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

[smac97]

Ben McGuire offers some brief, but thoughtful, remarks:

Quote

Nephi doesn't talk about the blood because it isn't a part of his purpose in writing the narrative (and he is in part concerned with the difficulty in writing and in having space for the things he is concerned with). He may well have taken Laban's clothing prior to killing him (having already planned that part of his evening) - but then felt constrained to finish the job so to speak. The bigger issue is that we shouldn't feel a need to fill in the gaps - because no matter how we fill them in, we will be speculating - there isn't anything in the text that will actually provide us with the kind of answer that we want.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JamesBYoung]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Weren’t they at least three days travel into the wilderness? Which may have been three days past the border of the more inhabited areas which may have meant many more days or even weeks of travel. 
 

Why?  Not like they could hire cars or take a train. At best horses following horses and horses can’t be ridden well at night without risk. 

You are making assumptions, just as I am, and nothing more.

[JamesBYoung]

I enjoy all of the excitement here.

"WORLD—People were alarmed Tuesday to see a disturbing letter published in Harper Magazine which asked for a more tolerant atmosphere for dissenting viewpoints. The letter was followed by a list of signatories, which has been handed to Interpol, who are now trying to hunt down these dangerous individuals."

https://babylonbee.com/news/international-manhunt-under-way-for-those-who-signed-letter-asking-for-tolerance-of-differing-viewpoints?utm_content=buffer19642&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR0NPCFESeWVmlrMeUlsYjpGihEiUrAFtk9Gbe59IZvAS34x60MGHmuFaw0

Edited July 9, 2020 by JamesBYoung

[Kenngo1969]

 

Quote

 

https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/was-nephis-slaying-of-laban-legal

Shortly after leaving Jerusalem with his family, Nephi and his brothers returned to get a rare copy of the scriptures from a man named Laban (1 Nephi 3:2–4). The brothers tried twice to get the plates, to which Laban responded by trying to have them killed (v. 24–26). Finally, Nephi returned at night and found Laban passed out drunk (1 Nephi 4:7). After initially resisting the unexpected prompting (v. 10), Nephi killed Laban (v. 18), and managed to get the plates (v. 24).

This story can be as jarring to modern readers as it was disturbing to Nephi at the time (1 Nephi 4:10). Yet John W. Welch, a long-time student of biblical law, has argued that the complexities of “Nephi’s slaying of Laban can be evaluated profitably through the perspectives of the prevailing legal principles of Nephi’s day.”1

Even though such a killing would not be justifiable in most legal systems today, the text 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 BC.”2 Welch explained that the critical legal factors in this case are:

(1) State of mind—did the killer “lie in wait,” or “come presumptuously” with murderous intent?

(2) The role of divine will—did “God deliver him into his hand” (Exodus 21:12–14)?3

Unlike the modern definition, the ancient idea of premeditation required a murder to have been preplanned or implemented through treachery.4 From this Welch argued, “Several strong clues indicate that Nephi had the ancient definition in mind when he wrote the story of Laban.”5 Regarding his state of mind, Nephi specifically noted that he proceeded “not knowing beforehand the things which I should do” (1 Nephi 4:6).

As Welch has explained, this point demonstrates that Nephi had not necessarily even planned to find Laban, let alone to kill him. Nephi did not know 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.”6

And regarding the role of divine will, as Welch has written, “the ultimate reason for his action was God’s deliverance of Laban into Nephi’s hands. As the Spirit stated, it was the Lord who caused Laban’s death.”7 The specific words used in the text are important here. When Nephi stumbled upon Laban, the Spirit told Nephi to kill him. When Nephi resisted, the Spirit told Nephi again to “slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands” (1 Nephi 4:12, emphasis added). This justification may refer to Exodus 21:13, which states that a slayer may flee to a city of refuge “if [he] lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand”  (emphasis added). The striking parallel between these texts indicates that the Spirit may have been legally excusing Nephi for slaying Laban.8

One possible reason for this is because Laban committed three serious offenses against Nephi and his brothers. (1) He had falsely accused them of a capital crime (being “robbers,” 1 Nephi 3:13; Deuteronomy 19:16–19). (2) He had stolen their property, thus proving to be a robber himself (1 Nephi 3:25–26; 4:11). (3) He had not listened to the commandments of the Lord (1 Nephi 4:11; Deuteronomy 13:15).9

Thus, Nephi killed a man whom God had delivered into his hands, indicating that he was worthy of death from a divine perspective. Some killings in the Old Testament happened under similar circumstances. For example, the priest Phinehas killed Zimri and Cozbi for violating the law (Numbers 25:8). Amnon had violated his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 13:14-17), and his half-brother Absalom killed him because of it (v. 29).

