Dave, I actually think objecting to calling what Nephi did as murder is pretty legitimate. People might disagree with him there, but there’s certainly a strong case to be made that Nephi was well within cultural norms.

FYI, Interpreter posted Part Two of the series I linked in my earlier comment, this time taking Grant Hardy to task for his insightful discussion of the Book of Mormon narrative, particularly his discussion of Nephi as a narrator.

Part Two objects to Hardy’s method of using “general assumptions of human psychology and behavior” in his analysis. If one views the Book of Mormon as historical (talking about real people who lived anciently, written by human authors) I don’t see what alternative assumption is reasonable to make. If you aren’t going to treat the persons in the book as real people, how are you treating them? What a strange objection for an Interpreter author to make.

The author also objects to Hardy’s view that Nephi’s murder of Laban was, well, murder, and that it contributes to the view that Nephi is, in some places, an unreliable narrator. The author of Part Two sees no problem with Nephi’s murder of Laban or any basis for questioning Nephi’s infallibility. The author’s view seems to be that it is alright to kill someone if you think God is telling you to do so. If this guy is your neighbor, build a higher fence and buy more guns. This isn’t just bad apologetics, it’s bad morality. It is appalling.

Interpreter has really destroyed its own credibility with this series of posts.

I should also add a link to Jeff Lindsay’s defense of Grant Hardy posted in response to Part Two of the Interpreter piece.

Now, I’m not a bible scholar or a historian, so (since many readers on these sites are either/both of those) feel free to correct what I was told about Jesus being pharisee. But I think the professor was spot on about how inter-party battles are sometimes more fierce. I suppose it is because it is people we feel should be on our side and their opinions or mannerisms or whatever can feel like a stab in the back.

As I’ve been mulling over the difference between “good” and “bad” apologetics I’m increasingly convinced that good apologetics are arguments that resonate with the persons beliefs whereas bad apologetics are arguments in favor of the church that the hearer does not like and not liking the defense believes that line of argument is harmful to the church, and therefore, must be called out and defeated.

But one persons good apologetics is another persons bad apologetics as I think the comment lines in the last couple posts have illustrated.

To actually have to say something like this is incredibly sad.

We tend to get in trouble when we decide that what we have is the ultimate last word on something. Christ was rejected based on this thinking. Authority does not preclude change.

I’m encouraged that the Church continues to reach out and encourage more discussion on many subjects. If we could get people to study their questions and bring them to our Sunday classes, we’d have less moaning about “boring, repetitive lessons”

Of course, the church’s quasi-endorsement does suggest that maybe I need to pull-back, or at least re-phrase my objections to apologetics.