lot to learn about where knowledge stops. It doesn't.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/schrodingers-rats-and-the-search-for-ultimate-reality-excerpt/

No thanks. If you wanna make an argument, do it yourself.

In any case, I do not want a world where it's okay to decide to kill the way Nephi did. I think that type of behaviour is knowledge-stopping, not knowledge expanding, and I certainly don't think it opens us up spiritually to the infinite unknown.

Just my opinion, though

 

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

You don't know what you don't know. 

I don't know your experiences, but that give you no right to discount those of others.

Spiritual experiences are very real, but of course a non-believer would not believe them!

Divine knowledge can be obtained and in fact, we are specifically invited to do so.

“This is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

I think I have more right to reject Nephi's decision process to kill than Nephi has to use it to kill. This I think and feel, in my spirit, mind, and heart. It is definitely a spiritual experience for me, and imo much closer to anything divine than what he did in that moment.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think I have more right to reject Nephi's decision process to kill than Nephi has to use it to kill. This I think and feel, in my spirit, mind, and heart. It is definitely a spiritual experience for me, and imo much closer to anything divine than what he did in that moment.

Perhaps an opportunity to expand upon that divine spiritual experience ( Posted 21 hours ago ) : Should one forgive Nephi -- however immoral one believes his killing of Laban to be -- just as the repentant Lamanites in Alma 24 were received among the believers and permitted to live according to Nephite law?