We have a very popular scripture in the Book of Mormon that says “it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief”. Is this a valid point of LDS theology (doctrine), or is it just Nephi justifying his beheading of Laban? Also did you know almost the exact same words were used to justify the crucifixion of Christ? But in the Bible it is a wicked high priest Caiaphas that “prophesies” this statement. Jesus had just raised Lazarus from the dead, and the Pharisees were afraid of what this could mean to their power.
Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”
John 11: 45-50 (NIV)
If you believe Nephi was an actual person as described in the BofM, then he said it about 600 years before Caiaphas said it. If you believe Joseph Smith wrote the BofM, then Smith just repurposed the saying that he read in the Gospel of John.
Lets assume the BofM is the word of God, and the “Spirit” pronounced this doctrine. This then raises some questions. First and foremost is that the promise is not kept. The entire nation does end up dwindling in unbelief 1000 years later. So was Laban’s death in vain?
If you study the causes of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, this doctrine can be found in some of the justifications.
How does this doctrine mesh with the parable of the Good Shepard leaving the 99 to go look for the one that was lost? We have the BofM telling us to let them die so they don’t infect the group, while the New Testament tells to do everything you can to find and protect them. Eventually they will see the light and come home. What about the larger issue that if the Sprit tells you, it is OK to kill somebody?
How does this doctrine affect us today in the church? While not actually killing people, does the Church distance themselves or excommunicate people that are perceive to cause members to dwindle in unbelief? How have you seen this doctrine applied?
Wheat & Tares 
Something I don’t understand is why it was so important that Nephi bring the brass plates if 1) many in his direct line had the power of prophecy to be able to reveal true doctrines and 2) the Nephites ended up being vanquished by the Lamanites, a people who dwindled in unbelief but became more powerful than the Nephites, by 400CE anyway.
I don’t know why I never caught the connection between those two verse before but I’m not surprised to learn about it since the entire BoM is awash in Biblical turns of phrase to the level of “Brush Up Your Shakespeare.”
Taking a leaf out of Dave B’s “Mirror/Window” approach from earlier this month, my primary question as regards this story is, “What does this tell us about the life and times of JS and, consequently, what does that tell us about ourselves?” Joseph’s BoM is, among other things, an attempt at harmonizing the Old and New Testaments against a fanciful pre-Colombian backdrop. His attempt doesn’t always work, however, since he runs into one of Christianity’s oldest problems: how do you make the pacifist Jesus and the violent Jehovah the same person? I think Nephi is in full Old Testament mode in this story.
The larger problem is how that attitude got baked into the rest of Mormonism. We still have SS teachers trying to excuse the OT style violence of stories like this in the modern church. Thankfully we’re a far cry from BY’s shadowy deployment of blood atonement, but we’ve still got the DezNat weirdos whistling and whittling from the sidelines.
From the story, it appears that Nephi is a teenager. So God thinks its a good thing to tell a 17 year old to cut off someone’s head.
Several years ago I heard someone doing the math about how much material was contained on the brass plates as claimed by the BOM. As I recall, they would have weighed thousands of pounds.
So – it’s a myth. And a pernicious myth at that. That anything – even murder – can be justified in the name of God. This notion has been abused by religionists throughout time: killing witches, slaughtering entire “unbelieving” populations (including their livestock), enslaving nations and races, and physically and spiritually exiling enemies of the faith.
It justifies treating anyone outside the “faithful” worse than insiders. Mormons and evangelicals are making a great show of it – spending millions around the world to marginalize non-believers and those that do not conform to their “Christian values”. Condemning entire demographics to spiritual death because they are denied the blessings of the “faithful” as defined by those claiming to speak for God.
To me, this is the very embodiment of “calling evil good”. Rather than making room at the welcome table, they are pushing people out of the tent into spiritual exile. Oh the pain and heartache of those that wish to serve God and their fellow man but are denied (both subtly and expressly) because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or because they aren’t quite pale enough or aren’t male – or just don’t believe quite right (like the brass plates and that God employs hitmen).
“Let them worship how, where, or what they may” but you are justified to spiritually murder them if it’s different than our (current) practice.
You may notice that this passes me off a bit.
Interesting post. The approach stakes and wards have taken to the pandemic, in my view, has been shaped by this belief. Aside from the first few months of the pandemic, there has been a series of relaxing policies that generally have best served the needs of a dwindling core of members. Local church leaders have been unwilling to be more inclusive and serve the one. The shortcomings of this approach were most stark during the omicron surge when many leaders (I am on the east coast) pretended that all is well and continued to rapidly press for a return to normal. This really shook my faith and caused me to step away from the church. I had–perhaps too naively–internalized the message of leaving the 99 and going after the one.
I also see this belief play out in many church leaders’ and members’ approaches to those with doubts or more nuanced views. They focus on the core believers rather than those who want to remain for different reasons but don’t have orthodox views. In contrast, they will rally around potential converts and new converts, going to great lengths to make a single individual feel welcome.
The church no longer believes in sacrificing one to save all. If it did, Brad Wilcox would have been released from his calling and job as soon as his racist, misogynistic, prejudiced views became public. Large numbers of church members will leave when they see that the church decided to protect Wilcox and his standing in the church, rather than apologize.
If a third were cast out for rebellion in premortality, and at least a fairly large chunk are going to fail to be exalted from their actions in this life, then yes, Nephi taking the head of Laban fits doctrinally. The modern world is also queasy with death, especially one as we vividly imagine from the verses this is described in. We’ve divorced ourselves from the experience of death, clinicized and sanitized it, compartmentalized it away from our everyday individual and collective consciousness.
In the end, there can be only one.
And people are dying. Suicide among LDS LGBTQ+ youth is high. Oh, but better that they should perish than an entire religion embrace LGBTQ+ people and honor everyone’s ability to marry the person of their choice.
