Nephi and Laban

One of the more difficult passages in the Book of Mormon is the one where Nephi kills Laban. At first glance, it's easy to mistake this for cold-blooded murder, but Nephi claims that it was done at the instruction of the Spirit. I've been asked by a friend to share my thoughts on this apparent contradiction.

After reading several comments, I want to clarify: there is a lot going on in this passage, and I haven't tried to address all the things that are happening in this story, and I'm not going into reasons why Nephi was commanded to slay Laban at all. This post is only addressing one narrow concern: is this a murder. I believe it is not. But there is a whole lot of other things that could be said about this episode, and many of them are, arguably more important. 

Anyway. To the topic at hand:

My husband and I have spent a great deal of time studying and discussing the fighting and killing that goes on in scripture; there is a great deal of it, and, being martial artists, we feel it's very important to understand clearly when fighting is not ok -- and when it is the right thing to do. This passage is a difficult one, and took a while for me to come to peace with. I have no particular claim to authority; I can only share the line of reasoning that my husband and I have traced in our efforts to understand this episode. The reader should, of course, do their own study and draw their own conclusions about the validity of my thoughts.

Quick recap, for anyone who isn't familiar with the story, which can be found at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, primarily in 1 Nephi chapter 3, though some of the back story in the previous two chapters becomes important, and the actual death of Laban is in chapter 4. But the story so far:  Lehi is a prophet in Jerusalem in 600BC. He tells the people that they need to repent, they try to kill him, and God tells him to take his family and flee into the wilderness, which he does. Then, he is instructed to send his four sons, Nephi being the youngest, back to Jerusalem to get the Brass Plates, which is the scriptural record of the Jews at the time, and in the care of a man named Laban. The oldest son, Laman, goes and asks for the plates; Laban calls him a robber and tries to kill him. The brothers then go and gather up the family wealth and try to buy the record; Laban steals their goods and sends his servants to kill them. Nephi goes alone into Jerusalem, following the prompting of the Holy Spirit as he goes along, and finds Laban passed out drunk. The Spirit commands him to kill Laban, which does after some hesitation and additional prompting and explanation from the Spirit, he gets the plates, and they all return to Lehi in the wilderness. That's the bare bones of the story; you can read the whole thing here.

Courtesy the LDS Media Library.

To start with, you need to understand the nature of God. God is perfect. He is perfectly consistent, and perfectly just. It is not in keeping with the nature of God to command sin or to set up situations where sin is the only option. We know that God cannot change -- Mormon teaches that, should He do so, he would cease to be God. Knowing this, we can conclude that what He forbids He will not later command; wrong stays wrong and right stays right. Additionally, because God is perfectly just, He isn't going to command an unjust killing -- not even if the guy is a creep and a crook and the good guys need the scriptures he's guarding. Therefore, the instruction to kill Laban was somehow in compliance with command, and must somehow be just, and to understand what's going on here, we have to look for a broad understanding of the revealed rules of fighting and killing.

 I've blogged a little bit about the rules of fighting as outlined in scripture before, including a bit about how I came to look at the topic so closely. When looking at the topic, the first thing to look at is the Ten Commandments, which we know are still in force today.

The sixth Commandment says:

---

Thou shalt not kill. -Exodus 20:13

---

 And for a long time I thought that was pretty cut and dried. But later, right there in the Old Testament, and still in Moses's time, I started to notice some apparent conflict: The Lord gave this commandment, but then He also said:

---

Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.
-Deut. 2:24 (emphasis added)

---

That was not the only time that He explicitly commanded Israel into battle - into killing. Now, we know that the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so I was confident that these things could be brought into harmony with each other. The beginning of that is to consider the meaning of the Hebrew word, ratsach, that was used in Exodus 20:13.

"Ratsach means 'to kill, murder, slay.' (Strong's Concordance, 266)" This same word is translated into various English words, the most frequent being, "slayer" (16 times), and "murderer" (14 times). From the ways that this word is used in other passages, I think it's pretty safe to say that this passage could have been rendered as, "Thou shalt not murder", and forbidding murder is fundamentally different from forbidding all killing. Drawing the distinction between murder and killing does not solve the puzzle of Nephi and Laban, but it does allow the possibility of there being a solution, which there cannot be if all killing is wrong every time.

