Hypothetical question.

[pam]

Actually bmy I don't find your OP such a hypothetical question. You have insinuated on several occasions on numerous threads that people should not always follow the Prophet and the GA's. I've always felt when someone says "hypothetical" it is referring to how they really feel but use that as a way to get away from actually saying it. Just my opinion.

[Justice]

Perhaps you can explain to us why it was legal to chop off someone's head in order to steal their property in 600 bce Jerusalem.

You are assuming it was "Laban's property." The Book of Mormon never makes this claim. I think it is more likely that Laban was holding it in his place of safe keeping for the church, or they fell into his hands by an illegal act.

As far as killing Laban, we've had this discussion before. I recognize and understand your point of view. However, this was a unique time, and God acts accordingly in each situation to bring about the desired result. Yes, He rarely, if ever again, commands one person to kill another. It is the same principle as to why the Father had to appear to Joseph Smith, yet never had appeared to anyone before. Very different situation, but same principle. Just like the flood. He only did it once. That didn't make it wrong. God acted for the benefit of man.

I view his death the same as I do the thousands of other deaths that occured under the Law of Moses. God gave the law and punishment. People willfully accepted these laws when they became "His people." Whoever God commands to execute His law and punishment is His business.

I will not say that anyone who claims God told them to kill someone was actually commanded by God. However, we know the Book of Mormon is a true book. So, God did command Nephi to kill him. It can't be otherwise.

But, my biggest question is how did Nephi become a great and mighty prophet if the interpretation of the story is as you say? If he murdered Laban and stole his property, as you say, then Nephi did not become a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a lie.

Some were commanded to enter into polygamy. Did they sin since they married more than one woman? Well, only if they did so NOT having been commanded to do so. Once God commands it you are justified, or even stronger, once God commands it it is right. What we have to do is have faith that Nephi was commanded by God to do it. It seems obvious that if he wasn't, then the entire Book of Mormon would be a lie.

You can't believe the Book of Mormon is true and not believe Nephi wasn't commanded by God to kill Laban. And, you have to believe that whatever God commands is right.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Justice

[Helgi]

Let´s get a few things straight here. Let´s begin by accepting that The Book of Mormon is True (for the sake of argument), and that the people accepted God.

Since we know, from The Bible, that these people knew about Redeeming the dead (see 1 Cor. 15:29) then these souls (i.e. the spirits of the departed) were in mortal danger (wouldn´t have the work done for them) if the geneology would be lost (it was recorded on the plates). Hence the same rule applies, if you or your family (living or deceased) are in mortal danger, AND you take matters into your own hands (or are commanded by God) YOU ARE JUSTIFIED.

DO NOT FORGET Nephi was NOT proud of what he had to do to get the tablets, in fact he felt great remorse and repented of this horrible deed; and eventhough The Book of Mormon doesn´t tell us, I´m sure he did the work for Laban later on (Just like an officer of an allied Navy did for a crew of a submarine he was forced to sink during WWII).

As regards polygamy, let us not forget, that there were more women than men following God (just like in the Church today), and God dosen´t want his daughters to suffer because of this.

Back in those days, polygamy was allowed (provided they could provide for them); After the restoration of the Gospel, the same was again allowed, BUT with the proviso, that WIFE #1, agreed, and if a third one were to come into play then the other two had to give their consent. PLEASE bear in mind, that during both times, women didn´t have any rights. No right to vote. It was a man´s world.

It was only within The Church (at that time), that women had the right to vote (sustain their leaders), and for this reason, those who were against The Church, tried to murder all the men (because banks wouldn´t listen to women, only men), so those who survived, took them as wives, so that their children wouldn´t be sent in all directions and the families lose their farms etc. - Call it a marriage of convenience. Later, after women get the right to vote (and the world starts seeing women more as equals), There is no need for this anymore, and it is abolished. However, there were those, who couldn´t follow The Lord´s bidding, and wanted to be able to enjoy many women. These formed a new splinter group. There were also those (who also formed a new splinter group) who felt that the office of prophet, should only be by direct male decendants of Joseph Smith Jrs. family

We have a very precarious situation, as people often mistake ideas (which pop into their heads, owing to the quiet whispers of Satan and/or his entourage) with God speaking to them (via the still small voice of The Holy Spirit). For this reason, we are exhorted to FAST & PRAY about ALL MATTERS CONCERNING THINGS SPIRITUAL.