Because… … … God says no? If there’s one thing that scripture confirms over and over again, it’s that whether the prophet is a scared and traumatized seventeen year-old, or an experienced patriarch of advanced years, people are fantastically bad at understand the mind and will of God. We can’t help it. Doesn’t matter who you are or what your title or calling is, your experience and cultural lenses will bias your judgment, perhaps especially in matters of the Divine Will. And God seems cool with letting this play out as often as not.
The takeaway here from the scriptures, IMO, is that regardless of what ANYONE says or whatever spiritual confirmation I think I have, I should think long and hard before I take an action that will clearly harm another life. It seems to always turn out to be a catastrophic mistake.
Is scripture, and I’m now referring to the Bible, basically prescriptive or descriptive of Heavenly Fathers interaction with we humans?
I come down on the side of descriptive. How else does one understand why He acts in seemingly polar opposite ways at various periods of time.
God interacts with us both individually and corporately based upon where we are at the time. This does not mean He is not the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That phrase is reflective of His being a God of love at all times. But how He applies such differs upon our circumstances. Yes, there is reasoning even behind the horrific events we see in the Old Testament and BoM. But those are best left to another study.
Nope, nope, nope. Justification for the brass plates story is moral relativism at its finest. And as anyone who’s listened to DHO knows, we don’t believe in moral relativism.
I am sharing my first thought after reading this. I apologize if it comes across as harsh, and i apoligize to Joseph Smiths descendents, and I will probably get some thumbs down……..but as I ponderize, would have it been better if Joseph Smith would have perished and we would not all be going through this?
Sure in a alternative time line we would have distinct life challenges. But really, so much mental gymnastics have occurred just to cover up Joseph Smith’s stories and making room to state he was inspired by God in all his decision making.
We would not be here without Joseph Smith, and then again, we would not be here without Joseph Smith. Interpet it as you see it.
I decided to take myself out of the Church rather than trying to change it from within. Better that I perish in disbelief than drag down the whole ward. Little did I know that I was likening the scriptures unto myself (kind of).
God’s theoretical involvement aside, this just isn’t a good story for modern audiences. It doesn’t reflect our values in this day and age.
In The Wrath of Khan, Spock tells Kirk that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.” But he later backs this up by sacrificing his own life—not murdering someone else.
In Avengers: Infinity War, Captain America and Vision debate even letting someone sacrifice themself for the greater good.
Vision: “Thanos threatens half the universe. One life should not stand in the way of defeating him.”
Captain America: “But it should. We don’t trade lives, Vision.”
One could argue whether comic book movies are more effective at teaching moral lessons than scriptures, but you don’t see The Book of Mormon Movie getting billion dollar box office figures.
I just want to say that there is no evidence that the Shepard leave the 99, has ever actually happened. It makes no practical sense. And doesn’t happen in real life.
The needs of the many always outweigh the needs of the few.
I really am tired of the reference to the lost sheep. If you think about it, in reality, the lost sheep probably left of its own volition. It was acting more like a goat. Which it is said will be separated from the group later anyway. So, why even bother?
Good post and some great comments. This scriptural episode is extraordinarily problematic, as some have pointed out. Since I believe the B of M is fiction, I don’t have to wrestle with this passage as some more orthodox believers do. Despite that, what I find particularly disturbing about the passage is the idea that murdering someone was (supposedly) the only way to bring to pass the fulness of the Book of Mormon. If we believe in a god who can achieve anything, having a young person murder someone else just to get some plates seems extraordinarily problematic. One of the many reasons why I simply don’t buy what the B of M is selling.
On a related note; to your question about how this resonates in the church today, it is absolutely present in how we treat members who “fall away” or who hold/express any less than orthodox beliefs, not to mention those members who are excommunicated. The plain fact of the matter is that Mormons don’t know how to make friends with people who think differently than they do. That’s not a bug of Mormonism, it’s a feature; while we give lip service to other people worshipping however they may and while we speak patronizingly about “good nonmembers,” we really don’t know how to deal with anyone who thinks differently than we do. And that goes triple for former or disaffected members who use to think or believe like we did and now don’t. That’s why leaving the Mormon Church is often a kind of social death sentence, at least until that former member can figure out how to navigate that particular social minefield; Mormons are so terrified of losing their (often fragile) testimonies that they simply shut themselves off from those who used to be believers but are now no longer. Fear and paranoia, rather than love and friendship, carry the day.
When I think of the Nephi/Laman story, I always think of Paul Simon’s 50 Ways To Leave Your Lover. Even I, who am not omniscient, can come up with 50 better ways to get the plates than to chop off the head of a drunken, passed out man. I mean, really?
@Seeker What are your top 5 better ways to get the plates?
I had never considered the length and therefore the weight of the brass plates before, which is fascinating. A few years back, I learned just how difficult it is to decapitate someone (secondhand, not by my own experience). I mean, it takes a bit of time, and there would be significant blood when Nephi donned Laban’s clothes. Like Brother Sky, because I view the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction, I don’t have to deal with the logistics.
Many folks have noted that JS may have seen himself as a Nephi figure: the younger brother chosen to rule over his family; more faithful than even his parents. If that’s the case, is this then an instance of JS writing about justification of prior misdeeds, potentially murder? Yikes.
This story fits in today with the story of Abraham marrying his wife’s handmaid (which didn’t go well) and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. Whether it’s Abraham or Nephi, if God told me to kill someone I would simply respond that he is God, and can kill them himself and there’s no need for me to split my soul by being involved in the process. YMMV.
I remember talking with an adjunct professor of religion at BYU. He taught the Book of Mormon–some 20-25 years ago–to a group of students from the Middle East–and when they discussed the killing of Laban their collective response was: why did it take so long for Nephi to decide what to do? From their perspective Nephi would’ve been justified in his actions because of Laban’s crimes against him and his family.
In that light, it becomes even more clear that the reason for Nephi’s initial resistance to the command to kill Laban had less to do with the morality of the situation and more to do with Nephi’s personal desire not to kill another person. And he sets forth that reason in clear terms when he writes: “but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man.” Notice that he doesn’t say: but I’ve been taught all my life “thou shalt not kill.”
