Nephi failed the 1 Nephi 3:7 test

[Shawn Henry]

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?

I don't read Alma's words as saying that. I read it as him saying that defending your families is a separate issue and that you always defend your families and that that should not be conflated with forgiving a personal enemy who has only committed an offense against you personally.

And yes, it could be and should be argued that Nephi was defending the future existence of the Nephite nation, but was there a better way? Does section 98 imply that he could have chosen a better way? If not, did the Lord waste his time in giving that revelation? What is that section trying to teach us?

[Shawn Henry]

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.'"

"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.'"

That scripture is a fascinating addition my friend, thank you.

[Shawn Henry]

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.

How do you know it was the Holy Ghost? I personally have zero experience with angels counterfeiting the Holy Spirit. How would we differentiate if we personally have never experienced a good or bad angel? If we have had some experience with heavenly angels, can't those feelings simply be mimicked?

I don't believe the Holy Spirit is in the business of undermining scriptural law or God would start becoming a God that varies from that which he has said.

[endlessQuestions]

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.

I think I'm going to look at this tonight for my scripture study. I'll report back if I find anything I feel is worth sharing.

[endlessQuestions]

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.

I'll say this: the thing that's always got me ponderizing regarding this story is: why did the Lord have *Nephi* kill him?

I mean, the Lord could have snuffed out Laban however he wanted to, right? Earthquake drops a rock on his head. Send a land whale to eat him. Have him fall in love with some crazy woman who smothers him in his sleep.

But he had Nephi do it.

Why?

[Rubicon]

How do you know it was the Holy Ghost? I personally have zero experience with angels counterfeiting the Holy Spirit. How would we differentiate if we personally have never experienced a good or bad angel? If we have had some experience with heavenly angels, can't those feelings simply be mimicked?

I don't believe the Holy Spirit is in the business of undermining scriptural law or God would start becoming a God that varies from that which he has said.

I have experience with the Holy Ghost, and "angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 32). We would discern between a good and a bad angel the same way we discern other things with the Holy Ghost --- and those with more experience with this have an advantage over those who don't.

Despite this as a criticism against Mormonism (being led astray by our feelings), our feelings, intuition, etc. are more important than our logic in such things. When you know, you know.

[Niyr]

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".

#1 - 13 And behold, it came to pass that Laban was angry, and thrust him out from his presence; and he would not that he should have the records. Wherefore, he said unto him: Behold thou art a robber, and I will slay thee.

#2 - 25 And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it,

#3 - insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property.

Attempted murder of Laman, theft/lust of property, attempted murder of all of the sons of Lehi. That is at least 3, or possibly 6 total, as the last attempt could be looked at as 4 itself, for each son.
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.

[sushi_chef]

why nephi in section 98???

ummmmmmmmmmm ..., maybe because of joseph's familiarity with the nephites especially his closeness to nephi himself even some visitations of nephi ...

"Note that Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons. In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read " Moroni". It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name "Nephi" was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction.
"
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm
"joseph smith" nephi visitation
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22joseph+smi ... =h_&ia=web

[ransomme]

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?

To me it's clear in the text and there are two factors:
1) Attempted murder: This one forfeits the three times rule. By attempting murder the enemy delivers themself.

2) By the Lord's command: One cannot take such action into one's own hands, but if the Lord commands it then they are justified.


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

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

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

[Shawn Henry]

I'll say this: the thing that's always got me ponderizing regarding this story is: why did the Lord have *Nephi* kill him?

I mean, the Lord could have snuffed out Laban however he wanted to, right? Earthquake drops a rock on his head. Send a land whale to eat him. Have him fall in love with some crazy woman who smothers him in his sleep.

But he had Nephi do it.

Why?

That's a great question. Why indeed? God could have simply given him a peaceful heart attack or simply pulled his spirit out. Why does a loving Father not do his own work and suffer one of his beloved sons to get his hands dirty? I would never make my son do my dirty work.

From reading 98 it seems the Lord is trying to tell us there was a better way.

Perhaps it was a test that Nephi got a B on rather than an A. Maybe he was to figure out for himself that the Holy Spirit doesn't force anyone to kill. Perhaps it is also our test to see how well the story sits with us, to see if we too are okay with a prophet killing in cold blood. Nephi was probably close to 20 years old so I don't think it is fair of us to say he would have experience discerning false spirits. I think every tier of spiritual that we go through on our upward journey has its own corresponding level of counterfeit spirits. The better we get at detecting false spirits, the greater the discernment is needed to tell the distinction, because the tests keep getting harder.

I think also that the Nephites history of having many wars show the negative consequences referenced in section 98 that bring about generational curses.