It makes sense to me that the Lord would require more than expressing faith in His care to keep us safe:

---

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
-James 2:17

---

The need for action on our parts is also addressed in the Book of Mormon:

---

Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain. ... Or do ye suppose that the Lord will still deliver us, while we sit upon our thrones and do not make use of the means which the Lord has provided for us?
-Alma 60:11,21

---

So the next question is, "When is killing the right thing to do?" And can be a hard question to even ask, but I believe it is a necessary question. When I was deciding if I would continue to practice the martial arts, or to drop it for being inconsistent with the Lord's teachings, one of the things I needed to find out is if it is ever ok to fight, and to potentially kill an attacker. Because if it's not ok to defend myself, then it doesn't seem ok to learn how to do it; I was raised rather non-violent, and this was a difficult departure from my early training. The next piece of the puzzle we found in the Book of Mormon's "war chapters,"  in a set of passages that my husband and I refer to as the "rules of warfare".

The passage is talking about the differences in motivations between the Nephites (the good guys), and the Lamanites (the invading bad guys). The Lamanites are invading to expand their empire and enslave the Nephites. The Nephites, on the other hand, were defending home, family, and freedom.

---

And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had 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. 
-Alma 43:46-47

---

So you can derive a couple of rules for fighting from this passage.

1. Don't ever start the fight: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second...
2. If you are attacked, it's important to defend yourself: ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies. Because of the consistency of God - He is the same yesterday and today and forever - we can conclude this this principle is still in force today, and that we, like the Nephites, have a duty to defend ourselves should it become necessary.
3. If you must defend yourself and your family, it's ok to take it so far as to shed blood: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed.  

If we take these rules, we can go back to the story of Nephi and Laban and evaluate it according to these rules. First, Laman went to ask for the plates:

---

And we cast lots—who of us should go in unto the house of Laban. And it came to pass that the lot fell upon Laman; and Laman went in unto the house of Laban, and he talked with him as he sat in his house.

And he desired of Laban the records which were engraven upon the plates of brass, which contained the genealogy of my father.

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.

-1 Nephi 3:11-13 (emphasis added)

---

Laban's accusation was baseless: Laman had merely asked for the plates, not tried to steal them. Additionally, I know of no justification in scripture for deadly force to be used in retaliation for mere theft; all the passages I have discovered so far set a higher standard: our lives must actually be in danger before killing becomes justifiable. Laban's attempt at killing Laman, though unsuccessful, becomes a "first offense". Still. At this point, they ought to turn the other cheek.

Laman survives Laban's attempt to murder him, but they still don't have the plates, so Nephi persuades them to try again and they go to their place, gather up their riches, and head back to Laban's house to try to buy the plates. This doesn't go well, either:

---

And it came to pass that when Laban saw our property, and that it was exceedingly great, he did lust after it, insomuch that he thrust us out, and sent his servants to slay us, that he might obtain our property. 
-1 Nephi 3:25 (emphasis added)

---

This is a second attempt on their lives, and after this second attempt on the family they are justified in defending themselves even to the point of bloodshed, though they are not obligated to do so:

---

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.
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. 
-Doctrine and Covenants 98:31-32

---

The interaction obviously isn't finished; they still haven't got the plates. Laman and Lemuel are convinced it's a fool's errand and completely impossible, but Nephi heads back into the city alone to make another attempt. He didn't have a clear plan, but was following the Spirit, trusting that he'd be shown in the moment what was supposed to happen.

Of course, the story ends in Nephi finding Laban fallen down drunk, and being instructed by the Spirit to kill him in order to get the plates. In addition to Lehi's family's need to carry scripture with them into the wilderness, the Spirit himself reminds Nephi of Laban's attempts at murder that justify Nephi in defending himself and his family when Nephi hesitates over this very difficult command:

---

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

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

And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.

Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

---

Further Reading:
Was Nephi's Slaying of Laban Legal? -A look at Jewish law in relation to Nephi & Laban.
Nephi's Honorable Execution of Laban -Another look at Jewish law's effect between them.
The Symbolic Story of Nephi and Laban -A look at this story as a "type" of Christ.

20 Principles: Limits of Authority

This post is part of a series. Feel free to visit the series index for more thoughts on Charlotte Mason's 20 Principles of Classical Education.

---

It is extremely important that parents should keep in view, and counteract if need be, the tendencies of the day. On the other hand, it is well that they should understand the limitations of authority. Even the divine authority does not compel.
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching the Branches, (emphasis added)

---

It's wrong to force your will on someone else. There are a lot of names for this idea. Libertarian philosophy calls it the Non-Agression Principle. The Founders referred to the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable Right. I've seen some beautiful essays about Free Will from the Protestant tradition. And Mormon theology holds Agency - the power of choice - at the core of our doctrine, and teaches that, next to life itself, agency is one of the greatest gifts of God to man. Even the Atonement itself presupposes freedom of choice.

Whatever you call it, the capacity to chose is a sacred, holy thing.

It's also very unpopular in our culture right now, and it's become both ordinary and fashionable, often even seen as virtuous, to try to force others to your view and to acting on your view. So trying to parent in a way that isn't coercive and destructive of Agency -- yet still effective at teaching our children, as parents have an inescapable obligation to do -- can be very challenging and even counter-cultural.

---

Perhaps parents, great as they are and should be in the eyes of their children, should always keep well to the front the fact that their authority is derived. "God does not allow" us to do thus and thus should be a rarely expressed but often present thought to parents who study the nature of the divine authority where it is most fully revealed, that is, in the Gospels. They see there that authority works by principles and not by rules, and as they themselves are the deputy authorities set over every household, it becomes them to consider the divine method of government.
-Charlotte Mason, Teaching the Branches

---

It is interesting to me, though not terribly surprising, that what she says here is so much like what Joseph Smith said:

---

I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves.

---

It is not surprising that they should say similar things because both Joseph Smith and Charlotte Mason were seekers of Truth who knew that all Truth comes from one Source. He teaches that kind of person wherever He finds them, and His teachings are always consistent.

But what are principles? And what are these principles that we should be seeing in scripture to guide our parenting? It took me a long time to figure out how to see the principle, and it was martial arts that taught me what a principle is and how to find it.

It used to be, before we had kids, that my husband and I would go to seminars together, and our sensei, Kevin, would talk about not just looking at the current technique, but seeing deeper, finding the principle. That underlying thing, the fundamental truth about the body that would allow us to defend ourselves under a variety of attacks, and not just the particular one that we were studying that day in that class. Because every attack is different - but using the principles he was trying to communicate, you could defend yourself effectively from classes of attacks, rather than attempting to learn to counter each individual movement. We gradually became adept at finding that core, the guiding idea, that would allow us to do the various techniques successfully on a variety of body types and in a variety of conditions. This was very good for our growth as martial artists.

But when we started generalizing this idea of finding the underlying principle, and applied it to gospel topics, it revolutionized the way we look at scripture.

It changed everything because it taught us to find the why. Principles generally don't address a list either of things to do or to avoid; rather, they are the reason why we might do the things on those lists.

If you understand that a wrist lock produces a certain movement in the spine, then it's not at all a stretch to apply that same lock to the fingers, the elbow, the shoulder, or the neck, in order to produce the same overall effect on the body. That allows you to move from safe space to safe space as you neutralize the attacker's efforts to hurt you.

If you understand the purpose of tithing and the Sabbath, you don't need lengthy legalistic lists of how, precisely, you should observe those laws. If you understand that the family is central to God's plan for His children, then it's easy to figure out why marriage ought to come before sexual activity and childbearing, as well as the importance of cherishing our spouse and thus preserving the marriage. If you know that gender is a Divinely bestowed characteristic, then the distinct and complementary roles of men and women start to fall into their place in the scheme of things.

