Did Nephi Commit Murder or was it self-defense?

SpiffCoug wrote:

And yet God's actions fit within a libertarian framework.

Wrong. Libertarian framework fits within God's law.

Now that's just lame.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
And yet God's actions fit within a libertarian framework.

Wrong. Libertarian framework fits within God's law.

Now that's just lame.

No. That's correct. God's law isn't pigeon-holed into some man-made philosophy. His law is perfect. Man's law is flawed. Any similarities are not God's law agreeing with man's philosophy but the way around. Truth emanates from the Lord, not man. Agreement between the two, is man's philosophy reconciling with God's truth. You are backwards on this.

jvquarterback wrote:
It wasn't self defense but that doesn't mean it doesn't fit into a libertarian framework.



1. Laban had attempted murder and stolen Lehi's property. Attempted murder isn't specifically addressed within the Law of Moses but there is certainly room to interpret the death penalty is appropriate for attempted murder under the law (as the FARM guys state).



2. Our bodies belong to God because he created them. In the libertarian context that means He has the right to do whatever he wants with us including destroying our bodies. So your argument that God told Nephi to kill Laban is really a libertarian argument anyway.

are you really the only libertarian on the board? sad. I was hoping for more. Thanks for responding.



even if the death penalty is appropriate, was Nephi the one to administer it? Surely they needed to bring it before the Elders of the Church. Also, if nephi knew the law, was justified by it, why such guilty hesitation and why did he run and hide from the authorities?



2) makes much more sense to me than self-defense.

Mars wrote:


Libertarian hogwash must not be important if God didn't put it in his scriptures or teach it in his church. It's just a man-made political ideology, no matter how you spin it.

Who says libertarian thought isn't derived from the scriptures? Certainly the libertarian idea of property ownership is there in Psalm 21. And the libertarian principle of non-agression is discussed multiple times. I would say most libertarians (I'm not one by the way) don't base their ideology in the scriptures, but there is nothing in them I've found in the scriptures that discredits libertarian principles.

CougarClaw wrote:

are you really the only libertarian on the board? sad. I was hoping for more. Thanks for responding.



even if the death penalty is appropriate, was Nephi the one to administer it? Surely they needed to bring it before the Elders of the Church. Also, if nephi knew the law, was justified by it, why such guilty hesitation and why did he run and hide from the authorities?

First I'm not a libertarian.



To answer your question - I think so. It seems the message Lehi gave to the the people wasn't received very well. I would guess that the Elders were a corrupt bunch at the time and Nephi's case wouldn't have been treated fairly given Laban's position. If so Nephi would be justified in his actions.



You could view this in light of D&C 134 and the duty Nephi would owe to a government that had betrayed it's duty to protect his life. You could even go as far as to say Nephi was at war with Laban, freeing him from prosecution.



As for the "guilt" I wouldn't call it that. First he could not feel "guilt" as what he was about to do was a righteous act sanctioned by God. Personally if God told me to kill someone think I might hesitate a bit. Wouldn't you?

jvquarterback wrote:

Libertarian hogwash must not be important if God didn't put it in his scriptures or teach it in his church. It's just a man-made political ideology, no matter how you spin it.

Who says libertarian thought isn't derived from the scriptures? Certainly the libertarian idea of property ownership is there in Psalm 21. And the libertarian principle of non-agression is discussed multiple times. I would say most libertarians (I'm not one by the way) don't base their ideology in the scriptures, but there is nothing in them I've found in the scriptures that discredits libertarian principles.

Exactly. Libertarian principles stem FROM truth not the other way around.

jvquarterback wrote:

are you really the only libertarian on the board? sad. I was hoping for more. Thanks for responding.



even if the death penalty is appropriate, was Nephi the one to administer it? Surely they needed to bring it before the Elders of the Church. Also, if nephi knew the law, was justified by it, why such guilty hesitation and why did he run and hide from the authorities?

First I'm not a libertarian.



To answer your question first - I think so. It seems the message Lehi gave to the the people wasn't received very well. I would guess that the Elders were a corrupt bunch at the time and Nephi's case wouldn't have been treated fairly given Laban's position. If so Nephi would be justified in his actions.