And so, even though we’ve come along way (baby) in our modern culture — and digressed in other ways but that’s a different topic — we need to be willing to step into the shoes of the ancients in order to understand the Lord’s dealings with them. Otherwise we might fail to learn what the scriptures are really trying to teach us.
“ A few years back, I learned just how difficult it is to decapitate someone (secondhand, not by my own experience).”
Thank you, Chadwick, for the literal lol.
@Jack
Max Waters, my BOM prof in 1978, told the class the same story of the group of Middle Eastern students having a huddle before asking the same question.
Was Max also your prof? Or maybe it’s one of those faith promoting legends that makes its way around CES/BYU Religion Dpt.
I’ve heard that under the law of the land, Nephi would have been justified in killing Laban, for multiple reasons.
So legal, yes. Moral….?
No matter how much faith/belief I have in God- knowing what I know about mental health and schizophrenia, if I ever felt like I needed to kill another person or sacrifice one of my children- I hope my answer would be “Nope! Not gonna do that.” Because it’s much more likely that I’m crazy and delusional, than that God is talking to me telling me to do those things. I feel like that is something that should be taught at church- “If you’re ever hearing voices/promptings to harm another individual, don’t do it. Go seek mental health at the emergency room.”
BeenThere,
It was A. LeGrand (Buddy) Richards who told me the story–and it was his own personal experience that he shared with me. This would’ve happened in the 90s–so it’s interesting that two different professors had the same experience with students from the Middle East.
Oh, I agree, Cosmo. Mental illness runs rampant in my family. I’ve told my kids that if they ever feel the “spirit” telling them to do something goofy to come talk to me first. I know–I’ve learned the hard way.
@Jack and @BeenThere,
Nibley reported exactly the same reaction from Arab students back in the 60’s, with one of them asking, “Why did this Nephi wait so long to cut off Laban’s head?” (https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=2&article=1011&context=mi&type=additional). So either we have multiple students coincidentally asking the same question over a span of decades (and it’s not an obvious question, since the BoM relates only a brief interchange between Nephi and the Spirit), or the story has been coopted.
BeenThere,
Just to clarify–it’s certainly possible that I’m conflating different memories involving Professor Richards. Even so, we spent enough time together (working on various projects and whatnot) that I’d be able to sense whether or not the memory were discombobulated.
re. bwbarnett
1. The Lord Does His Own Killing
2. Heavenly-induced amnesia
3. Heavenly induced temporary coma
4. Inside job bribery (yah, I know, their precious things are now gone, but they wouldn’t be if the Lord had come up with this plan in the first place)
5. Frame Laban for a crime, getting him tossed into jail. Staying in there until they are long gone.
I timed it. That took me under 3 minutes…and I ain’t even warmed up. That was fun (slip out the back, Jack. make a new plan, Stan…)
Bishop Bill, a timely post, given that we just studied Genesis 22 and were encouraged to take Abraham as a role model in his willingness to sacrifice his son. The Church has consistently held the position that if God wants you to kill someone, you should kill them.
Is this really a message that Church wants to promote? Let’s do the math. How many times *in this dispensation* has God actually wanted someone to kill, vs. the number of times that someone *thought* that God wanted them to kill? The Church offers no examples in the former category, but the number of cases in the latter category is horrifically large, including several of our own faith (Chad Daybell, Ron Lafferty, Mountain Meadows) and many more of other faiths (Osama bin Laden).
Perhaps a better message would be that some scriptural precedents should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if they violate our own moral compass.
Great post and comments.
I think Mormons are generally pretty ends-justify-means in our morality. I think it’s fine to be pragmatic but obviously there’s a line. Murder crosses it.
Overall I’ve come to the conclusion that if we wouldn’t accept this kind of behavior and justification from Warren Jeffs, we shouldn’t from Nephi (or Joseph Smith, or anyone else). IMO there are some lines that should not be crossed and we can’t give some people a free pass just because they are or claim to be or we think they are prophets; I don’t think a different standard of morality applies to them. I think it’s very dangerous to go down a path where some people aren’t subject to the rules that everyone else is because of their status.
So, murder to get a book? Nope. Polygamy? Nope. Sacrificing a child [post on that coming later this week actually]? Nope.
“these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed. “Wherefore, he said that these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time.” ( 1 Ne. 5:10, 17-19 .)
Go forth to all nations? Never perish? Never dimmed by time? Once authenticated, can you imagine the questions they would answer?
But where are they? Why haven’t they come forth? Some say “not until the Millennium”. But that seems rather a waste. If their purpose is to spread faith throughout the world, well, they’ve kind of waited too long during the Second Coming, haven’t they? I mean, Jesus has already appeared to everyone on Earth (in some way) and the heavens have been wide-opened. They would still be a fun read – a curiosity I suppose. We could find out the rest of what Zenos and the other totally forgotten prophets wrote about the coming of Jesus but, you know, He’s already here so it’s a bit anti-climatic. I’m not even sure that after Jesus comes that there will be “nations”; all will be part of The Kingdom Of God On Earth, I suspect. Maybe not even “tongues”, but plenty of kindreds.
You know, if the Millennium is just around the corner, they really should be here by now. At least, I think so.
I don’t believe in murder but I’m haunted by the times I was more engaged in Church than as a parent (callings, standards etc.).
Perhaps the similar stories that @Jack & @BeenThere’s 2 different BYU professors told (1990s & 1978) were actually the 2 different professors’ retelling of Hugh Nibley’s reported experience in 1946 with his students from the Middle East in his Book of Mormon class:
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Did_Nephi_commit_%22cold_blooded_murder%22_when_he_killed_Laban%3F
@Sasso
That’s the story. After four+ decades, I don’t want to definitely say that Bro. Waters misappropriated the story for himself – I could easily have lost that detail as I’ve thought about it and recounted it over the years.
At any rate, it has definitely been told to hundreds of little Zoobies over the years. – justifying murder when commanded from on high. As @Cadwick said – let God do his own killing.