Importantly, the Spirit provided yet another rationale for the act: “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief” (1 Nephi 4:13). Welch has stated that this rationale “concerning the relative rights of the individual or the group also has a long tradition in biblical and Jewish legal history.”10 One example of this practice is the giving up of Samson to the Philistines (Judges 15:9–13). Extra-biblical tradition even suggests that the council of elders may have handed over Jehoiakim—a king of Judah at the time of Lehi—to Nebuchadnezzar in order to save the kingdom.11

 

 

[pogi]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The presentist fallacy continues apace.

All 25 pages of it?  And you digested and understood its fairly dense legal and historical analysis?

Well, okay.  Could you lay out your disagreement with Welch?  

I don't understand.  I am suggesting that you are operating under a presentist fallacy.  Are you admitting or disputing that?

I meant to type "another defense could fly."  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Why do you disagree with Welch?

I didn't say that.  

We're generally aware, yes.

Okay.  I'm not sure why this is a significant point.  Could you clarify?

Thanks,

-Smac

I am not yet convinced of his argument. He admits that he doesn't know for sure if his interpretation of the Mosaic law as outlined in Exodus is how it was understood and applied in 600 BC. I would like to see some other perspectives (non-Mormon preferably to eliminate any potential bias) of ancient Israel law in regards to murder before I come to any conclusions.  Yes, I will read all 25 pages - patience geez! I just learned about it.  The format of these forums is that you are expected to provide summary and main points of argument without requiring the other person to read the entire source before he understands the gist.  

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[Maidservant]

6 hours ago, The Unclean Deacon said:

Nephi is told by the spirit when he resists killing Laban that "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."

Yet these tribes did just that.  They ended up dwindling in unbelief.  And add that to the fact that 99.9% of the human population dwindles in unbelief in regards to the brass plates today ..... and it seems killing Laban was practically useless and deeply ineffective.

Thoughts on reconciling this?  

I don't think the quest of the scriptures or of life is reconciliation. In fact, scriptures and human lives (Nephi's, Laban's) defy reconciliation. Reconciliation is not equivalent with, nor signifies nor is an artifact of, truth or virtue (if one seeks either of those).

I also think one of the sub-texts throughout the Book of Mormon in various presentations is actually a more subtle criticism of human choice and paradigm (including those choices and paradigms that we call religion). That is, I don't think the Book of Mormon is necessarily presenting that Nephi did the right thing at that time or ever. At least not that clear cut.

My favorite example and one that's rather clear is how the "promised land" experiment ended (or one segment of it ended). Jacob ends his record with this summary: "The time passed away with us, and also our lives passed away like as it were unto us a dream, we being a lonesome and a solemn people, wanderers, cast out from Jerusalem, born in tribulation, in a wilderness, and hated of our brethren, which caused wars and contentions; wherefore, we did mourn out our days." Wow. Some promised land. And I just noticed that his narrative of under what circumstances they left Jerusalem is a little different than the idea we often have that Lehi led his family out on a grand adventure of their own volition. I'm not saying these narratives are mutually exclusive, but I find Jacob's point of view thought provoking. It sounds like Lehi and Nephi's promised land was Jacob's personal hell. That might be a lesson some of us could use, eh?

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

The murder of Laban has always bothered me.

I think it always bothered Nephi, too. I don't think he ever got that monkey off his back.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Maidservant

[smac97]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

I am not yet convinced of his argument.

That's the conclusion.  I am curious how you get there.

Quote

He admits that he doesn't know for sure if his interpretation of the Mosaic law as outlined in Exodus is how it was understood and applied in 600 BC.

And his scholarly humility, his willingness to concede that we don't have all the facts and context, is a problem?

Quote

I would like to see some other perspectives (non-Mormon preferably to eliminate any potential bias)

Right.  'Cuz all non-Mormons are totally unbiased when examining the Book of Mormon.

🤨

Quote

of ancient Israel law in regards to murder before I come to any conclusions. 

"Conclusions" like "it was definitely murder."?

Like "It was murder.  It was justified by God, but it was murder."?

Like "The argument was that he didn't commit murder.  Is that a claim that anyone can prove by Israeli law in 600 BCE?  I doubt it.  I am willing to bet that he would have been stoned for theft and murder."?

Like "I highly doubt that killing Laban in an effort to steal his property would have been seen as anything but murder."?

And so on.  And all this was from two hours ago.  With you not having read any substantive scholarship on the matter.

Quote

Yes, I will read all 25 pages - patience geez! I just learned about it. 

Less than an hour ago you said "Yes, I have now read Welch's treatment."  

Now, when I asked if you read all 25 pages, you are saying you "will read all 25 pages."

And before all this you had "definitely" concluded, several times over, unequivocally, that Nephi was a murderer without having read Welch's analysis and having "just learned" about it, and yet above you state that you have not "come to any conclusions."