Let us not forget, that The Lord tried Abraham´s fidelity, by asking him to sacrifice his first born. Consider the act of slaying Laban, Nephi´s test of faith. If he hadn´t done so, we wouldn´t have The Book of Mormon today.

God doth act in mysterious ways, doth he not.

[MarginOfError]

I’m going to have to side with a-train and Snow on this one. If Nephi were to have been caught after murdering Laban, he should have been punished according to the laws of the time. It makes now difference whether or not he was commanded by God to do it. This is probably why it was a good idea for Nephi to not remain in Jerusalem very long after the incident. It’s also why it was beneficial to take Zoram with him. By taking Zoram into the wilderness, it is likely that those in Jerusalem would conclude that Zoram had committed Laban’s murder, and thus, they wouldn’t be going out in search of Lehi and his family.

I think it is a gross misunderstanding of the how the Gospel serves reality to assume that a person should be exonerated from civil liabilities because of divine commandment. Particularly by those who believe in personal revelation, such as the LDS. I offer the following wisdom as an illustration:

The story of Abraham and Isaac offers a simple but powerful example. According to the Bible, Abraham is ordered by god to offer up his "only son, Isaac, who you love, " as a burnt offering. Without argument, Abraham takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.

Of course, we know the happy ending--God sends down and angel to intercede at the very last minute. Abraham has passed God's test of devotion. He becomes a model of fidelity to God, and his great faith is rewarded through future generations. And yet it is fair to say that if any of us saw a twenty-first century Abraham raising the knife on the roof of his apartment building, we would call the police; we would wrestle him down; even if we saw him lower the knife at the last minute, we would expect the department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away and charge Abraham with child abuse. We would do so because God doesn't reveal Himself or His angels to all of us in a single moment. We do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, understanding that a part of what we know to be true--as individuals or communities of faith--will be true for us alone.

To turn the discussion to a more modern context, what if Scott Roeder were to testify in court that God had commanded him to kill George Tiller? Is there anyone here who thinks that Roeder should be exonerated for his actions? Or should he still be tried and, if found guilty, sentenced?

[Heavenguard]

Being that I'm not LDS, I can't throw in an LDS POV.

But, if given the same question about my pastor - hands down no. There has been more than one scenario where I've said to my friends at church "What [Pastor's Name] says isn't the law. He's here to lead us and guide us, but he doesn't have the last word on everything. He's just a person just like you and I."

People try to appease church leaders in order to be "Good" Christians. But obedience to a church leader doesn't automatically make a good Christian.

If I believed that God himself were telling me to do so, I'd probably do a Gideon test. Ask God to do something impossible for me, by my terms, several times over to confirm it's really him and he's really telling me to do something like that. I can't for sure tell you what would come after that if God passed the test with flying colours, though. I'd have to believe that God were telling me to stop al Qaeda or something.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Snow

Perhaps you can explain to us why it was legal to chop off someone's head in order to steal their property in 600 bce Jerusalem.

While Nephi could have been prosecuted for murder for what he had done, there actually was guidance built into the Mosaic Law for justifiable homicide. Cities of refuge had been established for those who had either committed manslaughter, or who had slain someone by command of an authority figure (which in this case was God).

Hugh Nibley mentioned in "A New Approach to the Book of Mormon" of teaching a BoM class at BYU, with several Arab students in the class. When he got to the story of Nephi slaying Laban, they were agitated. When asked why, it wasn't because Nephi had killed someone, but because Nephi did not immediately obey the Spirit's voice!

Semitic views are very different than our Western views.

[JohnnyRudick]

Being that I'm not LDS, I can't throw in an LDS POV. . .