@Seeker Under 3 minutes! Nice 😉 1-3 are essentially God taking care of it Himself in some fashion, and I agree, that is worth thinking about. There are other scriptural examples of God taking care of things like this Himself, so why not in this instance?? I don’t know. For me personally, I’ll probably dismiss other options, although I’ll admit they are fun to consider. Thanks for the response.
A thought I had… If someone is chasing me with the intent to kill me, and I decide to turn around and fight and end up killing him during the fight, am I justified in that killing? What if the fight lasts a long time and my attacker becomes too tired to continue, so I kill him? Am I justified in that killing? What if my attacker voluntarily stops attacking me and takes a few steps back, and I rush forward and kill him? What if he turns and runs away and I chase him down and kill him? What if either of us runs away from the fight, successfully escapes, and then I see him the next day and sneak up to him and kill him? Is the only situation where I am justified is actually during combat where both are able and willing to fight?
^ IMHO, the answer to your last question is yes.
@bwbarnett recommend calling 911 rather than chasing your attacker down or waiting to kill him the next day …
From a legal perspective you’d only be justified if you were protecting yourself in that moment. Not if you thought someone was out to get you or had been so you kill them later.
And in no case would “God told me to kill this person to recover property” be a defense.
As for the cultural appropriateness of the killing, that’s fine and I definitely think we should contextualize things. The problem tho is when we contextualize purely to justify and to dodge facing the real question of did Nephi make a mistake? Apologists contextualize to try to rationalize everything away and I don’t like that. Scholars contextualize to provide greater understanding without the need to defend.
And regardless it’s a story we tend to use to show that sometimes God asks us to do things that otherwise would be wrong but are justified “because God told me so.”. And I think that’s an unhealthy and in fact dangerous thing to teach.
@Elisa I think maybe in Nephi’s case the 911 call would have been routed to Laban’s residence and answered by one of his guards 😉 Regarding your legal perspective, that’s kind of what I was thinking for our day and age, and I agree that the rule of law is best. The “because God told me to” argument does not hold water. If there were some way to be absolutely sure that God had told me to do something that I thought was questionable, or illegal, I believe I would still do it. For me, it would have to be more than just a warm feeling inside. It would more likely have to be an actual appearance, ground shaking, etc., type of experience.
Sorry to belabor this, but I’m trying to wrap my head around this question of “When is it *okay* to kill someone?” or “When am I justified in killing someone?” I’m fine accepting the idea that maybe there are too many different scenarios, but I’d like to understand some basic principles. The two scenarios that I think most of us here would agree on are:
1. Self-defense (family defense). If someone is in the act of trying to kill (or seriously harm??) me or my family, I am justified in killing them to prevent them from killing me/my family.
2. War time.
What is it about war time that makes killing someone justified? Millions have been killed in war when they were not actually in hand-to-hand combat trying to actively kill the person who killed them. I drop a bomb on an enemy military base and kill 100 soldiers. Is that a sin in God’s eyes? Would I be convicted of murder in one of our earthly courts? I would say no and no. So why is that? One explanation I have thought of is that my enemy has made known his current and future intentions. He has let me know that he intends to harm/kill me should he have the opportunity to do so in the future. What other principle could we apply to war time killing that makes killing justifiable?
So is it okay to kill someone if they have let you know that they intend to kill you should the opportunity ever arise? Could that be a definition of war – a declaration that I intend to kill you if I have the chance?
@bwbarnett, I actually don’t know that war killing is justified. But I think that accountability for any associated sin will fall on the people who made the decisions to go to war, not on the soldiers who may have killed people carrying out orders. Either way, I think it’s clear that participating in state-sanctioned violence has serious consequences for the people we put into that position and that as a religious body we should be looking for ways to avoid they kind of violence rather Han trying to justify it (which I think we do too much).
But still sticking with the point I originally made which is that claiming that God told you to kill someone is not a good look and I don’t think we should have different moral rules for prophets than for everybody else.
As for someone declaring an intent to kill you, get a restraining order and be ready to protect yourself if they ever attempt it. But if they are lying on the street drunk I don’t think you get to kill them …
Late to the conversation, but interest piqued by bwbarnett’s questions.
If you are interested in what international law has to say on the matter (full disclosure: I am not an attorney), I think the Geneva Conventions get as close as we can to presenting a this-earthly-life perspective of managing war in a humane way (huge guffaw) and determining who are the actual combatants and victims.
There is a summary here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols#:~:text=The%20Geneva%20Conventions%20are%20a,)%2C%20or%20incapable%20of%20fighting.&text=This%20convention%20produced%20a%20treaty,and%20sick%20soldiers%20during%20wartime.
As with all things international, these protocols only apply to signatories, i.e, nations that did not sign them are not bound by them. Also, nations that did sign them are only really bound by them if they lack sufficient power in the international arena. Because of the huge numbers of civilian casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, for example, it is a good thing for American leaders that the nation defeated Japan given that these were unquestionably war crimes. Hypothetically, while Lt. Calley was convicted of murder for his actions in Vietnam, there is no guarantee the American government would have turned him over to an international tribunal had the military not decided to pursue a court martial.
None of this may be helpful with the moral side of the equation. Thou shalt not kill is pretty clear, but also overly simplistic as you have already identified a couple of scenarios where the admonition is problematic to apply. I will say that while Christianity has gone down a hard-and-fast-rules avenue with the 10 commandments as the prime example, Buddhism largely lacks these kinds of rules, preferring instead a “make the right decision for the current situation” approach. If you, as a husband and parent, were forced to take a life to protect who you love, it will certainly be defensible, if tragic and pitiable, in Buddhist thought.
As for you original question about what it is okay to kill? Well, okay to whom? I think you mean God, but the books we call scripture provide one strong admonition and thousands of bloody counterexamples, so it’s really hard, bordering on impossible, to parse the question and find a satisfying answer. I think it’s never okay, as it will usually always exact a horrible toll on the parties involved. It is, however, sometimes defensible if never clean and orderly. We live now in a culture where throwing around the threat of death is a commonplace, and I wonder if people have really thought through how that will actually play out.