And you have presumed to analyze Nephi's conduct in Jerusalem circa 600 B.C. by applying American jurisprudential thought in 2020.  That's a pretty massive "presentist fallacy."

Given this context, perhaps you could understand how others could be confused about what you are saying, and about how much effort you have put into studying this matter, and about how informed and reasoned your "definite" conclusion of Nephi being a murderer is.

Quote

The format of these forums is that you are expected to provide summary and main points of argument without requiring the other person to read the entire source before he understands the gist.  

Well, in this forum we also expect posters to back up their assertions.

You've repeatedly asserted that Nephi was a murderer.  You've declared this.  Without evidence or reasoning.  Without explanation or analysis.  And apparently without having spent any meaningful time reviewing relevant scholarship.

And you are now being flippant and snide with people who, unlike you, have previously studied this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 9, 2020 by smac97

[strappinglad]

When Hugh Nibley was teaching BoM ( in the ancient past ) , he had a couple of Arab students in the class. When they came to this scenario in the BoM students also questioned why the murder of Laban. One of the Arab student had a question about it. He asked ( to Nibley's surprise , ) " Why did Nephi wait so long to kill Laban ? " Apparently in his culture there was more than enough justification to remove Laban because of how Laban had treated the brothers. 

That seems to raise the logic into the 20th century. 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

ess than an hour ago you said "Yes, I have now read Welch's treatment."  

Now, when I asked if you read all 25 pages, you are saying you "will read all 25 pages."

I gave him a link to a summary on BookofMormonCentral and said iirc it would provide him with the basics or some such thing.

[Kenngo1969]

One thing's for absolute certain: I know that I certainly wouldn't want to be judged by the same standard that several people in this thread are so quick to use to judge Nephi. (See Matthew 7:1-3.)  Is that part of the reason why so many of us try to convince ourselves that, actually, the Book of Mormon is allegory (not contains allegory, which it does, but is allegory), or inspired fiction (whatever that is ... Hey, whattaya want, I said it was inspired, didn't I?) or metaphor ... because we're uncomfortable with the prospect of, one day, actually standing in front of a Nephi ("Ba-ba-ba ... I know I said I thought you were a murderer, but ...") or a Mormon, or a Moroni ("I told you that one day I would stand before the 'pleasing bar of God' with you ...")?

Are we keeping our covenant to avoid speaking evil of the Lord's Anointed ... present and past?.

I wonder.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[teddyaware]

6 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

The murder of Laban has always bothered me.

Nephi could have spared his life and just taken the plates.

We do have the BoM.

The Book of Mormon narrative makes it quite clear that Laban was nothing less than an brutal organized crime boss, an avaricious monster without conscience who had already likely murdered many other people prior to that day when he dispatched his experienced henchmen on an apparently routine mission to murder Nephi and his brothers in order to cover up the fact  that he had just stolen the vast material wealth of Lehi and his family. There should be no reason why an informed believer should be “bothered” by the death of a truly evil man who was guilty as hell of committing the worse crimes a human can commit.

In addition, if Laban had been left alive, and if Zoram had been left behind, Laban would have soon realized Lehi’s sons had taken the brass plates and would have sent a veritable army of henchman and law enforcement officers who would have been told to spare no effort to find Lehi’s entourage and destroy them, or, at very least, drag them all back to Jerusalem.

Bottom line? Laban richly deserved to die, and Lehi’s troupe needed to make it to the promised land with the holy scriptures to guide them.

Edited July 9, 2020 by teddyaware

[JamesBYoung]

Bottom line? Nephi murdered an unconscious drunken man.

[USU78]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

The reconciliation is timing. The nation lasted long enough before dwindling (1,000 years!) to produce what became the Book of Mormon.

How many people lived, loved, bred children, worked, struggled, served, and strove during those 1,000 years?  Were their lives not worth one thief/murderer's life?

[USU78]

6 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Bottom line? Nephi murdered an unconscious drunken man.

How are you defining the verb in that there second sentence?

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Bottom line? Nephi murdered an unconscious drunken man.

... a murderous, thieving, sociopathic, unconscious drunken man. The fact that you left out the most pertinent facts tells me you’ve already made up your mind. 

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Bottom line? Nephi murdered an unconscious drunken man.

Nope.  I don't think that's correct.  Pretty presentist, actually.

Edited July 9, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

39 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Bottom line? Nephi murdered an unconscious drunken man.

Is it murder if God told him to do it?

[Kenngo1969]

32 minutes ago, USU78 said:

How are you defining the verb in that there second sentence?

As has already been made abundantly clear, he's making absolutely no attempt to use 600 BCE norms of the place where this alleged heinous crime occurred!

[Kenngo1969]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Is it murder if God told him to do it?

