Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
Letfreedumbring
captain of 100
Posts: 267

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Letfreedumbring »

D&C 98 came long after D&C 89, we have to examine Laban through the context of that scriptural passage first.
Did Laban ingest strong drink? The answer is clearly yes. Was he weary and had fainted as a result? Clearly yesses again.

So we have an affirmative on all three counts of this passage. I would say three strikes and you're out.

Sorry Shawn Henry but by my deductive reasoning he was marked for death. If Nephi didn't do it some good samaritan would have. Surprised in addition to wearing masks, we haven't mentioned this as a way to show service already.

User avatar
Alexander
the Great
Posts: 4590
Location: amongst the brotherhood of the Black Robed Regiment; cocked hat and cocked rifle

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Alexander »

Alexander wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:36 pm Laban pursues Nephi and his brothers with intent to slay; steals their property; and then being in high position, pridefully shows off the sacred relics of the temple treasury (he was supposed to guard) and his newly acquired stolen property, as he collapses on the floor, drunk with stolen wine.

Poor and defenseless Laban; so undeserving of punishment. How dare Nephi kill him.
The brothers sought first the plates by earnest negotiation (which failed), and then bartering (failed again).
Laban refused each time, sought to slay them, and then stole their possessions (purchasing power; gold, silver, wine).
Laban was punished by robbery and death.


[Laban was guilty of:
-lusting after the possessions of Nephi & Co.
-stealing those items
-bearing false witness to the treasury guards of Laman and his brother’s intentions
-forcefully trying to murder Nephi and Co.
-unbecoming drunken and haughty manner]





Book of Mormon oppugnants: "well, actually Nephi didn't forgive Laban 3 times, so obviously he was deluded by an evil spirit. See, had Nephi waited and forgiven Laban one more time, the Lord would have.... *checks notes*.... delivered him into his hands... uh"




Like damn, the angel literally promised Nephi and his brethren that Laban would be delivered into their hands, and you doubt this assurance.

User avatar
Alexander
the Great
Posts: 4590
Location: amongst the brotherhood of the Black Robed Regiment; cocked hat and cocked rifle

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Alexander »

marc wrote: December 6th, 2022, 3:10 pm Laban had broken the Law of Moses twice where Nephi was concerned which was punishable by death. People were stoned for less than what Laban had done to Nephi and his brothers, but Laban had already committed an offense toward God:

17 For he (Lehi) knew that Jerusalem must be destroyed, because of the wickedness of the people.
18 For behold, they have rejected the words of the prophets. Wherefore, if my father should dwell in the land after he hath been commanded to flee out of the land, behold, he would also perish. Wherefore, it must needs be that he flee out of the land.

As the custodian of the plates, Laban should have known better. He had no excuse.
Truly a "take away their talent, yea, even that which they have received, and give unto them who shall have more abundantly" and a "And the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood” moment.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by cab »

Mindfields wrote: December 6th, 2022, 3:55 pm God commanding people to kill other people is bull shiz in my opinion. More like people killing people and blaming it on God after the fact to somehow absolve themselves.
I think we can’t begin to know the complete purposes of God. If God doesn’t command people to kill other people then we need to scrap a large portion of the Old Testament. That said, the idea of blood atonement is bull shiz IMO.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Juliet »

Spiritual beliefs have to have a somewhere to live, and at the end of the day, most often they live via the law of the jungle.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

Luke wrote: December 6th, 2022, 4:08 pm He didn't have access to the Brass Plates at that point, though.
Correct, but that was what the Southern Kingdom was likely using, what scribes made copies from, unless we suspect they hid the records and preached something else entirely. That is possible, but if it was passed down from Abraham to Joseph it likely would have stayed as an oral tradition. It's hard to forget something with such specific numbers.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

sushi_chef wrote: December 6th, 2022, 4:21 pm "11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; ..
" alma 14

the same spirit.
That's a good point, Alma uses the same language. I hope it's the same spirit.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

ransomme wrote: December 6th, 2022, 5:15 pm It wasn't about Nephi vs Laban and Nephi needing to forgive thrice, it was about what the Lord wanted. And who knows what number of offenses Laban had racked up towards God and Laban's neighbors?
No doubt he deserved it, but why did the Lord single Nephi out in section 98? What was he trying to tell us?