How come?

Bro. Rudick

[Snow]

You are assuming it was "Laban's property." The Book of Mormon never makes this claim. I think it is more likely that Laban was holding it in his place of safe keeping for the church, or they fell into his hands by an illegal act.

Okay - you think more likely that though Laban possessed it, he did not own it. That seems contrary to Occam's razor.

As far as killing Laban, we've had this discussion before. I recognize and understand your point of view. However, this was a unique time, and God acts accordingly in each situation to bring about the desired result. Yes, He rarely, if ever again, commands one person to kill another. It is the same principle as to why the Father had to appear to Joseph Smith, yet never had appeared to anyone before. Very different situation, but same principle. Just like the flood. He only did it once. That didn't make it wrong. God acted for the benefit of man.

I view his death the same as I do the thousands of other deaths that occured under the Law of Moses. God gave the law and punishment. People willfully accepted these laws when they became "His people." Whoever God commands to execute His law and punishment is His business.

I will not say that anyone who claims God told them to kill someone was actually commanded by God. However, we know the Book of Mormon is a true book. So, God did command Nephi to kill him. It can't be otherwise.

My question here (that I posed to the other poster) deals with legality, not with whether God was involved.

But, my biggest question is how did Nephi become a great and mighty prophet if the interpretation of the story is as you say? If he murdered Laban and stole his property, as you say, then Nephi did not become a prophet and the Book of Mormon is a lie.

1. That's begging the question.

2. One can accept on faith that Joseph Smith received and "translated" the plates without accepting that everything contained in the text was historically correct and accurate.

3. You assume that God is good and just and only selects prophets who are likewise good and just. You are, in my opinion, correct, but assuming so ignores other possibilities.

Some were commanded to enter into polygamy. Did they sin since they married more than one woman? Well, only if they did so NOT having been commanded to do so. Once God commands it you are justified, or even stronger, once God commands it it is right. What we have to do is have faith that Nephi was commanded by God to do it. It seems obvious that if he wasn't, then the entire Book of Mormon would be a lie.

Again you are begging the question and assuming that God actually ordered polygamy. The proof of that is exactly equal to zero.

You can't believe the Book of Mormon is true and not believe Nephi wasn't commanded by God to kill Laban. And, you have to believe that whatever God commands is right.

Certainly you can, see above.

[Kawazu]

Howdy,

I enjoyed this article-- "Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order" (Val Larsen, 2007).

Here is an excerpt:

...Few, if any of us, would want to live in a society where individual citizens are free to kill drunken fellow citizens—however guilty the drunk may be—because the citizen feels he has been constrained by God to do so. In the eternal scheme of things, it would make all the difference whether—as in this case—God had in fact instructed the perpetrator to commit the homicide. Nothing that God commands us to do can ultimately be wrong. But (since, as a practical matter, we can never know for certain whether God has actually commanded someone else to commit murder, we must hold to the rule that individual citizens are never justified in killing passed-out drunks they stumble upon in the course of a nighttime ramble through a city. If Laban is guilty of capital crimes...he should be executed by the state, not by an ordinary citizen who meets him in a chance encounter. So the stumbling block remains.

Basically,the author establishes that Nephi's role as a sovereign over his people takes place not at his coronation, which of course occurs much later, but instead during these first few chapters of First Nephi.

The first paragraph on page 4, under the heading, "Setting the Stage" explains how the family of Lehi starts to become differentiated as a sovereign people. It's an interesting take. Although the article is 18 pages, the reader gets an adequate gist of the concept by reading up to page 7 or so.

Cheers,

Kawazu

[bmy-]

Actually bmy I don't find your OP such a hypothetical question. You have insinuated on several occasions on numerous threads that people should not always follow the Prophet and the GA's. I've always felt when someone says "hypothetical" it is referring to how they really feel but use that as a way to get away from actually saying it. Just my opinion.

It's a hypothetical question.. because it's a "what if" scenario -- nothing more. I've said in this thread (and in numerous PMs) that this thread is to get people to do a little soul searching and to quit dealing in black and white.