The God of the Box where they've put him wouldn't do that!

[Kenngo1969]

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As has already been made abundantly clear, he's making absolutely no attempt to use 600 BCE norms of the place where this alleged heinous crime occurred!

Could it be ...

...

Uhhhh ...

...

Pearl clutching?

[pogi]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

And his scholarly humility, his willingness to concede that we don't have all the facts and context, is a problem?

If you are going to state as a matter of fact that "it was not murder", and base your claim on his writings which "concede that we don't have all the facts and context", then yes, that's a problem.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  'Cuz all non-Mormons are totally unbiased when examining the Book of Mormon.

🤨

 

Please show me where I said that I wanted to review non-mormon literature which is examining the book of mormon.  Is it impossible to find non-mormon commentary on ancient Israel law without bringing the Book of Mormon into it?  I think that is where I will find the most unbiased view.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Conclusions" like "it was definitely murder."?

Like "It was murder.  It was justified by God, but it was murder."?

Like "The argument was that he didn't commit murder.  Is that a claim that anyone can prove by Israeli law in 600 BCE?  I doubt it.  I am willing to bet that he would have been stoned for theft and murder."?

Like "I highly doubt that killing Laban in an effort to steal his property would have been seen as anything but murder."?

And so on.  And all this was from two hours ago.  With you not having read any substantive scholarship on the matter.

Ummm,  "i doubt it", "I am willing to bet", and "I highly doubt" are not conclusive statements, so why are you trying to accuse me of that?  I am clearly stating that I don't know but I have my doubts. 

The only conclusion that I made was that it was murder, but I made it clear (several times) that judgment was based on todays standards (I noticed that you kind of skipped over that par).  

For the third time now (to show context that you intentionally left out):

"Yes, I made that clear that I was judging him by our standards today. The argument was that he didn't commit murder.  Is that a claim that anyone can prove by Israeli law in 600 BCE?  I doubt it."

The more I think about it, I don't think it is presentism to simply acknowledge the fact that if that happened today, it would be judged as murder (that's all I was trying to say).  I think presentism has more to do with condemning past behavior based on present standards.  That's not what I was doing.   I don't know enough about the standards of his day to clear him or condemn him based on their standards.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Less than an hour ago you said "Yes, I have now read Welch's treatment."  

Now, when I asked if you read all 25 pages, you are saying you "will read all 25 pages."

And before all this you had "definitely" concluded, several times over, unequivocally, that Nephi was a murderer without having read Welch's analysis and having "just learned" about it, and yet above you state that you have not "come to any conclusions."

And you have presumed to analyze Nephi's conduct in Jerusalem circa 600 B.C. by applying American jurisprudential thought in 2020.  That's a pretty massive "presentist fallacy."

Given this context, perhaps you could understand how others could be confused about what you are saying, and about how much effort you have put into studying this matter, and about how informed and reasoned your "definite" conclusion of Nephi being a murderer is.

Let me clarify, I have read the summary of his treatment which Calm was kind enough to provide.

Again, by trying to make me appear to contradict myself by stating "definitely was murder" and "I haven't come to any conclusions", you are taking those statements entirely out of context and trying to patch them together in a mismatched tapestry of illusion.  They are each unrelated.  I still stand by both statements in their context and they are not contradictory.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Well, in this forum we also expect posters to back up their assertions.

You've repeatedly asserted that Nephi was a murderer.  You've declared this.  Without evidence or reasoning.  Without explanation or analysis.  And apparently without having spent any meaningful time reviewing relevant scholarship.

And you are now being flippant and snide with people who, unlike you, have previously studied this issue.

I have backed up every assertion I have made.  Please take my comments in context. 

I don't think I am being flippant or snide (mostly), but there is more than enough of that going on around these parts.  I am just stating my opinion. 

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's the conclusion.  I am curious how you get there.

Well no, I wouldn't really call that a conclusion.  If you really want to know how I got there - I haven't read enough (I would first like to read other perspectives and opinions on ancient Israeli law) to form a conclusion, therefore I remain unconvinced.

Edited July 9, 2020 by pogi

[Tacenda]

This sounds familiar, I wonder if Joseph borrowed from it at all.

John 11:50 King James Version (KJV)

Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

Edited July 9, 2020 by Tacenda

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, JamesBYoung said:

I don't.  Do you?  But we are talking about free agency in deciding these matters.  Welch and Larson do not impact this argument for us today.  I think Nephi would have been stoned to death for his murder of Laban.  He did not stay to find out.

As part of the spiritual experience that led Nephi to exercise his agency in the way that he did, I trust he came to understand that his actions were divinely directed, that those actions were part of a Divine plan, that he was part of that plan, and because he had much more to do in furtherance of that plan he understood he would be preserved to fulfill his role in that plan.