War in and of itself is highly unethical. Most wars were not fought for social equity or to free the oppressed. Most wars were fought by the common man defending the power, land, and status quo of some ruler. In the modern age, we fight a lot of wars over hypotheticals. IMO, the wars of the Book of Mormon were fought over a misunderstanding. We’ve had to deal with a bloody history and we tell ourselves stories to try and justify it all, but I don’t know that even the ends of war justify the means. In the examples bwbarnett gives above, I believe everyone will have to be held accountable for their actions, but trust that God will understand the difficulty of it all and apply loads of mercy. Many were doing the best they could in a horrible situation, and most who are called upon to carry out such horrible things are forever changed, and not for the good.
Really the only part of the Book of Mormon I enjoy is the story of the parents of the stripling warriors. Many of them lost their lives, but that act seemed to be the most effective catalyst at breaking down stereotypes, building bridges, and healing wounds. In the modern day, I have often wondered what would have happened if after 9/11 we would have turned the other cheek. I recognize it’s easy for me to say this as someone who was not directly impacted by the horror of that day (other than having to take off my shoes to board an airplane), and also understanding that there really is no perfect response to terrorism.
But generally speaking, count me out of the “war is a justified reason to kill someone” camp.
For me, one of the concerns in these kinds of discussions broadly is that in practical application it too often seems to be something like “How much can I get away with if I say or honestly believe that God told me to do it?” Maybe I’m naïve or simply missing something. Maybe I’m taking this down a track the discussion wasn’t meant to follow. But I’d much rather frame my life in terms of “How much good can I do if I say or honestly believe that God told me to do it?” You can argue in almost any situation that SOMETHING good will come of an action. I’m not sure that’s enough.
There’s a wondrous irony in the fact that Laman was cursed because he was a murderer in his heart while Nephi was justified even though he took a man’s life. There’s a profound lesson there that ethics alone cannot elucidate. Yes a strong moral compass will keep us from behaving like the Lafferty brothers and other unbridled kooks. But on the other hand, if we draw the line for God — in that we are unwilling to allow him to cross our own ethical boundaries — then we are impeding our coming to know him as well as we might–IMO.
Thankfully the severe trial that Nephi experienced seems to be reserved for the leaders of nations and dispensations. But be that as it may, while none of us are likely to be required to kill anyone the Lord always seems to find a way to tug at our heart strings–in ways that are tailored with infinite precision to fit each and every individual.
That said, it seems to me that the story of getting the plates can at least serve as a type of sorts–even if it’s only in how it seems to suggest that the Lord’s ways are not always our ways.
Lots to think about. Thanks for sharing your opinions. For me it seems like there are plenty of gray areas, which I suspect is why the Lord just blanketly says, “Thou shalt not kill”. Then occasionally we see exceptions to that rule pop up in scripture. There must be a set of principles God follows that make it okay to kill someone, since He has killed people before. But perhaps we humans are not capable of operating on those principles, or can’t be trusted to follow them properly, so we just get the “Thou shalt not kill” principle.
Part of the difficulty with this entire passage of scripture lies in Nephi’s response. He is simply told to slay Laban, but not instructed by what means. Granted, the stress of the situation described in the scriptures doesn’t promote sober reflection, but one thing is clear: decapitation is an act of astonishing violence. Consequently, did anything in Laban’s prior comportment vis-á-vis Lehi and his family warrant such violence? Fly-specking the Law of Moses for legal justification ignores the central idea of “an eye for an eye,” &c. In other words: don’t overreact; be measured in your response; be proportional (i.e., don’t escalate).
Perhaps this is why we don’t have record of Nephi’s explanation to his parents of exactly how he came to possess the plates. (“So, Nephi, how did things go? Did Laben cooperate?”) Not a discussion I would like to have.
@jack, and I find “God’s ways are not our ways” a very troubling line of thinking when it comes to basic morality like not killing.
Why do we trust Nephi as a narrator here (who wrote this account many years later)? Maybe he acted impulsively and desperately and later added that justification to absolve himself. Why is he as a narrator beyond reproach?
I’m not suggesting we judge or condemn Nephi – that’s where the historical and cultural context comes in. But why not grapple with him as a real person (if you believe he was a real person) who like everyone else made mistakes and may have rationalized them in his account? And hold that out as one possible explanation for what really happened? What reason do I have to trust someone who claimed God told them to do something terrible? And where would we draw the line at who we allow to make such a claim?
Like I said in my first comment, if we wouldn’t accept it coming from Warren Jeffs I am jot inclined to give Nephi a free pass.
@Jack
I knew Dan Lafferty. The road to “unbridled kook” was paved step-by-step with thinking he was following god’s will – starting with ultra right-wing politics.
This is the problem with people that think they or anyone else is speaking for God without some heavy critical thinking. What difference did in make to Laban or Brenda and her daughter? None. Documenting the path to murder in scripture doesn’t make it right.
BeenThere,
Yeah it seems like the Lafferty/Daybell types are driven by an irresistible compulsion that stems from an uncontainable narcissism. On the one hand, I think they probably know enough–somewhere in their souls–that what they’re doing is wrong. But on the other–they’re just plain nuts.
Having said that, I don’t think Nephi fits that description at all. It’s clear (to me) that he was of a sound mind–which, incidentally, is one of the fruits of the spirit. And on top of that, I don’t think he could ascend into heaven while laden with the sin of murder.
Elisa: “Like I said in my first comment, if we wouldn’t accept it coming from Warren Jeffs I am jot inclined to give Nephi a free pass.”
I’d be careful not to assume that because maladjusted people seek to justify their crimes by the actions of ancient prophets that they–the prophets–could not have been acting in good faith. Maybe that’s not exactly what you’re driving at. But even so, I think it’s a point of logic that must be addressed–especially in light of the fact that false prophets generally try to set themselves up as the real McCoy.