[Shawn Henry]

I have experience with the Holy Ghost, and "angels speak by the power of the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 32). We would discern between a good and a bad angel the same way we discern other things with the Holy Ghost --- and those with more experience with this have an advantage over those who don't.

Despite this as a criticism against Mormonism (being led astray by our feelings), our feelings, intuition, etc. are more important than our logic in such things. When you know, you know.

It would have to be hard, right? I mean these experiences are so supernatural, that we are overwhelmed by the supernatural factor and hardly have time to think about whether it is a counterfeit spirit. And if we do think about it, what would we think, how would we know?

One pattern I've seen relates to what JS said when he told us we can recognize a false spirit by it contradicting a former revelation. If we hear or see an angel or the Holy Spirit, we will not be given something that contradicts scripture.

[Shawn Henry]

why nephi in section 98???

ummmmmmmmmmm ..., maybe because of joseph's familiarity with the nephites especially his closeness to nephi himself even some visitations of nephi ...

"Note that Joseph Smith was the editor of the Times and Seasons. In modern printings of the History of the Church, this has been changed to read " Moroni". It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith lived for two years after the name "Nephi" was printed in Times and Seasons and he never published a retraction.
"
http://www.mormonthink.com/nephiweb.htm
"joseph smith" nephi visitation
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22joseph+smi ... =h_&ia=web

My personal opinion there, which I admit is worthless, is that Nephi and Moroni are the same person. I suspect that the prophet chosen to start the Nephites was the same person chosen to witness their end. Just speculating.

[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).

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.

A few thoughts:

A. I think the word "nation" in the scriptures is not used the same way we would. It could be smaller groups than internationally recognized state; potentially a family like you mentioned.

B. The Lord defines the law he gave Nephi in D&C 98: "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, and again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients: that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue...."

C. What if the Lord took the variety of offenses against his servants leading up to the Neo-Babylonian invasion into account, before giving Nephi the command to kill Laban? Offenses against Jeremiah and Lehi included.

[Shawn Henry]

A few thoughts:

A. I think the word "nation" in the scriptures is not used the same way we would. It could be smaller groups than internationally recognized state; potentially a family like you mentioned.

B. The Lord defines the law he gave Nephi in D&C 98: "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, and again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients: that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue...."

C. What if the Lord took the variety of offenses against his servants leading up to the Neo-Babylonian invasion into account, before giving Nephi the command to kill Laban? Offenses against Jeremiah and Lehi included.

Yes, great thoughts, and we do have to include nations because after all, the section says nations as well.

I guess what I'm still questioning is the reason why the Lord points out the moral high ground in section 98 and then singles out Nephi, who did not take the moral high ground. Of course Nephi was fully justified and Laban deserved his fate, but why emphasize the righteousness of still showing forgiveness when you are justified, when that is what Nephi did not do.

I don't think the moral of the story is that the Lord wants us to know that sometimes we have to get our hands dirty.

I think that the reason Nephi was singled out is to show that he was justified, yet there was still a better way.

[nightlight]

"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.

Though I disagree... I appreciate your views, brother.

I think we'd be good friends irl

[sushi_chef]

a bit? off topicky again but, ..

if memory correct, kinda recalls president hinckley mentioned missouri or illinois governor's descendants at the time of nauvoo temple dedication .. became a bit emotional ..

has the church now been getting along with missourians so on???

also recalls by early 90s?!, one of grand - g .. daughter of governor boggs joined the church ..

president hinckley dedication nauvoo
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22president+ ... =h_&ia=web

"President Hinckley “ .. but I am convinced there is a larger, unseen congregation participating with us.”
"
https://www.ldsliving.com/when-presiden ... on/s/88789

"On August 6, 1833, the Lord revealed anew His overarching perspective on war. Known as Doctrine and Covenants 98, the revelation came to Joseph Smith in Kirtland, Ohio, as a result of the persecution being heaped upon the Saints in Missouri. Having suffered physically and emotionally, and having lost property as a consequence of the adversary’s war against the Church of Jesus Christ, it was only natural that the Missouri members “should feel an inclination toward retaliation and revenge.”[4] But the Lord asked for and outlined something different. From the words of the revelation, it is clear that these principles extend to all the Lord’s people across every dispensation. The Lord called these principles “an ensample unto all people” (D&C 98:38).