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

blitzinstripes wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:37 pm I have to disagree pretty strongly with the premise of this post. Nephi certainly did not have enmity toward Laban and did not want to kill him. He was commanded to by the Lord in order to accomplish a divine purpose which had nothing to do with Laban 'offending' Nephi. Can you cite evidence that Nephi acted out of spite or revenge? The character of Nephi actually demonstrates significant compassion and willingness to forgive. If he was prone to acting out of personal anger, why wouldn't he have just 'offed' his older brothers after the years of continued abuse at their hands? The scriptures state that Nephi openly forgave then every time they offended him.

I see nothing in the context of the scriptures that indicates malice or a personal lack of forgiveness.

That seems like a bold assumption and not supported by contextual evidence.
I never said any of those things.

No one is saying Nephi was prone to anger or that he wasn't forgiving. I'm just asking why the Lord mentioned him first in section 98. Why was he drawing our attention to Nephi? It may have been the Holy Spirit that constrained him, but it might not have been. Lehi was deceived into following the man dressed in white. Nephi may have been too.

User avatar
mcusick
captain of 100
Posts: 391
Location: Texas

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by mcusick »

Maybe...D&C 98 is explicitly about warring nations. Wouldn't the more plain reading be the wars between Nephites and Lamanites after the death of Lehi?

Also, isn't Nephi initial lack of willingness a sign that his heart had charity and was not seeking revenge? "And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10).

User avatar
LDS Physician
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1812

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by LDS Physician »

I'd argue that Nephi forgave Laban, then executed him as required by the law of justice, at the Lord's command.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by cab »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 7th, 2022, 2:31 am
blitzinstripes wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:37 pm I have to disagree pretty strongly with the premise of this post. Nephi certainly did not have enmity toward Laban and did not want to kill him. He was commanded to by the Lord in order to accomplish a divine purpose which had nothing to do with Laban 'offending' Nephi. Can you cite evidence that Nephi acted out of spite or revenge? The character of Nephi actually demonstrates significant compassion and willingness to forgive. If he was prone to acting out of personal anger, why wouldn't he have just 'offed' his older brothers after the years of continued abuse at their hands? The scriptures state that Nephi openly forgave then every time they offended him.

I see nothing in the context of the scriptures that indicates malice or a personal lack of forgiveness.

That seems like a bold assumption and not supported by contextual evidence.
I never said any of those things.

No one is saying Nephi was prone to anger or that he wasn't forgiving. I'm just asking why the Lord mentioned him first in section 98. Why was he drawing our attention to Nephi? It may have been the Holy Spirit that constrained him, but it might not have been. Lehi was deceived into following the man dressed in white. Nephi may have been too.
While it’s a popular notion that the man in white was a “familiar spirit”, I’m not completely convinced of this.
I think the man in white could easily be a representation of man’s priesthood which is preparatory in nature and can only take one so far….

Think of the specific details of the white robe-like surroundings of Moses’ tabernacle, which acted as a barrier between the camp of Israel and the outer court of the tabernacle…. Perhaps the “man in white” represents the same thing…

User avatar
Momma J
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1494

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Momma J »

John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:19 pm
nightlight wrote: December 6th, 2022, 8:46 pm
John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:49 pm
nightlight wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:31 pm

If the earth groans from sin then it was created to do so.
Which goes to my point - there is a law of sin and death, consequences happen - consequences which occurred because of hte fall, man was never intended to be wicked, but we choose wickedness unless we choose life. These are eternal laws only triumphed by the law of Eternal Life/ being in the Kingdom of God.
"man was never intended to be wicked,"

I believe you error in this doctrine (on this particular subject).

If man was never intended to be wicked then Christ was never intended to be

My natural man is sinful. I am naturally a sinful being. This is the reality. This is what is. If this was not how God intended it to be...then that is not an omnipotent being. This would be a plan B. Contingency is antithetical to the word and idea of a God

We are exactly where we're meant to be.