Nephi committed a whole host of crimes during his brass plates escapade. Burglary, 1st degree murder, identity theft, larceny under false pretenses, assault and battery, unlawful restraint, and kidnapping. His case doesn’t bode well in court.
@Jack
No doubt, Dan Lafferty ended up in crazy town. But he spent 30+ years looking like a devout member of the church. He married a woman who had several children and sacrificed to lift their temporal situation. He was a very concerned father. I ran into him at the temple several times. He often spoke in terms of seeking answers to his family’s concerns and the guidance he felt he received.
Then he started to hang with folks that thought the government was impinging on our liberties. He felt God was on his side. Incidentally, in some parts of Utah County there are ‘progressive’ members leaving the church – but five times as many conservatives are leaving because the brethren are “too” liberal.
So my point is that you seem to be characterizing genuine bad actors in the church by their ultimate atrocities without taking account the breadcrumbs they followed along the way to getting there – breadcrumbs dropped by church teachings and policies: it’s better that one man perish . . . God’s ways are higher than ours, etc.
I’m very troubled by “a sound mind being a fruit of the spirit”. That would imply that those not possessed of a sound mind lack the spirit. The notion that mental illness is the result of spiritual deficiency is not only a pernicious untruth, it is against current church doctrine. BRM doesn’t get his way anymore.
“So my point is that you seem to be characterizing genuine bad actors in the church by their ultimate atrocities without taking account the breadcrumbs they followed along the way to getting there – breadcrumbs dropped by church teachings and policies…”
I don’t think we have to worry too much about those breadcrumbs members into the throes of compulsion. How many Laffertys and Daybells are there among the entire membership? Four people out of sixteen million is only the tiniest percentage.
“Incidentally, in some parts of Utah County there are ‘progressive’ members leaving the church – but five times as many conservatives are leaving because the brethren are “too” liberal.”
Could be–I don’t know. I suppose it depends on how you figure things. My guess is that there are at least five times as many conservative members as there are progressives in the church. Even so, I don’t really care what the church membership looks like politically so long as we’re following the Lord’s anointed. That being said, I’ve been greatly disappointed in the reaction of many conservatives to the counsel of the First Presidency on the pandemic. I have to say that sometimes it’s embarrassing to be a conservative.
“The notion that mental illness is the result of spiritual deficiency is not only a pernicious untruth, it is against current church doctrine.”
I agree. And as one who has struggle most of my life with mental illness–I can assure you that it is *not* a result of spiritual deficiency. To be of a sound mind is only one of many fruits of the spirit. Because one may not excel in that particular fruit doesn’t mean she can’t in any other. Even so, I can tell you from my own experience that the spirit can bestow soundness of mind–I’ve actually experienced once or twice. 😀
“…those breadcrumbs *leading* members into the throes of compulsion.”
@ Robert
“Bishop Bill, a timely post, given that we just studied Genesis 22 and were encouraged to take Abraham as a role model in his willingness to sacrifice his son. The Church has consistently held the position that if God wants you to kill someone, you should kill them.
Is this really a message that Church wants to promote? …
Perhaps a better message would be that some scriptural precedents should be taken with a grain of salt, especially if they violate our own moral compass.”
Good tie-in, Robert. Other interpretations of the Abraham and Isaac story are possible. Could this have been a discernment problem, not a test from God?
A good god does not require human sacrifice.
Not worshipping a false god is an underlying theme within the Old Testament, as well.
A healthier teaching to instill is that all are given the Light of Christ. Follow the good. Overcome our base or misguided impulses. Discern good over bad.
Also, super insightful, @Bishop Bill, that Caiaphas used the same words and rationale to justify Christ’s crucifixion.
We recently finished 1st Nephi as part of our daily family BoM reading. Each time we go through 1st Nephi I gain greater empathy for Leman and Lemual. Nephi was a bit of a holier-than-thou, self-righteous prick. I mean what is really wrong with having a bit of fun on a monotonous sailing voyage?
It is also really suspicious how Jacob had to reprimand the Nephite group just a few decades after landing on the evils of multiple wives. Assuming the account to be mostly true, the most reasonable assumption is that Nephi modeled the behavior by taking multipke natives as wives. Nephi seems to have ceded his role as spiritual leader when he crowned himself king. I’m more and more convinced that the BoM is really a cautionary tale of how God’s “chosen” people ultimately reject him and the principles of righteousness. The BoM undercuts the notion that TCOJCOLDS cannot fall.
The perspective of Jack and Bwbarnett while chilling, is perfectly logical from devoted members of a church that teaches that the highest virtue is not morality or ethics, or the well being of others, but rather obedience.
@Sean Let’s be clear that it’s not just “obedience”, but “obedience to God”. I find it hard to argue against obedience to God, regardless of what He asks. How can you argue against that? Now I definitely understand that there are many questions about what is God’s will and what isn’t, how to know if something is God’s will or not, etc., etc., and many of the comments above have pointed that out. I totally agree that the “because God told me to do it”, is HIGHLY problematic. I understand that obeying a prophet, or even local priesthood leader with the belief that God is inspiring them can be problematic. But don’t try to paint me in the wrong light by sarcastically suggesting that my obedience to God makes me immoral, unethical, and not concerned about the well-being of others. You are absolutely wrong on all accounts. My point is that the principle of obedience to God is 100% true and that obedience to God trumps everything else. It is of more value than morality and ethics as defined by a fallen and finite human race, it is more important than what we perceive to be the well-being of others.
So I’m happy to discuss the fact that knowing God’s will is difficult and problematic, but as to whether obedience to God is secondary to anything else, nope.
@bwbarnett,
“My point is that the principle of obedience to God is 100% true and that obedience to God trumps everything else. It is of more value than morality and ethics as defined by a fallen and finite human race, it is more important than what we perceive to be the well-being of others.”
Nope. Completely wrong.
bwbarnett,
If God is good, then I agree that obedience to God is moral. But without first determining if God is good, it’s difficult to know if obedience to God is good. For example, was the priesthood ban God’s idea or man’s idea? Loads of members believe it was God’s idea (I’m not one of them). If it’s God’s idea, then I’m not sure obedience to that God is moral and should trump everything else, including my relationship with people of color in this example.