But how does that apply to parenting? To parental authority? My favorite example from the scriptures for how to parent is actually the Father's dealings with Adam and Eve in the Garden.

In the Garden, God gave Adam and Eve two rules: the first was to have children, and the second was to not eat the fruit of a particular tree. Our record doesn't say much about how much explanation they got on the first count, but He was clear about that second thing: 

---

...thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

-Genesis 2:17

---

Having warned them, He stepped back to give them space to choose. He allowed them to be tempted because there must actually be two options in order for choice to be meaningful -- and choice must be meaningful to produce growth. We know how the story goes: they chose poorly and ate from the Tree of Knowledge without permission. 

It is hugely instructive to see how He responds to His wayward children in the Garden. 

God (of course) does not freak out on them nor lose His cool. Although His children are behaving poorly, He maintains Himself and His own behavior. I think that this may be the element that is hardest for me to imitate; my kids know how to push my buttons, and it is sometimes hard to follow this part of the pattern of parenting He used in Eden. The good news is that, where He has given us weaknesses, He also promises to turn them to strengths if we turn to Him for help. 

The next part of our Father's response is to give Adam and Eve an opportunity to own their mistake: 

---

Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

-Genisis 3:11

---

Owning up to what we've done is a critical step in fixing the problem: you cannot progress through the repentance process while you are in denial that there's been an error. So the fact that Adam and Eve are quick to own their mistake is an important element, and I do not doubt that it made things go better than they would have, had they denied that there had been an infraction. (Cain, for example, has a much different experience.) Of course, our Father knew all along what had happened, but He still asked the questions: Where are you? Have you eaten the fruit? What have you been doing? These questions are not because God needed information, so they must be part of the process of teaching Adam and Eve. 

Then we finally come to the consequences that our first parents experienced as a result of their disobedience. God's consequences are instructive in nature, rather than punitive. It's not the case that they've hurt Him and He's getting back at them; these consequences are designed to help them grow and do better next time. Primarily, they are "cursed" with hard work, each in the field of their primary familial responsibilities: he to provide and protect his family, she to bear and nurture their children. As work is very good for us, the older I get the more this curse looks like a gift. It will assist them to develop the self-control and other virtues that were insufficiently strong in the Garden to keep them out of trouble.

As He informs them of the consequences they will be experiencing, the Father is not browbeating, He's not guilting them, and He's not haggling. He just tells them what's going on, then puts the changes into effect. And then they move on. 

There is so much in this episode that is instructive for how to exercise parental authority! Miss Mason talks about parents as being "deputy authorities" and to me, as I've tried to fill that role it's always seemed important that the kids can see that I'm not just making the rules up arbitrarily. Our family's rules generally fall into two categories: rules to keep us safe, and rules of right conduct which are based on the standards in scripture. And our kids know that we are bound by those rules of conduct as well: we don't allow them to lie or to be idle, but we don't do those things ourselves, either. They know early on that we are responsible to God for our conduct - and responsible to Him for the teaching we give them. 

But the thing I love the most about Miss Mason's comments here is the way that she encapsulates this truth:

---

Even the Divine authority does not compel.

---

If He does not employ compulsion, how much less right have we to do so!

Mormon Bible Study: Should Christians Fight?

I am fortunate enough that I was born and raised in an excellent family. My parents will celebrate their 40th Anniversary next year, and they're just cute. Among the many things they worked hard to teach my siblings and me, they taught us not to hit. We don't hit; it's not nice. We don't solve our problems by fighting.

I grew up, and I married a martial artist. He believes that sometimes, we should fight.

I eventually came to a point where I was feeling significant internal conflict between these two ideas, and in that space where I struggled to know what was right, I turned to the scriptures to find out what they say about fighting. It wasn't what I expected.