2 Nephi 2:11–14
Book of Mormon

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
I mean. I look at it like this If a tree is good, can they produce bitter or wicked fruit? Is God good? Yes. What He produced was not intended to be wicked or corrupt - other forces corrupted the fruit. Christ was teh answer to the problem - we were and all are supposed to look like Christ - We are to bear His name. Our intention is to not be wicked, but to be like the Father.

Man was innocent when first created, your natural man (which you should consider dead if you are born again) is a consequence of the fall of man. The flesh is week, but the Spirit is stronger- where sin abounds, grace abounds more. It was not the intention from the beginning. An omnipotent being can have intention, but still allow things to play out because of agency. It doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent. It just means He is merciful and graceful and doesn't fear.
Amen

User avatar
nightlight
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8407

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by nightlight »

John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:19 pm
nightlight wrote: December 6th, 2022, 8:46 pm
John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:49 pm
nightlight wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:31 pm

If the earth groans from sin then it was created to do so.
Which goes to my point - there is a law of sin and death, consequences happen - consequences which occurred because of hte fall, man was never intended to be wicked, but we choose wickedness unless we choose life. These are eternal laws only triumphed by the law of Eternal Life/ being in the Kingdom of God.
"man was never intended to be wicked,"

I believe you error in this doctrine (on this particular subject).

If man was never intended to be wicked then Christ was never intended to be

My natural man is sinful. I am naturally a sinful being. This is the reality. This is what is. If this was not how God intended it to be...then that is not an omnipotent being. This would be a plan B. Contingency is antithetical to the word and idea of a God

We are exactly where we're meant to be.


2 Nephi 2:11–14
Book of Mormon

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
I mean. I look at it like this If a tree is good, can they produce bitter or wicked fruit? Is God good? Yes. What He produced was not intended to be wicked or corrupt - other forces corrupted the fruit. Christ was teh answer to the problem - we were and all are supposed to look like Christ - We are to bear His name. Our intention is to not be wicked, but to be like the Father.

Man was innocent when first created, your natural man (which you should consider dead if you are born again) is a consequence of the fall of man. The flesh is week, but the Spirit is stronger- where sin abounds, grace abounds more. It was not the intention from the beginning. An omnipotent being can have intention, but still allow things to play out because of agency. It doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent. It just means He is merciful and graceful and doesn't fear.
"It was not the intention from the beginning."

It's interesting that you come to this conclusion. The scriptures say the exact opposite, but you discount them....

It seems you are more readily to discount the Book of Mormon because the God of the Book of Mormon is not a passive aggressive God.
And you believe in a passive aggressive God(it seems to me).
You believe Jesus to be a pacifist (it seems to me).

"How could Moroni be a man made perfect in Christ while going with sword in hand and cutting through formations on a battlefield!?"

I literally just quoted a scripture of God saying that He directly caused violence on a city, for it to burn or shake..... And you take that scripture and say God didn't do it, the earth did it 🤔

And now you say that God didn't intend for my flesh to war against my spirit. That my reality is not what He intended it to be, that it was changed because the choices of another man.

This is a false doctrine. It is pleasing to the ears of those who don't understand or like that they are unworthy creatures....lower than the dust.



22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
----------------------

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

You are justified in using deadly force to prevent someone from murdering you and your family. It was true during Nephi's time and it is still true today.

Laban's death was, in my mind, the very thing that allowed Lehi and his family to escape into the wilderness and not be found.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by oneClimbs »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 6th, 2022, 2:48 pm In Section 98 the Lord gives us his standard for when we are justified in going against our enemies and how many times the Law requires us to forgive. He then singles out Nephi among our forefathers.

"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."

Why does Nephi get this first mention from the Lord?

In verses 39 and 40 the Lord tells us what to do when our enemies repent, we forgive them, until 7 times 70.

Starting in verse 41 he states what his Law is when they don't repent.

41 And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

42 And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

43 And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him.

44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him...