First, the Lord declared that His Saints are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16). Instead of seeking war, they are to “seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children” (D&C 98:16). In other words, true Saints of the Lord’s kingdom are asked to search first for peaceful solutions to problems that could be dealt with violently. They are to counter the destructive forces of war by living the gospel covenant and by establishing eternal links and bonds between generations through priesthood ordinances that can seal together the entire human family—the family of God. God asks that His children be bound together rather than torn apart. The power to counter the destructive forces of war and establish God’s kingdom throughout the world is as real as the power that is unleashed in armed conflict. But the capacity to harness that power is predicated upon righteous living and intense, sustained effort to prepare for and establish peace. ..
"
https://rsc.byu.edu/nineteenth-century- ... laim-peace

[oneClimbs]

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'll give this as my opinion here. There are a couple things that come to mind, the first is when did God give this law to Nephi. We see that once a law is given, his people are bound but he tends to be merciful to those that do not have his law. That's one potential aspect, the law could have come to Nephi later when he was actually a king or ruler among his own people.

The other aspect that I think it likely more valid is that Laban was not necessarily an enemy to Nephi here, he was the Lord's enemy. God commanded Nephi to go and get the plates and Laban "would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord" (1 Nephi 4) which could imply that Laban may have been wrought upon by the Lord himself but to no avail.

In this role, Nephi isn't avenging himself against an enemy, he was told, as Moses, to go to a strong man holding something of his captive that he wanted delivered. That man refused and may have likely continued to be a threat to Nephi, may have followed his family into the wilderness and tracked them down and slew them so the Lord commanded Nephi to end it there. There was nothing for Nephi to forgive, he was on the Lord's errand here so I think this is an entirely different set of circumstances.

That's just what comes to mind, but great questions and interesting to ponder.

[oneClimbs]

Laban had caused even Jeremiah's words to be written down on the brass plates so he clearly not only kept his record current, but he ignored its warnings.

1 Nephi 5:12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;
13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

I've wondered about that for a while. Someone was keeping those plates up to date, but who was it? Was it Laban or a scribe he employed? Did Laban even know that someone was updating the plates?

[sushi_chef]

also recalls probably saw the microfiche shows governor bogg's vicarious baptism at byu library, that was .. doesn't remember around when ..

[marc]

Laban had caused even Jeremiah's words to be written down on the brass plates so he clearly not only kept his record current, but he ignored its warnings.

1 Nephi 5:12 And also a record of the Jews from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah;
13 And also the prophecies of the holy prophets, from the beginning, even down to the commencement of the reign of Zedekiah; and also many prophecies which have been spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah.

I've wondered about that for a while. Someone was keeping those plates up to date, but who was it? Was it Laban or a scribe he employed? Did Laban even know that someone was updating the plates?

I hear you loud and clear. To my mind, though, there was no reason for him not to know what was written on them. But to answer your question, I believed it was a scribe. These people should have all been on the Lord's business, but instead were embroiled in idolatry and politics.

[Shawn Henry]

I'll give this as my opinion here. There are a couple things that come to mind, the first is when did God give this law to Nephi. We see that once a law is given, his people are bound but he tends to be merciful to those that do not have his law. That's one potential aspect, the law could have come to Nephi later when he was actually a king or ruler among his own people.

The other aspect that I think it likely more valid is that Laban was not necessarily an enemy to Nephi here, he was the Lord's enemy. God commanded Nephi to go and get the plates and Laban "would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord" (1 Nephi 4) which could imply that Laban may have been wrought upon by the Lord himself but to no avail.

In this role, Nephi isn't avenging himself against an enemy, he was told, as Moses, to go to a strong man holding something of his captive that he wanted delivered. That man refused and may have likely continued to be a threat to Nephi, may have followed his family into the wilderness and tracked them down and slew them so the Lord commanded Nephi to end it there. There was nothing for Nephi to forgive, he was on the Lord's errand here so I think this is an entirely different set of circumstances.

That's just what comes to mind, but great questions and interesting to ponder.

When there is no law, there is no sin, so he would have retained the mercy of the Lord, correct. I still think about that balance though between his conscious and what the spirit told him. His conscious and the Light of Christ within him abhorred the command of the spirit. Makes me question if it's even possible for the spirit of God to tell you to do something that is already morally repugnant to you. Maybe the choice of the word constrained is trying to tell us something, I don't profess to know though.

[Pseudonym]

The Nephi epoch with Laban is often difficult for western thinkers concerning religious constructs. This is because we think in terms of government (laws, justice and culture) as democracies. Few understand that G-d governs as a supreme Suzerain in a Kingdom. If we study ancient Near Eastern Suzerain governing covenants, we may learn why heaven is called a Kingdom of heaven and why Jesus the Christ is referred to as a King.

I will attempt to make my remarks short. Within a kingdom there are different covenants for those that serve in the kingdom at different positions. Within each covenant of the kingdom there is a servant Proctor that brings that covenant to those receiving each covenant. Jesus explained that these covenant proctors are like shepherds in Israel that look after G-d’s flock. Laban as a keeper of the Brass Plates was not Nephi’s enemy but rather his divine friend and proctor as the keeper of sacred scripture. What transpired was a divine sign from heaven indicating that Laban had committed treason against G-d and G-d’s covenant with him and that in turn that Nephi was appointed by G-d to become the Proctor of scripture in a new covenant and line within the family of Lehi.