That's the main reason I've simply been a bystander in this thread and not participated much. It's not about me.. rather it's about everyone else.

All that being said.. I know a few of us here love those hard questions. There is a time and a place for everything including disobedience. That's my stance.. and I know it isn't a popular one. Will the Prophet intentionally force you into a situation like that? I sure as heck wouldn't bet on it. But what would you do if he did?

Perhaps i'm alone.. but I love asking (and being asked) these questions in real life. Most recently I asked.. (burning building example) who would you save -- your daughter or your husband?

[ruthiechan]

It is my understanding that Nephi was justified in killing Laban through the laws of the land. When Laman and Lemuel tried to get the plates they offered all of their riches to Laban in exchange. Laban ousted them and stole their riches. The Lord instructed them to try again, Laman and Lemuel refused, leaving Nephi to go it alone. I wonder if Nephi would have had to kill him if Laman and Lemuel had followed the Lord's instructions. . . Anyway, because of Laban's gross dishonesty and theft Nephi had the laws of the land to back him up. Nephi probably knew this and needed the extra rationalization the Spirit gave him to give him the courage to follow through with it.

I'm not exactly sure that I would characterize the MMM as an instance where people thought they were doing God's will. I would be more comfortable characterizing MMM as an instance of paranoia mixed with fear, resulting in mob mentality.

I certainly wouldn't call it an example of perfect obedience to the church, as Brigham did everything he could to stop it from happening in the first place. Not to mention all of Joseph and Brigham's plentiful comments about how it's wrong to let the church do your thinking for you.

LM

The Mountain Meadows Massacre counts because the people involved blindly followed their local leaders who did not wait for instruction from Brigham Young.

[rayhale]

I don’t want to break any Copyright laws, so I won’t copy the whole article of “Legal perspectives on the slaying of Laban”, but besides the fact that Nephi’s brothers, Laman and Lemuel, NEVER accused Nephi of murder, it also states a few more points:

At or shortly after Nephi’s coronation as king, Jacob addressed the young Nephite assembly. He pronounced ten woes upon those who work wickedness (2 Nephi 9:27-38). His ten woes quite obviously patterned after the Ten Commandments. One of these woes pertains to murder: “Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die” (2 Nephi 9:35). The conspicuous insertion of the word “deliberately” is an uncharacteristic qualification. Few of Jacob’s strict woes are accompanied by such a modifier. The thrust of his point is to be sure that only those who deliberately kill are considered guilty and punishable. Under Exodus 21:12-14, that would require deliberation, lying in wait, or other similar planning and hatred. Categorically cursing all people who killed particularly at the coronation of Nephi would have been extremely undiplomatic. People immediately would have wondered, “But what about Nephi?” The answer is simple. Nephi had not killed “deliberately.” Jacob’s curse implies that he understood Exodus 21:13 to require a high degree of advance deliberation.

Nephi was not the only prophet in scripture to shed a man’s blood. Moses killed an Egyptian when Moses saw the Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave; when he looked around and saw that no one was watching, Moses killed the Egyptian and buried him in the sand (Exodus 2:11-12). Fearing that he might get caught, Moses fled to the land of Midian. This background sheds further light on the meaning of intentionality in the law of homicide in Exodus 21. Moses, the lawgiver himself, just like Nephi could have argued that his spontaneous action was not preplanned or premeditated in that sense. This again, is not to say that Moses had not committed a slaying, but only that it was a protectable slaying.

1 Nephi 4:13 sums it up the best: “It is better that one man should perish than a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief”

Like I said in my earlier post, it would be unfair, and unjust, to judge Nephi, or Moses, or anyone else in the Scriptures by our laws, or code of ethics, since they lived by a different set of laws and ethics than we do.