This was the Law given to Nephi and all the Fathers. The first 3 times an offense is given without repentance, forgiveness is required. The fourth time you bring his offenses to the Lord and your enemy is still afforded time to repent.

Once these first 3 witnesses against your enemy are established, the Law also gives you an option starting with the 4th offense. You can "spare him" and it will be "rewarded for thy righteousness" or you can reward him "according to his works" and if you choose this "you are justified".

The problem with Nephi is that there are only two offenses by Laban against him. Nephi was not in accordance with the Law.

The biggest key here is Nephi's own language when he says he was "constrained" by the spirit. If you look up constrained in the Webster's 1828 dictionary, out of the 5 definitions, all 5 have some degree of force in their meaning. The Holy Spirit does not operate by force.

It is my contention that Nephi was tricked into killing Laban and listened to a different spirit. His story then becomes a type, pointing as a witness to the Garden of Eden story where Adam and Eve likewise listened to the wrong spirit, but in both situations, a future for their children was made possible.
There were actually THREE crimes Laban committed and all would have brought the death penalty upon him. He knew the law and was a military man and chose to risk death to defy Jehovah's law. I outline them here: https://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/08/the-ju ... -of-laban/ but they are:

1. False Accusation (you receive the punishment you accuse another of, i.e. robbery which was a capital offense and dealt with by the military)
2. Robbery (of a family)
3. Attempted murder (of four people)

The fact that the Lord commanded Nephi to execute Laban is, I think, an insight as to how corrupt the church and state were at that time. Laban seems to have been close to the elders of the church. Had Nephi and his family gone to their leaders, they might have been killed by them to hide their friend Laban's crimes. Mind you, these things happened in the Nephite government at its worst as well.

So the fact that God sets up Nephi to carry out the punishments of the law in this case is demonstrating, along with many other instances, that in Nephi he is putting his government and judgment.

Furthermore, the Spirit used specific phrases that Nephi would have attributed to David when he slew Goliath, which also foreshadow the fall of the latter-day great and abominable church or king or Assyria. I detail this here: https://oneclimbs.com/2017/09/05/behind ... knowledge/

Nephi was commanded to get the plates. Laban already knew that Nephi's family wanted them, if Nephi took them they would know who had them and would have pursued them. You don't think the military could have caught up with Nephi and his family? Plus, they had to come back for Ishmael and his family as well and if Laban's men were on the look out for Nephi and his brothers, they could have caught them and killed them and now that they added Ishmael's family to the mix, it would be easier to pursue a large group.

Now with Laban being slain, Laban's men could have suspected Nephi, but then again, they knew that Laban had all that illegal treasure they had stolen. His men might have just kept their mouths shut and decided to let Laban's killer slide and focus their greed on dividing the spoils of that treasure amongst themselves.

I realize that much of this last part is speculation, but the Lord knew what he was doing. The current government of Jerusalem was corrupt, he was establishing a new government in a new land and Nephi had the authority to teach the law and execute it's judgments. I think that is an underlying message that isn't apparent at first. The other component is likely practical. The Lord can and does slay the wicked, he prescribed it by law for mortals to carry out. If not by Nephi, it should have been carried out by other men who's job it was to carry out the law.

User avatar
John Tavner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4154

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by John Tavner »

nightlight wrote: December 7th, 2022, 8:21 am
John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 9:19 pm
nightlight wrote: December 6th, 2022, 8:46 pm
John Tavner wrote: December 6th, 2022, 7:49 pm

Which goes to my point - there is a law of sin and death, consequences happen - consequences which occurred because of hte fall, man was never intended to be wicked, but we choose wickedness unless we choose life. These are eternal laws only triumphed by the law of Eternal Life/ being in the Kingdom of God.
"man was never intended to be wicked,"

I believe you error in this doctrine (on this particular subject).

If man was never intended to be wicked then Christ was never intended to be

My natural man is sinful. I am naturally a sinful being. This is the reality. This is what is. If this was not how God intended it to be...then that is not an omnipotent being. This would be a plan B. Contingency is antithetical to the word and idea of a God

We are exactly where we're meant to be.