You could view this in light of D&C 134 and the duty Nephi would owe to a government that had betrayed it's duty to protect his life. You could even go as far as to say Nephi was at war with Laban, freeing him from prosecution.



As for the "guilt" I wouldn't call it that. First he could not feel "guilt" as what he was about to do was a righteous act sanctioned by God. Personally if God told me to kill someone think I might hesitate a bit. Wouldn't you?

Good post. Nephi didn't "run and hide" he was being commanded by God to essentially break off a righteous branch from the Tribe of Israel.



In certain extreme circumstances, we know that breaking a commandment is not a sin. Adam did not sin when he partook of the fruit. For without that transgression, man could not be.



Without the plates of brass that Laban would not relinquish, the Nephite people would have dwindled in unbelief.

SpiffCoug wrote:

First I'm not a libertarian.



To answer your question first - I think so. It seems the message Lehi gave to the the people wasn't received very well. I would guess that the Elders were a corrupt bunch at the time and Nephi's case wouldn't have been treated fairly given Laban's position. If so Nephi would be justified in his actions.



You could view this in light of D&C 134 and the duty Nephi would owe to a government that had betrayed it's duty to protect his life. You could even go as far as to say Nephi was at war with Laban, freeing him from prosecution.



As for the "guilt" I wouldn't call it that. First he could not feel "guilt" as what he was about to do was a righteous act sanctioned by God. Personally if God told me to kill someone think I might hesitate a bit. Wouldn't you?

Good post. Nephi didn't "run and hide" he was being commanded by God to essentially break off a righteous branch from the Tribe of Israel.



In certain extreme circumstances, we know that breaking a commandment is not a sin. Adam did not sin when he partook of the fruit. For without that transgression, man could not be.



Without the plates of brass that Laban would not relinquish, the Nephite people would have dwindled in unbelief.

1Nephi 4:36. 36 Now we were desirous that he [zoram] should tarry with us for this cause, that the Jews might not know (HIDE) concerning our flight (RUN) into the wilderness, lest they should pursue us and destroy us.



Should I have said Hide And Run? of course God commanded Lehi's family to the Americas but that doesn't preclude them getting out of Dodge quickly and silently.



Also, I realize we're dealing with a different time period, but I feel that with exception of the families-at-war argument, JV is arguing for vigilante justice. That doesn't seem right to me and nothing in D&C 134 seems to say take matters into your own hands. If the government is corrupt...do what the church did when the US government didn't address wrongs: you leave without killing anyone.(I'm looking at you Porter Rockwell)



and we can disagree on what to call Nephi's hesitation. No doubt it was sanctioned and therefore not a sin. But the human psyche is capable of guilt for all kinds of illogical reasons. One being the gruesomeness of the act ( he spares us the gory details of head removal with a blade), another could easily be the lifetime of entrenched morality that isn't simply erased on a dime. Even if he knew it was what needed to happen for all the reasons you mentioned, i'd call his hesitation a guilty one, you can call it something else. like Fudgecake.

True, Nephi did run and hide/hide and run. But it wasn't to escape prosecution.



Nephi didn't hesitate because he felt guilt. He explains why he hesitated. "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man." He hesitated because he was being "constrained" to do something he had never done before and something that was beyond everything he had been taught. Nephi had to have the Spirit of the Lord talk to him at least twice before he would obey.

I should have said righteous guilt as in that guilt that leads you to repentance. Nephi could not have felt that as there was no need for repentance.



Lehi was made the father of a nation when he heeded the Lord's call to leave. Laban led the nation Lehi had emmigrated from against his sons. At what point in time do you think it would be appropriate for Lehi's family to act as a separate nation and defend itself against the actions of a tyrant?

I've always found a passage in D&C 98 helpful for this story (sorry it's a long passage, I cut out a few verses, but I'd recommend reading the whole thing to get the full effect):

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and crevile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;



24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.



25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred fold.



26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it apatiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold...



... 28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.



29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands...



... 31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.



32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

I'm going on the assumption that the Lord mentioned Nephi specifically because of this whole Laban incident.



Going to to the account in 1 Nephi:

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

Even without any of this, I can't understand how critics can take this story as some kind of proof that the BoM is false...have they ever read the Old Testament? People are getting jacked up all the time on account God's command.