I hope God is moral, and that obedience to him is therefore moral. But I don’t know that.
Bwbarnett,
Christ said: “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”
Full Stop. That is the sum total of God’s will and our obligation to follow it as it pertains to others.
Anything else is a person’s attempt to use God to justify their own selfishness, bigotry, fear or some other immoral, unethical or evil behavior.
My beliefs and expressions of opinion here on this particular subject are based on a few things. I believe that:
1. God exists
2. God is good/just/true
3. God knows everything
4. God is perfect in every way
Of course, if you do not believe these things, you are perfectly justified in saying like @Freckles did “Nope. Completely wrong.” But if these four statements are in fact true, and I believe they are, then I don’t understand how anyone could argue that obedience to a being who is good, all-knowing and perfect is not the highest priority. My proposition would be that if you don’t believe obedience to God is priority 1, then you must not believe the four statements I listed above to be true.
@Chadwick: I don’t know if the priesthood ban was God’s idea or not. What I do know is that *if* it were God’s idea, then it was just. I may not understand it, but He must since He knows everything. Was it kind? Was it morale? Was it fair? Our entire existence and mortal life here on earth was God’s idea, so unkindness and unfairness must be okay/acceptable since we all experience it to some degree. And “no”, I’m not suggesting that the unfairnesses I experience in my white, male, privileged life are comparable to those experienced by marginalized groups of people. I readily accept the fact that there are many, many people who suffer more unfairness and unkindness than I ever have or most likely ever will. I just wanted to point out that it was God’s idea that we all come to this unfair and unkind existence in the first place, so judging whether God is good based on the priesthood ban possibly being His idea may not be a good way to determine His goodness.
@Sean I’m not sure where you are going with that. How does that fit into our current discussion here? I’m sure it does, I’m just not sure where you’re going with it.
“1. God exists
2. God is good/just/true
3. God knows everything
4. God is perfect in every way”
Ergo, if you receive a command or a spiritual impression that you think may be from God, but it does not seem good, just, or true, it follows that it does not come from God and should not be obeyed. How do you judge it as good, just, or true? By your own conscience and ethical standards. If you get an impression to murder and rob a sleeping drunkard in an alley, you may be sure that impression is not from God and it is your duty, as a man whose highest priority is obedience to a good, all-knowing, and perfect God, not to murder and rob that man. I think as commenters we all agree that it should be our highest priority to be good, just, and true to all people as we understand goodness, justice, and truth. The difficulty is when “commands from God” go against those standards. In that case, it is our duty not to obey those commands. It is a soldier’s duty to know the difference between lawful and unlawful orders, and to not obey unlawful orders. It is an individual’s duty to know the difference between “commands from God” that are good, just, and true, and those that are not, and to not obey those that are not.
bwbarnet
I believe God exists, I believe he/she is perfectly moral and just. I do not believe that you, Russell Nelson, Joseph Smith or Nephi is nearly as good at determining what God is saying to you/them. Therefore, anything that violates Christ’s directive to love others and serve them, is your/their voice and not God;’s commandment or will.
@Sean Yes I agree that few (or maybe none??) of us is very good at differentiating God’s voice from our own. Due to this, it is best in 99.9999% of cases to follow Christ’s directive as you have outlined. However, the subject of this post is dealing with one of the few 0.0001% cases, that of Nephi being asked by God to kill Laban.
The OP and many commenters are suggesting that Nephi was not asked by God to kill Laban. Various reasons have been given as to why they believe this to be the case, but they pretty much all boil down to, God would never do that. I’m saying that I believe it is possible for God to ask someone to kill someone else and that there are examples of God killing people (the flood, Sodom & Gomorrah, a Lamanite who lifted his sword to kill sleeping Ammon). Let’s put aside for a second all the periphery items (wacko’s claiming God told them to kill someone, the difficulties in knowing whether God is speaking to me or not, contradictory commandments,…) and just ask yourself, “Do I think there could ever be a situation in which God would ask someone to kill another person?” or just “Is it possible for God to ask someone to kill someone else?”
My answer is “yes”. If your answer is “no”, fine. We will disagree here.
@Pontius Python says: “Ergo, if you receive a command or a spiritual impression that you think may be from God, but it does not seem good, just, or true, it follows that it does not come from God and should not be obeyed.” — Yeah this is tricky and extremely dangerous, which is why I mentioned that for me it would have to be more than a *spiritual impression*, more than *I think this may be from God*. It would have to be more of an earth-shaking, angel appearing, thundering voice kind of experience so that I knew, rather than I think.
bwbarnett, if God needs someone dead, you’ve pointed out that He is very capable of doing so. What is the need for suggesting there is ever a time or place to violate one of His most basic commandments (thou shalt not kill) when there is no other exigency (lawful combat, defense of self or others from death or great bodily harm, etc.)? Remember, Nephi didn’t have an angel present telling him to cut off Laban’s head. All he had was a voice in his head.
“It would have to be more of an earth-shaking, angel appearing, thundering voice kind of experience so that I knew, rather than I think.”
And even then I’m not sure I’d be persuaded. Remember 2 Corinthians 11 , “for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.,” etc. For me this is a real by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them kind of thing. Remember Moroni 7,:
12 Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.
13 But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.
14 Wherefore, take heed, my beloved brethren, that ye do not judge that which is evil to be of God, or that which is good and of God to be of the devil.
15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
The whole chop-off-Laban’s-head story doesn’t pass the Moroni 7 test, IMHO. YMMV.