2 Nephi 2:11–14
Book of Mormon

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.
I mean. I look at it like this If a tree is good, can they produce bitter or wicked fruit? Is God good? Yes. What He produced was not intended to be wicked or corrupt - other forces corrupted the fruit. Christ was teh answer to the problem - we were and all are supposed to look like Christ - We are to bear His name. Our intention is to not be wicked, but to be like the Father.

Man was innocent when first created, your natural man (which you should consider dead if you are born again) is a consequence of the fall of man. The flesh is week, but the Spirit is stronger- where sin abounds, grace abounds more. It was not the intention from the beginning. An omnipotent being can have intention, but still allow things to play out because of agency. It doesn't mean He isn't omnipotent. It just means He is merciful and graceful and doesn't fear.
"It was not the intention from the beginning."

It's interesting that you come to this conclusion. The scriptures say the exact opposite, but you discount them....

It seems you are more readily to discount the Book of Mormon because the God of the Book of Mormon is not a passive aggressive God.
And you believe in a passive aggressive God(it seems to me).
You believe Jesus to be a pacifist (it seems to me).

"How could Moroni be a man made perfect in Christ while going with sword in hand and cutting through formations on a battlefield!?"

I literally just quoted a scripture of God saying that He directly caused violence on a city, for it to burn or shake..... And you take that scripture and say God didn't do it, the earth did it 🤔

And now you say that God didn't intend for my flesh to war against my spirit. That my reality is not what He intended it to be, that it was changed because the choices of another man.

This is a false doctrine. It is pleasing to the ears of those who don't understand or like that they are unworthy creatures....lower than the dust.



22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
----------------------
No, I said that because of hte law decreed it happened. The earth fulfilled that law. The law of sin and death which = consequence. The law of life is different. There are two Kingdoms. The one with God or the one that the devil rules. Who you choose as your master controls you and what occurs to you. Sometimes it appears the kingdoms overlap, but God's Kingdom always triumphs.

Yep, I will say I do not agree with or believe the way that scirpture (the one Lehi) is quoting is true or correct- at least how it is interpreted by modern mormon theology. Mormon theology has a tendency to destroy the character of God and make Him into man's image. I don't believe in a passive agressive God, I believe in a God that keeps His word. I believe in a God that has established His Kingdom and that there are laws outside of that kingdom that must be in effect. God gives life. Mercy triumphs over judgment. Old testament prophets had little idea who God was, the New Testament shows us who God is. I don't fault the old testament for seeking after God and trying to understand Him, but failing and interpreting everything as "God doing it" In the sense that "God removed His protection" absolutely God did it, in the sense that because the law was decreed and God "let it happen" absolutely. IF the People had repented God would have prevented it from happening becuase again "Mercy triumphs over judgment" As St John says. " No man hath seen God at any time" It doesn't mean no one "saw" God it means no one knew who He was fully. Christ was the perfect image of the Invisible God. It's why I really don't care when people tell me they've seen God - especially if they show little fruits of charity in their life - "cool you've seen and know that God lives, so do the devils, what makes you better than a devil." (just to be clear that isn't an accusation at you or projecting on you in anyway, it is just free-flow though). There are afew things in the Book of mormon where their understanding of God, in my view directly contradicts the New Testametn, the same way it does the OldTestametn. We have to read both books from the eyes of the New Testament. otherwise it will get really twisted.

Also if yhou still view yourself as an "unworthy creature, lower than the dust" one needs to ask themselves if their false humility isn't getting in the way of the Truth of Christ and what He said about us. Yep, there is a moment when you recognize that and you see your weakness, - that's when you come to Christ and you receive His grace and mercy and the Holy Spirit - does the Holy Spirit not make you Holy? It either does or doesn't. Don't call unclean that which God hath called clean. You better hold onto htat hope that God has made you righteous and you are righteous in His eyes through faith, or you will never overcome and the devil will have His way with you, because you just gave yourself a reason to "sin" and never "overcome by the blood of Jesus" Then you live in constant gratitude for the mercy of God and His incredible lvoe which surpasses all understanding, being filled wiht this love that God gives to all true disciples of Christ.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: December 7th, 2022, 8:39 am You are justified in using deadly force to prevent someone from murdering you and your family. It was true during Nephi's time and it is still true today.

