If we go by post-exilic Judaism (ignoring the Greek conquest era) it seems there are courts that have to decide upon capital crimes. So even if Laban is guilty that doesn’t necessarily justify a lynch mob. (Or in this case a mob of one)

There is dispute about post-exilic death penalty. Again, this isn’t something I know a lot about. There’s an interesting book I found googling on the rabbinical era discourse. Execution and Invention: Death Penalty Discourse in Early Rabbinical and Christian Cultures. Of course this is well after the era in question.

The narrative frames this execution as being like the actions of soldiers or police who act to protect the people from harm. Many strands in the narrative reinforce this idea. The various strands of the argument are laid out in “Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order” that was published in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1404&index=5

2. How culpable is Nephi from an objective stand point? If God commanded him to do it, and we accept that, he is blameless. When the Lord commands, obey. Seek to understand later. It sounds harsh, but it worked for Nephi and, for that matter, Abraham (though he didn’t have to complete the act, he was prepared to do it.) Perhaps the scriptures are trying to tell us something?

3. What kind of ethical analysis does our own culture offer? There are a plethora of different cultural analyses that can be examined and that is frankly not interesting to me (though it can be to you, and that’s fine.) I don’t need a hearty helping of man’s philosophy in my scripture.

4. How ought we today to think about and take up this story? How “ought” we? I don’t think I can recommend any one “correct” way to do it. I think pondering that is a very personal thing and it’s a good method for self-reflection. You may learn something different than I do from this section of scripture. Also, I may learn something different today than I will in a week or a month or a year.

Also Mark B., excellent point. I feel like most sticky points in church history have several variables like this that it is just really difficult to even imagine without genuine sustained pondering and likening.

James, thanks for the reference! Unfortunately I’m a lot better at buying collecting good books than reading them, but I will check it out.

The only other plausible reading is that he’s tied up with Zedekiah. But note the portrayal of Zedekiah. He’s associating with false prophets and engaging in actions that will lead to the destruction of the country (presumably killing tens of thousands). It’s Zedekiah Lehi is preaching against. In this case not only is Laban still an appointment of Babylon but instead of working with Babylon he’s working with the Egyptian faction of high officials.

This reading makes Nephi’s comments about God’s destruction of the Egyptians all the more pertinent. It’s not just an analogy. They really are battling the Egyptians for prevent the destruction by Babylon! It may even be that Laban’s troops have Egyptian ties. (See Jeremiah 37:7-8 for some evidence of this)

In this case it’s not just the immediate actions of Laban towards Nephi and his brothers that ought concern us. It’s also the larger political context of war. (And given that there just was a war we can’t say this was a hypothetical war – it’s a real “shooting” war with people really dying around them) Laban’s actions towards Lehi should also be kept in the context of the actions towards Jeremiah. (Jeremiah is arrested at the gate by Zedekiah and the pro Egyptian faction seeks to kill him in a fashion very similar to Nephi)

BTW – for those wanting a brief history of events this paper on Zedekiah is great.

I know Nibley wrote a bit on this via the Lachish letters. I can honestly say it’s been over 25 years since I last read it and I remember nothing about his arguments.

Anyway, just something to include in our analysis. I’m not sure this resolves the dirty hands problem Robert raised. But it does perhaps raise the specter that it is precisely these sorts of high political action that need addressed. This simply is not a context of the day to day ethical concerns we have. This is more akin to being in Afghanistan and finding a Taliban commander drunk IMO.

First, what aspect of the Exodus story is Nephi referring to? It seems to me it’s most likely the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites as they attempt to flee Egypt. Not the more problematic plagues. I think there’s a lot of question ethically in the Old Testament but the very nature of its composition makes it difficult for me to take that seriously. We just have such distant and most likely highly corrupted texts. We just can’t be sure of what actually happened such to take up the ethical challenge towards God.

Yet if the part Nephi is thinking of is the Egyptians coming to destroy the Israelites and the waters crashing down upon the army, what is problematic about that? Honest question here. I think most people upon encountering that portion have no problem with what God does. The killing of the firstborn and other innocents I’ll grant you are at least as disturbing as some of the thing in Joshua of genocide. But God taking down enemies trying to kill me seems among the more innocuous things in scripture honestly. (Although it is interesting paring Exodus with the passages in the Book of Mormon where lamanite converts are being brutally murdered while God does nothing)

The parts about “better than one man should perish” immediately seem to suggest a conflict between wherever your meta-ethical intuitions lie and a more consequentialist perspective. While I’m no utilitarian I suspect I’m much more sympathetic to consequences than I sense you are. When encountering Nephi’s phrase one immediately thinks of some freshman dorm thought experiment where you encounter a drunk unconscious Hitler in the brownshirt days knowing what he plans for the future.

It seems that criticisms of Nephi’s justification rest upon there being real live open just possibilities and that God doesn’t know the future (or at least have a reasonable idea about high probable events for those who don’t like real foreknowledge).

If we’re dealing with the text rather than merely doubts about Nephi’s accounts I’m just not at all clear there is any ground to criticize Nephi here. The strongest criticisms are less about Nephi than they are the epistemological problem of knowing when you are justified. Thinking of say how the Laffertys saw themselves and thinking through the parallels to Nephi in epistemological terms. Yet if we take the text on its own terms no epistemological issues arise. Maybe if we’re reading with a hermeneutics of suspicion we should introduce such concerns. Yet it seems to me you leapt right over the epistemology issues and went right to the “Nephi had better choices” angle. Which just seems a problematic move.

I appreciate you sharing your journal and candid thoughts, James. Once on my mission I met a man resentful towards America who was familiar with this verse, pointed it out to me and went on an anti-war speech. I don’t blame him, but I guess part of the reason I find my question related to the Atonement more interesting and fruitful than yours is because I see a perception developing in contemporary society that death is the ultimate tragedy (unless self-imposed). Highly understandable, but contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I look forward to your next entry.

I see Nephi as a very loyal and profound prophet who is not only very faithful but also one who recognizes his weaknesses and is wise beyond his years because of this. I also see Nephi as being very courageous due in large part to his faith. besides this, Nephi is a hard working and loyal son. From later in the record we learn that Nephi becomes the father of their civilization, not because Nephi makes them, but because of who Nephi is and has become as a profound teacher, prophet, leader and spiritual advisor.

Historically this narrative is at a time when Jerusalem is in disaray and plots and subplots have already been happening and people are warring and dividing. It comes at a time when corruption and “real” murder is taking place. Nephi is going into Jerusalem at night to do one thing- get the plates. However, the Lord has already caused a series of events to unfold for Nephi not only to get the plates, but to destroy Laban and his works of darkness also. For Nephi, its a huge step of faith to kill Laban and proceed forward in getting the plates. Most certainly Nephi writes this account later recounting his thoughts after much reflection. There is no doubt that Nephi is of high moral character and wouldnt justify killing Laban without strict command from the Lord to do such.

To say that Nephi is justifying “murder” with his killing of Laban cheapens and fictionalizes Nephi. Its jyst one small step from there to completely dismiss Nephi as a prophet of God and lose ones testimony.

Roger David Aus, “The Death of One for All in John 11:45–54 in Light of Judaic Traditions,” in his Barabbas and Esther and Other Studies in the Judaic Illumination of Earliest Christianity (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1992).

Most of the time when I discuss this with other Mormons, I get lots of focus on 1, which is then used to let Nephi off the hook with regard to 2 and 3, together with the unspoken assumption that having done this, 4 is no longer relevant.

Since my series is a scriptural journal, I’m mostly interested in 4 (although I find all of them interesting).