[oneClimbs]

I'll give this as my opinion here. There are a couple things that come to mind, the first is when did God give this law to Nephi. We see that once a law is given, his people are bound but he tends to be merciful to those that do not have his law. That's one potential aspect, the law could have come to Nephi later when he was actually a king or ruler among his own people.

The other aspect that I think it likely more valid is that Laban was not necessarily an enemy to Nephi here, he was the Lord's enemy. God commanded Nephi to go and get the plates and Laban "would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord" (1 Nephi 4) which could imply that Laban may have been wrought upon by the Lord himself but to no avail.

In this role, Nephi isn't avenging himself against an enemy, he was told, as Moses, to go to a strong man holding something of his captive that he wanted delivered. That man refused and may have likely continued to be a threat to Nephi, may have followed his family into the wilderness and tracked them down and slew them so the Lord commanded Nephi to end it there. There was nothing for Nephi to forgive, he was on the Lord's errand here so I think this is an entirely different set of circumstances.

That's just what comes to mind, but great questions and interesting to ponder.

When there is no law, there is no sin, so he would have retained the mercy of the Lord, correct. I still think about that balance though between his conscious and what the spirit told him. His conscious and the Light of Christ within him abhorred the command of the spirit. Makes me question if it's even possible for the spirit of God to tell you to do something that is already morally repugnant to you. Maybe the choice of the word constrained is trying to tell us something, I don't profess to know though.

Great thoughts. I have myself felt constrained by the Spirit, but as I have reflected on those times it wasn't so much that I felt like I was being forced against my will, it was that the truth was so apparent to me that I knew I had to do a thing, even though (in my case) I was extremely afraid to do so. But I determined that I would trust the Lord and that the consequences did not matter, what mattered is if I trusted or not.

I followed through, and it wasn't as bad as I thought.

So in Nephi's case he could have had the situation made clear to him by the Spirit, who then quotes roughly the words of David which showed Nephi that he was in a "David and Goliath" type situation and the Lord had delivered Laban in to his hands to slay just like he had delivered Goliath in to David's hands.

Although Nephi rightly recoiled at such a request, likely because the act itself was no doubt awful but that the Lord was at that point equating him with the great king David and the weight that must have carried. It's clear that Nephi, perhaps more than anyone else in the scriptures, leveraged other scriptural figures attributes to help him in tough situations. I broke that down here: https://oneclimbs.com/2022/11/08/25-how ... advantage/

But yeah, it is good to wrestle with the scriptures and see what they can teach us. The paradoxes are always filled with treasures.

[oneClimbs]

The Nephi epoch with Laban is often difficult for western thinkers concerning religious constructs. This is because we think in terms of government (laws, justice and culture) as democracies. Few understand that G-d governs as a supreme Suzerain in a Kingdom. If we study ancient Near Eastern Suzerain governing covenants, we may learn why heaven is called a Kingdom of heaven and why Jesus the Christ is referred to as a King.

I will attempt to make my remarks short. Within a kingdom there are different covenants for those that serve in the kingdom at different positions. Within each covenant of the kingdom there is a servant Proctor that brings that covenant to those receiving each covenant. Jesus explained that these covenant proctors are like shepherds in Israel that look after G-d’s flock. Laban as a keeper of the Brass Plates was not Nephi’s enemy but rather his divine friend and proctor as the keeper of sacred scripture. What transpired was a divine sign from heaven indicating that Laban had committed treason against G-d and G-d’s covenant with him and that in turn that Nephi was appointed by G-d to become the Proctor of scripture in a new covenant and line within the family of Lehi.

This is a great point to consider as well. I wonder if Laban was the rightful owner of the plates or not is also something to consider. We know he's a robber, did he steal them from someone else? Whether he was the rightful owner or not, he took upon himself the responsibility for that record and was no longer worthy of their guardianship. Under that Suzerain covenant, Laban's treason would have been the death penalty as well, so if that was the case, as a keeper of that sacred record that could be your fourth offense right there, direct treason against the Almighty himself.

[Wondering Wendy]

When there is no law, there is no sin, so he would have retained the mercy of the Lord, correct. I still think about that balance though between his conscious and what the spirit told him. His conscious and the Light of Christ within him abhorred the command of the spirit. Makes me question if it's even possible for the spirit of God to tell you to do something that is already morally repugnant to you. Maybe the choice of the word constrained is trying to tell us something, I don't profess to know though.

This is a thread that explores this idea further. I think you might find it interesting.

Abraham and Isaac - Obedience vs Morality