Laban's death was, in my mind, the very thing that allowed Lehi and his family to escape into the wilderness and not be found.
You're right, it absolutely was, but was there a better way? Was it a good, better, and best and Nephi chose better? I would like to think there was a way where Nephi wasn't made an executioner, despite him needing to learn how to use the sword of Laban to kill to one day protect the Nephites.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

mcusick wrote: December 7th, 2022, 4:06 am Maybe...D&C 98 is explicitly about warring nations. Wouldn't the more plain reading be the wars between Nephites and Lamanites after the death of Lehi?

Also, isn't Nephi initial lack of willingness a sign that his heart had charity and was not seeking revenge? "And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10).
I don't know that it is about warring nations. The Lord prefaces it with "Now, I speak unto you concerning your families" and then he simply refers to the enemy as "your enemy". If it is about nations, there is need for all the language about forgiveness. I don't think any of us struggled to forgive Germany for both World Wars. The forgiving until 7 times 70 is a relationship between people.

It is wise though to consider to what degree the Lord was referring to Nephi forgiving Laman and Lemuel.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

oneClimbs wrote: December 7th, 2022, 9:44 am There were actually THREE crimes Laban committed and all would have brought the death penalty upon him. He knew the law and was a military man and chose to risk death to defy Jehovah's law. I outline them here: https://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/08/the-ju ... -of-laban/ but they are:

1. False Accusation (you receive the punishment you accuse another of, i.e. robbery which was a capital offense and dealt with by the military)
2. Robbery (of a family)
3. Attempted murder (of four people)

The fact that the Lord commanded Nephi to execute Laban is, I think, an insight as to how corrupt the church and state were at that time. Laban seems to have been close to the elders of the church. Had Nephi and his family gone to their leaders, they might have been killed by them to hide their friend Laban's crimes. Mind you, these things happened in the Nephite government at its worst as well.

So the fact that God sets up Nephi to carry out the punishments of the law in this case is demonstrating, along with many other instances, that in Nephi he is putting his government and judgment.

Furthermore, the Spirit used specific phrases that Nephi would have attributed to David when he slew Goliath, which also foreshadow the fall of the latter-day great and abominable church or king or Assyria. I detail this here: https://oneclimbs.com/2017/09/05/behind ... knowledge/

Nephi was commanded to get the plates. Laban already knew that Nephi's family wanted them, if Nephi took them they would know who had them and would have pursued them. You don't think the military could have caught up with Nephi and his family? Plus, they had to come back for Ishmael and his family as well and if Laban's men were on the look out for Nephi and his brothers, they could have caught them and killed them and now that they added Ishmael's family to the mix, it would be easier to pursue a large group.

Now with Laban being slain, Laban's men could have suspected Nephi, but then again, they knew that Laban had all that illegal treasure they had stolen. His men might have just kept their mouths shut and decided to let Laban's killer slide and focus their greed on dividing the spoils of that treasure amongst themselves.

I realize that much of this last part is speculation, but the Lord knew what he was doing. The current government of Jerusalem was corrupt, he was establishing a new government in a new land and Nephi had the authority to teach the law and execute it's judgments. I think that is an underlying message that isn't apparent at first. The other component is likely practical. The Lord can and does slay the wicked, he prescribed it by law for mortals to carry out. If not by Nephi, it should have been carried out by other men who's job it was to carry out the law.
Those are some great additions, thanks.

Let's say we agree that there were indeed 3 offenses against Laban. We still have the Lord admonishing us to forgive a fourth time, despite being justified not to.