First, the sixth Commandment:

---

Thou shalt not kill. -Exodus 20:13

---

I always thought that was pretty cut and dried. But right there, in the Old Testament, still in Moses's time, I started to notice some apparent conflict: The Lord gave this commandment, but then He also said:

---

Rise ye up, take your journey, and pass over the river Arnon: behold, I have given into thine hand Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon, and his land: begin to possess it, and contend with him in battle.
-Deut. 2:24 (emphasis added)

---

And that was not the only time that He explicitly commanded Israel into battle - into killing. Now, we know that the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever, so I was confident that these things could be brought into harmony with each other. The beginning of that is to consider the meaning of the Hebrew word, ratsach, that was used in Exodus 20:13.

"Ratsach means 'to kill, murder, slay.' (Strong's Concordance, 266)" This same word is translated into various English words, the most frequent being, "slayer" (16 times), and "murderer" (14 times). From the ways that this word is used in other passages, it's pretty safe to say that this passage could have been rendered as, "Thou shalt not murder." This was a good beginning for settling the question of whether or not fighting is appropriate for a Christian.

Another place to look for guidance is the life of Christ. And when I do that, I notice that it's not all peace-love-joy. Christ frequently incurred the ire of people around Him, notably the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Sanhedrin, groups which included the priesthood leaders of the Jewish faith of the time.  Indeed, Christ warned the Apostles as He sent them out that they should expect serious trouble:

---

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...

-Matthew 10:34-35

---

Christ, Himself, did not shy away from conflict, occasionally including physical conflict.

Of course, the was not the only way that He solved problems. In fact, the scriptures give us a lot of insight into when, and perhaps more importantly, how conflict is to be conducted. As is usually the case, the Lord has very high standards for where our hearts should be when we find ourselves in a conflict situation. There are whole collections of scriptures that deal with our conduct with our fellow men, and it is clear that while fighting is a possibility, it's definitely not the only one, nor is it the first thing we should try. There also aren't any, "well, you were fighting, so we'll give you a pass" passages in scripture. In fact, we are commanded to love our enemies. Christ had high praise for peacemakers. He commands us to not only be slow to anger, but warns that anger may endanger our salvation. We do not solve all our problems by fighting, nor even most of them. However, though we can expect that, if we are obedient, the Lord will fight our battles, we can also expect to have a hand in our own deliverance:

---

Behold, could ye suppose that ye could sit upon your thrones, and because of the exceeding goodness of God ye could do nothing and he would deliver you? Behold, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain.
-Alma 60:11

---

In fact, the Nephites considered self-defense to be a duty that they owed to God:

---

And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had 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.
-Alma 43:46 (emphasis added)

---

But what about the martial arts, specifically? Does it matter what type of  self-defense we are learning? A concerned acquaintance recently shared an article with me that suggests that the Eastern martial arts are hopelessly contaminated by Buddhist and Zen philosophy and should be avoided by followers of Christ. At first glance, the concern is understandable, but I do not personally believe that all martial arts should be avoided simply because they grew up in non-Christian cultures. Brigham Young addressed the issue when he said:

---

Be willing to receive the truth, let it come from whom it may; no difference, not a particle. (Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young, chapter 2)

---

Certainly, dealing with non-Christian traditions requires care and the spirit of discernment, but members of the Church who have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost need not shrink away from truth found outside of our own heritage. The Holy Ghost's mission is to guide us to all truth! By this same logic, we could condemn the medical sciences as being hopelessly contaminated with secularism. It makes as much sense. But Brigham Young taught us that:

---

If the infidel has got truth it belongs to “Mormonism.” The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church. As for their morality, many of them are, morally, just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this Church and Kingdom. “Mormonism” includes all truth. There is no truth but what belongs to the Gospel. (Teachings of the Presidents: Brigham Young, chapter 2) (emphasis added)

---

We know that the Lord speaks to all nations; it should not come as a surprise that some truth can be found in the traditions of all peoples. I know, now, from experience, that martial arts contain a great deal of truth and knowledge about how the human body works, and that the philosophies that have developed around the art I have personally studied also contain more than a little bit of truth about things that are spiritual in nature. This also should not be a big surprise, as the distinction between the physical and the spiritual is largely artificial.

So, yes, I think that there is solid justification for Christians to fight in certain situations -even a duty that they be prepared to do so- and the martial arts are one viable option for learning how to go about doing it.