[lost87]

if you'll notice, the command to nephi to kill laban did not come from another mortal, but rather the literal spirit of God, the LORD told him to. I believe it is our priviledge in a case so trivial as that to have direct revelation from the Lord as to the course that He desires we take. Therefore, a command such as that from the prophet would never even occur. You say that this is a valid question even though thats true...but you are sadly mistaken my dear. This whole question is entirely irrelevant, it is one thing to question truth to gain a stronger testimony, but its an entirely different thing to develop false situations to secure doubt.

[Justice]

Okay - you think more likely that though Laban possessed it, he did not own it. That seems contrary to Occam's razor.

Not really. The simpler story seems to be that a prophet of God would not commit murder and steal property.

My question here (that I posed to the other poster) deals with legality, not with whether God was involved.

I think whether or not God was involved is everything. God is the One that gave them their law. If God commanded someone to be executed, then we know His judgement is just... no matter what else you choose to question.

There is a lot more evidence showing Nephi acted according to law, under God's command, than not, IMO.

[Hemidakota]

In the book “Farms Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Vol. 1, NO. 1 (Fall 1992)” In the chapter “Legal perspectives on the slaying of Laban” by John W. Welch, which can be found on www.gospelink.com; http://www.gospelink.com/library/document/91337 [this is a pay to use site].

In the chapter, the author points out one major piece of evidence that says that the rules of law were different back then, and that when Nephi killed Laban, he didn’t commit murder. One key piece of evidence is that Nephi’s brothers, Laman and Lemuel accuse him of usurping power, of trying to become a ruler and teacher over them, of trying to trick them by his cunning arts and “foolish imaginations” (1 Nephi 16:37-38; 17:20), but never do they accuse Nephi of murder.

We, as a Western society, need to realize that people in the scriptures lived under different set of ethical standards as we do. Different cultures have unique values and idiosyncratic legal expectations.

I am glad someone added this link...

[Hemidakota]

if you'll notice, the command to nephi to kill laban did not come from another mortal, but rather the literal spirit of God, the LORD told him to. I believe it is our priviledge in a case so trivial as that to have direct revelation from the Lord as to the course that He desires we take. Therefore, a command such as that from the prophet would never even occur. You say that this is a valid question even though thats true...but you are sadly mistaken my dear. This whole question is entirely irrelevant, it is one thing to question truth to gain a stronger testimony, but its an entirely different thing to develop false situations to secure doubt.

Now, how would Nephi truly know it was GOD's messenger and not an evil spirit disguised? A good example, an angel disguises himself as Gabriel appears to a person in a cave, giving a stern commandment to write the words [scriptures] that he was called by god. Later becomes a prophet based on his own vision or appearance of such, creates a new religion. How would this man truly know it was Gabriel and not one of Lucifer's minions?

[JohnnyRudick]

Now, how would Nephi truly know it was GOD's messenger and not an evil spirit disguised? A good example, an angel disguises himself as Gabriel appears to a person in a cave, giving a stern commandment to write the words [scriptures] that he was called by god. Later becomes a prophet based on his own vision or appearance of such, creates a new religion. How would this man truly know it was Gabriel and not one of Lucifer's minions?

I notice though that this angel did not even have Scripture to back up his incredible revelations and the whole spirit in my opinion was totally wrong.

Just my thinking on it though:cool:

Bro. Rudick

[bmy-]

Quoting from the Discourses of Brigham Young, as Selected and Arranged by John A. Widtsoe, in the Chapter on “The Priesthood”:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful that they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwa[r]t the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give their leaders did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whisperings of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

[Moksha]

If commanded to by the Prophet.. would you..

1) Kill your son or daughter?

2) Kill your mother/father?

3) Kill your Bishop?

4) Set off a bomb in the parking lot after Church?

Absolutely not. None of those commands would be from God, but rather from an evil source instead.

Remember, it was Faith, Hope and Charity, not Submit, Comply and Obey.

:)

[Elgama]

Absolutely not. None of those commands would be from God, but rather from an evil source instead.

Remember, it was Faith, Hope and Charity, not Submit, Comply and Obey.

:)

in Old Testament times God did require the death of a son and a daughter although in both cases he resinded the people concerned didn't know that would happen

-Charley