We are also still left with not addressing why the Lord mentioned Nephi first in section 98. What connection was he trying to draw?

endlessQuestions
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6426

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by endlessQuestions »

Shawn Henry wrote: December 7th, 2022, 12:48 pm
oneClimbs wrote: December 7th, 2022, 9:44 am There were actually THREE crimes Laban committed and all would have brought the death penalty upon him. He knew the law and was a military man and chose to risk death to defy Jehovah's law. I outline them here: https://oneclimbs.com/2012/01/08/the-ju ... -of-laban/ but they are:

1. False Accusation (you receive the punishment you accuse another of, i.e. robbery which was a capital offense and dealt with by the military)
2. Robbery (of a family)
3. Attempted murder (of four people)

The fact that the Lord commanded Nephi to execute Laban is, I think, an insight as to how corrupt the church and state were at that time. Laban seems to have been close to the elders of the church. Had Nephi and his family gone to their leaders, they might have been killed by them to hide their friend Laban's crimes. Mind you, these things happened in the Nephite government at its worst as well.

So the fact that God sets up Nephi to carry out the punishments of the law in this case is demonstrating, along with many other instances, that in Nephi he is putting his government and judgment.

Furthermore, the Spirit used specific phrases that Nephi would have attributed to David when he slew Goliath, which also foreshadow the fall of the latter-day great and abominable church or king or Assyria. I detail this here: https://oneclimbs.com/2017/09/05/behind ... knowledge/

Nephi was commanded to get the plates. Laban already knew that Nephi's family wanted them, if Nephi took them they would know who had them and would have pursued them. You don't think the military could have caught up with Nephi and his family? Plus, they had to come back for Ishmael and his family as well and if Laban's men were on the look out for Nephi and his brothers, they could have caught them and killed them and now that they added Ishmael's family to the mix, it would be easier to pursue a large group.

Now with Laban being slain, Laban's men could have suspected Nephi, but then again, they knew that Laban had all that illegal treasure they had stolen. His men might have just kept their mouths shut and decided to let Laban's killer slide and focus their greed on dividing the spoils of that treasure amongst themselves.

I realize that much of this last part is speculation, but the Lord knew what he was doing. The current government of Jerusalem was corrupt, he was establishing a new government in a new land and Nephi had the authority to teach the law and execute it's judgments. I think that is an underlying message that isn't apparent at first. The other component is likely practical. The Lord can and does slay the wicked, he prescribed it by law for mortals to carry out. If not by Nephi, it should have been carried out by other men who's job it was to carry out the law.
Those are some great additions, thanks.

Let's say we agree that there were indeed 3 offenses against Laban. We still have the Lord admonishing us to forgive a fourth time, despite being justified not to.

We are also still left with not addressing why the Lord mentioned Nephi first in section 98. What connection was he trying to draw?
I think that is an interesting question. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4514

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Shawn Henry »

endlessismyname wrote: December 7th, 2022, 12:54 pm I think that is an interesting question. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Isn't it interesting how there has probably never been a Sunday School lesson in the history of the church where we tried to figure out how Nephi is being connected to section 98.

I just want to explore the possibilities and understand what the Lord is telling us here.

Ado
captain of 100
Posts: 404

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Ado »

Alma 43:46-47
And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord has said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed...

The Lord to Nephi in 1 Nephi 4:13 - "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief."

Could it be argued that Nephi was defending his families right to not become a dwindling and ultimately destroyed nation after waiting til after the 2nd offense? According to Alma, Nephi was in the right if we consider that getting the plates was an act of defending his family.
Also, In alma we seem to be told that they could wait until after the second offense to then defend themselves rather than the third. Does that contradict D&C 98?

Ado
captain of 100
Posts: 404

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Ado »

I have always been bothered by the story of Nephi killing Laban and have tried my best to understand it. I suppose under the law of Moses he may have been justified, and that's what has made the most sense to me.
What bothers me the most however is that the justification the Spirit gave to Nephi sounds eerily similar to the justification Caiaphas gave to the chief priests and pharisees in regards to the plot to kill Jesus:

John 11:49-50 "But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, 'You know nothing at all. Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.'"

Rubicon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1104

Re: Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

Post by Rubicon »

Any law in the scriptures is superseded by the Holy Ghost. The key is knowing for sure that it is the Holy Ghost, and not your own thoughts and justification. But if you know, then that is the law you need to follow --- even if it leads to things like Nephi killing Laban or Abraham sacrificing Isaac.

Post Reply