All of the discussion on this board (and in the farms article, for that matter) seems to be more politically than spiritually based. The act was not political, it was spiritual, because Nephi was acting under the direction of The Spirit (The Savior/Heavenly Father). When a miracle takes place, the human mind can't understand it, because it doesn't fit within natural (physical) law. That doesn't mean that it breaks natural law, it means that it overrides natural law with a higher law. The same principle applies here. Nephi was acting under a higher law, because he was directed/commanded by The Spirit .



Heavenly Father has all power over life and death. He can do as he pleases, because he always obeys eternal (higher) law. All natural law is subject to eternal law; therefore, Nephi broke no law when he obeyed The Lord's commandment to kill Laban. All arguments, such as self defense, etc. are irrelevent, because they simply don't apply.



That doesn't mean that the world won't have an argument over Nephi's justification for killing Laban. What it does mean is that we, as members of the LDS church, who should have an understanding of Heavenly Father's power, dominion, omnipotence, omniscience and love for us, should understand that all things are spiritual unto the Lord; Therefore, whatever He commands is right, and it is good. What Nephi did wasn't only justified, it was sanctified, because it was of God. The answer to the original question is: niether.

I have enjoyed reading this thread. In the end, for me, there is no need to justify what Nephi did--God commanded it and Nephi obeyed. In an even more stark example, God commanded Abraham to slay his own son and Abraham was prepared to do so. There was NO justification for that one except Abraham being obedient to a command of God.



As for the scriptures and philosophy, many political philosophies have truths in them that correlate with principles found in the scriptures. I find scriptural support for helping the poor and protecting the earth.

Here's my take--a specific command from the Lord to an individual overrides general commands to mankind. The hard part is living the kind of life that will enable you to KNOW when the Lord commands you to do something.



To me it's akin to Joseph Smith lying to mobbers who were trying to find the golden plates. Did he lie? Yeah. Did he sin? Nope.

Here are a few more arguments. What do you guys think?

'Kevin' wrote:

yes I am saying that Nephi was justified in killing Laban even without the coxing from the spirit. If the spirit told him it was ok to do so then it must have already been ok to do so. The spirit cannot change the nature of something from bad into something that is good merely because he says so; the spirit testifies of truth but he doesn't manufactuer it. Neither the spirit nor God are arbitrary.



You ask why Nephi hesitated and he explains in his own words the reason: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man." I'm sure I too would be scared and hesitate to kill for the very first time even if it was for a righteous and just reason such as defending my family from a home invader.



God is not arbitrary (or he wouldn't be God). If we see what appears to be inconsistencies in gospel principles then either someone is acting in error or more likely we don't have a complete understanding of the principle. Eternal principles are literally universally applicable. In the example of Nephi specifically Laban had already ordered his goons to hunt down and murder Nephi and his brothers so killing Laban was literally in self-defense not murder (or we are missing some other pieces of the story).

Your friend Kevin is not willing to have an honest open opinion. He does not want his opinion to change. He has decided he is correct and that he is the final arbiter in that discussion. I'd move on from discussing it with him.



In the end, it doesn't matter. Nephi's reasons don't change the veracity of the book, it's message or the power by which it came forth.

His argument is bunk; the only way Nephi could have known that it was "ok" to take Laban's life was through the coaxing of the spirit. If he had done it not knowing that it was good in the Lord's eyes, then he would have done it for the wrong reasons, which would still be sin. Just as a man who breaks into Hitler's house to steal his paintings and murders Hitler without knowing who he is has also sinned.

Wow spiff. I'm impressed. I came to the exactly the same conclusion you did. So exact, that I even accused him of being his own "arbiter" (yes I used the same word) and although you figured out his singular mind in a few paragraphs, it took me much longer to arrive at the same conclusion: time to move on.



funny.

CougarClaw wrote:
Wow spiff. I'm impressed. I came to the exactly the same conclusion you did. So exact, that I even accused him of being his own "arbiter" (yes I used the same word) and although you figured out his singular mind in a few paragraphs, it took me much longer to arrive at the same conclusion: time to move on.



funny.

Great minds think alike!



One thing I've noticed to on message boards is sometimes you spend two or three posts trying to explain a thought. And then some writes like three sentences which is exactly what you were trying to say, but taking four pages to make.