@Not a Cougar says: “What is the need for suggesting there is ever a time or place to violate one of His most basic commandments (thou shalt not kill)”
Yeah great question. The quick answer is, “I don’t know.” I should probably add that question to my list of questions that I’d like an answer to someday. If we were going to try to explore it though, I’d have to assume that there are conditions that, when met, make it okay in God’s eyes to break that commandment based on the fact that He has killed people before. There must be some “higher law” that takes precedence. Why would God ask someone to kill rather than take care of it Himself? Again, I don’t know, but He must have a reason. I’m of the opinion that it is perfectly reasonable for us to question whether something is from God or not. If we’re not sure, probably best to err on the side of caution. BUT, if we are SURE it is from God, then obey God regardless of what is being asked.
And yes, according to the account, Nephi did not have an angel present telling him to cut off Laban’s head. But one could argue that within the past 24 hours he had an angel in his presence and that in the previous chapter there is an account of the Lord speaking six verses unto him. He most likely recognized God’s voice better than most of us. Not a slam dunk, but a pretty good case in favor of Nephi’s ability to differentiate between his own voice and God’s voice.
@Pontius Python I can definitely see your point, but I’m not ready to cast Nephi as a cold-blooded murderer. I believe God told him to, as Nephi claimed, but I don’t claim to understand why and I don’t claim to know how it fits in with Moroni 7, or other scriptures/commandments that seem to contradict such behavior. Based on your admission that the “whole chop-off-Laban’s-head story doesn’t pass the Moroni 7 test”, I’m assuming you think Nephi is guilty of murder and will inherit the eternal consequences of murder?
You know, the whole “ye shall know them by their fruits” argument, which is largely what Moroni 7 is saying, seems to justify Nephi rather than condemn him if you look at his entire life rather than this one difficult-to-understand episode.
@Pontius Python I’m with you here. I see this test as the only check against crazy.
@BWBarnett, I’m not sure that the fruits of Nephi’s life were that great. He essentially failed at his mission to keep his family together and righteous. Hence his lament in the psalm of Nephi. And we have no idea what would have happened if he had not killed Laban. But that’s something for another day …
@bwbarnett – Yes, I am calling Nephi a cold-blooded murderer who should face some sort of eternal consequences for killing Laban. Cognitive dissonance is a fact of life: for you, your cognitive dissonance with the Laban episode is reduced by accepting Nephi’s telling at face value. For me, my cognitive dissonance is reduced by calling a spade a spade. Nephi was a murderer. Full stop.
Saying that what looks in every way like a cold-blooded act of murder, desecration of a body, robbery, impersonation, and a dozen other crimes was actually nothing of the sort because it was a commandment of the Lord strikes me as an act of doublethink as great as swallowing “war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.”
As for “ye shall know them by their fruits” justifying Nephi rather than condemning him when you look at his whole life, I don’t buy that either. So Nephi got away from the scene of the crime with the loot, went so far away that nobody could follow him, and had a lot of kids. So his kids and his people thought he was a good husband and father and king. Does that excuse the crime? Not one whit. Cain also got away from the scene of the crime, went so far away nobody could follow, and had a lot of kids. His people probably liked him too. Does that excuse his crime? Not one whit. Your perspective is essentially saying that if you can make crime pay and get away with it, it’s all good. That if nobody can pin the crime on you and you’re active in the community, you’re good. That if you rob a bank and donate the loot to charity, the big donation to charity atones for the bank robbery. That if you commit a horrendous crime at the start of your career and the proceeds from that crime are the foundation of a long career in philanthropy and community service, you shouldn’t be punished for that crime. I believe in second chances for people who have committed crimes – even if they’ve killed somebody – but first they have to do their time according to the law, and Nephi didn’t. (Yes, I know his family was in danger. But surely, as has been said many times in this thread, God could have arranged things so there was a better way to get the plates.)
To me, a God who can say “thou shalt not kill” and then say “thou shalt utterly destroy” (to use a JS juxtaposition) is indistinguishable from no god at all. A moral code that can flex that far is indistinguishable from no moral code at all.
Consider Macbeth. He was a bad king, but would he have been justified killing Duncan to take the throne if he had turned out to be a good king? Of course not. Macbeth was told by revelation to do it. So he has pretty much the same defense as Nephi. True, in the play it’s demonic figures (witches) rather than angelic figures (Holy Ghost) that tell him to, but to an external observer who didn’t see the witches and didn’t hear the still small voice the two cases are indistinguishable. But no:
“Will all great Neptune’s ocean wash this blood
Clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather
The multitudinous seas in incarnadine,
Making the green one red.”
I can only – barely – stand the Laban episode and a lot of other scripture stories on the Saturday morning cartoon / Saturday afternoon action flick level of morality. They’re thrilling tales! Dashing heroes and derring-do! Laugh-out-loud cases of mistaken identity! I can’t accept them as factual accounts of historical figures who really existed, really doing things in ways that are really morally approved by a God I can believe in. I can’t accept them as mythic fables in which the actions of the protagonists are taken for granted as always really and truly the morally and ethically best way of resolving the situation. But even Batman has a no-kill rule, and much of the drama in a Batman story comes from figuring out how he’s going to do the thing, solve the problem and right the wrongs, without killing anybody. Because that’s the one thing you can never, never undo.
@Pontius Python Both of our arguments hinge on whether the killing of Laban was God’s idea or not. I’m hopeful that someday we will find out. Until then, I suppose we’ll be at odds with each other. Regarding you saying: “Your perspective is essentially saying that if you can make crime pay and get away with it, it’s all good.”, I don’t know how you jumped to that conclusion, along with the tirade of examples that followed that. Walk me through your logic there. How did you get from “I believe that if God told him to do it, then it must have been okay.” to “I believe that if you can get away with a crime, more power to ya”?
@bwbarnett – Sorry, I admit I got a little carried away there in internet-posting. My comment was a bit of a tirade. Simply put, if you tell the story of Nephi and Laban as just the observable facts, neglecting any supernatural communications that inform the decision making processes of the participants, it looks like Nephi got away with the crime of the century and made it pay. I don’t believe that you believe that “if you can get away with a crime, more power to ya.” I’m just pointing that out as the reduction ad absurdum of the Laban case.
@Pontius Python gotcha thanks 😉 And thanks for your perspective on all this.