Laman and Lemuel


scdoyle
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've always assumed, correct me if I'm wrong, that when Lehi and family left Jerusalem Laman and Lemuel were probably in their early twenties. Possible very late teens. Which got me wondering. Why did they leave Jerusalem with the rest of the family? They obviously didn't want to go. They would have been adult age. Why didn't they just say "You know dad, as much as we would love to leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness, we're gonna stay here in Jerusalem. Have a nice trip though." Maybe is had something to do with Jewish customs back then? Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From AskGramps.org

 

Laman and Lemuel were of age and could have returned to Jerusalem. But after Nephi personally saw to it that the Lehi family fortune was no longer an issue, they seemed to lose interest in the prospect — though they never lost interest in whining about how ill-used they had been in being ripped from the very bosom of their precious homeland and subject to the tyranny of their upstart little brother.

 

Laman was obedient in fits and starts, and usually only when compelled to be so. Lemuel appears to have followed his older brother’s example pretty much all the time. The lesson here is that such “faith” might be barely enough to get you to the Promised Land, but it is not enough to secure the blessings of God upon you and your posterity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure Gramps was 100% accurate on this one.

 

1 Ne 2:14 suggests that Lehi commanded Laman and Lemuel to go with them with such spiritual power that they basically acquiesced. 

 

The family fortune is lost in 1 Nephi Chapter 3.

 

In 1 Nephi 7:15 Nephi practically dares them to go back (they expressed that wish in verse 7).  They get enraged, tie Nephi up, he breaks out, one of Ishmael's daughters intercedes, and then they beg forgiveness and return to Lehi's camp with Nephi.

 

In 1 Nephi 16:37-39, there is again talk of returning to Jerusalem which is corrected by the voice of the Lord Himself.

 

In 1 Nephi 17, after eight more years of traveling, there is talk about how things were so much more awesome in Jerusalem, but no more talk of going back.  My guess is that after eight years being led through the wilderness by the Liahona, Laman and Lemuel were so hopelessly lost that they couldn't have found their way back to Jerusalem anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There was definitely a strong bond between Laman, Lemuel and their father to leave behind all their possessions and follow Lehi to Jerusalem, they didn't have to. It's funny how sometimes we like to compare ourselves with Nephi lol when in fact, a lot of times (if not most of the time) we are like Laman and Lemuel, following and obeying commandments while murmuring.

 

Even though, I can't justify the many wrong choices they took, I think I can understand a bit how they probably felt knowing their young brother was like "the perfect son".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also occurs to me that it was evident that Lehi had rather upset a fair number of people in Jerusalem.  People who would think nothing of doing nasty things to Lehi's family to get back at Lehi or find where he had gone. They didn't want to risk it, and Lehi probably had some justifiable doubts as to how long Laman and Lemual would go without telling where he had gone, particularly if something like torture were involved.

 

This is the same reason Nephi had for desperately wanting Zoram to come with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always assumed, correct me if I'm wrong, that when Lehi and family left Jerusalem Laman and Lemuel were probably in their early twenties. Possible very late teens. Which got me wondering. Why did they leave Jerusalem with the rest of the family? They obviously didn't want to go. They would have been adult age. Why didn't they just say "You know dad, as much as we would love to leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness, we're gonna stay here in Jerusalem. Have a nice trip though." Maybe is had something to do with Jewish customs back then? Thoughts?

I am saying this from experience, rich kids (or I should say kids who have rich parents) complain about a lot of things even though they have more than most.  But they can also become attached at the hip to their parents who provide them with everything. They learn over time that the squeeky wheel gets the grease and so they learn to murmer and complain a lot.  And I say this from experience as well; whereas kids who grow up with moderate conditions or poor conditions tend to learn early that complaining is not going to get you anywhere, hard work and earning it yourself might but complaining doesn't help any.

I look at Lamen and Lemuel as rich brats. They can't appreciate what they have, which was more than most and yet can't live without it. Without the material things their lives are miserable and they want everyone around them to feel the misery they are going through.  Whereas Nephis sees this whole thing as an opportunity and a growing experience. 

 

.... at least this is the message I teach my kids whenever we read this part of the Book of Mormon in Family Home Evening.

 

1 Nephi 2:" 11 Now this he spake because of the stiffneckedness of Laman and Lemuel; for behold they did murmur in many things against their father, because he was a visionary man, and had led them out of the land of Jerusalem, to leave the land of their inheritance, and their gold, and their silver, and their precious things, to perish in the wilderness. And this they said he had done because of the foolish imaginations of his heart."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

5ab05c3aac131ff45d1b13d87cd31637.jpg

 

Resurrecting a necro-thread here.

 

I believe this thread took place while I was on my LDS.net sabbatical. (May be time for another?) I laughed at Backroads' comic, and it's probably something we have all thought at one time or another. But we should recognize that it is also very much false. The Nephites' real problems were never caused by the Lamanites, but by their own wickedness and apostasy. Far from leading the Nephites into destruction, the Lamanites doubtless preserved the Nephites by functioning as a flail to keep apostatizing Nephites repentant and in line (see 2 Nephi 5:25). One of the main reasons the Nephite civilization managed to last almost 1000 years was because the Lamanites were there to curb their excesses.

 

Not to interrupt the party atmosphere, but it needed to be said...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe it was because Laman and Lemuel for the most part were "not that bad".  But once they left their lives and livelihood in Jerusalem, the entire family went through a sifting process.  Laman and Lemuel were simply the first to completely fail.

 

Remember that the first time they started getting violent was AFTER their fortunes were handed over to Laban.  Once they had nothing to lose, they lost it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always assumed, correct me if I'm wrong, that when Lehi and family left Jerusalem Laman and Lemuel were probably in their early twenties. Possible very late teens. Which got me wondering. Why did they leave Jerusalem with the rest of the family? They obviously didn't want to go. They would have been adult age. Why didn't they just say "You know dad, as much as we would love to leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness, we're gonna stay here in Jerusalem. Have a nice trip though." Maybe is had something to do with Jewish customs back then? Thoughts?

 

The Book of Mormon is a very sketchy and historically incomplete document.  It is my personal thought that Laman and Lemuel did not start out completely bad but like all of us had to develop and grow into who they became.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone start out completely bad?

"Completely" is hard to define. I'm not sure that the most heinous of us is "completely bad" even at death. Joe Stalin comes as close as I have heard of.

But there are those among us who start out with a bent to become bad, just as there are those who start out with a tendency to choose correctly. Of the Latter, we would put Jesus first, and then the prophets, in what order is harder to stipulate, but they are surely, as a class, ahead of me.

Just as we learn in Abraham, there is always, in any group, one thing above another, implying that there is always another below. God, of course, is at the top, and Satan, presumably, on the bottom, but the "best" of that third part who were expelled and the "worst" of the fraction ahead of him weren't all that much different from each other, in my mind.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Completely" is hard to define. I'm not sure that the most heinous of us is "completely bad" even at death. Joe Stalin comes as close as I have heard of.

But there are those among us who start out with a bent to become bad, just as there are those who start out with a tendency to choose correctly. Of the Latter, we would put Jesus first, and then the prophets, in what order is harder to stipulate, but they are surely, as a class, ahead of me.

Just as we learn in Abraham, there is always, in any group, one thing above another, implying that there is always another below. God, of course, is at the top, and Satan, presumably, on the bottom, but the "best" of that third part who were expelled and the "worst" of the fraction ahead of him weren't all that much different from each other, in my mind.

Lehi

 

The theological or scriptural term for someone completely bad is a "Son (or daughter) of perdition".  The term perdition is in essence - total and complete ruin or if you will - completely bad.  Is there anyone that reaches the point of son or daughter of perdition before they die?  I am inclined to believe it is possible but I am not sure I can give a specific example. 

 

As for Laman and Lemuel -- I think I identify more with them than Nephi.  If I was sent to home teach someone that ran we off and tried to kill me - I do not think I would go back and try again next month.  If a priesthood leader (younger brother or father)  told me to go again, I am not sure I would not try again without some very serious discussion.  I might even start out saying something like, "are you crazy - stupid or what?"

 

But I do know of a specific case when home teachers were run off with a shotgun and a threat to shoot them if they ever thought to return but then two months later the home teachers were welcomed.  The L-rd has way of opening thing in ways that are interesting and fun to learn about.  If anyone is interested on how this one case worked - I will post it.  I found this particular situation somewhat funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The theological or scriptural term for someone completely bad is a "Son (or daughter) of perdition".  The term perdition is in essence - total and complete ruin or if you will - completely bad.  Is there anyone that reaches the point of son or daughter of perdition before they die?  I am inclined to believe it is possible but I am not sure I can give a specific example.

"Perdition" is the Latin word for "lost". Satan is lost, he is "Perdition". His sons are also lost.

As to whether anyone can reach perdition in this lifetime, we know that Cain managed it. There is good reason to think that Judas Iscariot did. I've heard at least one apostle say that there will be many who "achieve" it, but even if we can't count them on on hand, I believe that their numbers will still be few in comparison with those who gain exaltation.

 

But I do know of a specific case when home teachers were run off with a shotgun and a threat to shoot them if they ever thought to return but then two months later the home teachers were welcomed.  The L-rd has way of opening thing in ways that are interesting and fun to learn about.  If anyone is interested on how this one case worked - I will post it.  I found this particular situation somewhat funny.

I would have a hard time seeing this as funny.

I was once chased off with a pistol, and I have been attacked (with my hands full) on a couple of occasions, and unable to defend myself adequately. It was never funny.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it; and from that time he begins to be an enemy. This is the case with many apostates of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 6:314).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share