I offended an investigator recently who used this, where's the blood question, for his pretext to not put any serious effort into examining the Book of Mormon or its claims. I offended him because I just could not understand what the problem was. We do not have a detailed step by step drawn out picture of the precise events of that evening. By the way, the Book of Mormon is a book of doctrine not court room minutes. Nephi is explaining God's instructions and reasoning for why and how they were to proceed. He is not performing a dramatic reenactment. If you read the pertinent verses in 1 Nephi 4 you should realize this was not a thirty second mugging. Nephi spent time there with drunken Laban and with the Lord. He took time to ponder, pray, respond, deliberate.
What verse 19 does not say is I cut off Laban's head and then proceeded to remove his clothing ( Wow. I really did this in the wrong order. Gosh. That was stupid.) What it does say is after I cut off his head, I took his clothes and put them on.
Why was Nephi holding Laban's sword prior to having any thought about killing him. The most logical/reasonable answer is he was removing drunken Laban's clothing. Remember the mission is to get the plates. This is simple (I really don't mean to be a jerk, but) pretty obvious, and based on the fragments of information concerning what happened that evening, the most logical and rational idea concerning how Nephi proceeded.
There was lots of blood. Of course there was, but not on Laban's clothes. They had been removed. This is far more economical than saying when Nephi says, 'I picked him up by the hair of his head and cut it off.' that he doesn't mean 'I cut it off'. No, Nephi cut off Laban's head and put on his clothes, just as the passage relates.
My investigator friend was troubled that I would insinuate Nephi took his clothes off first. "The passage doesn't say that." Neither does it say he took them off after the head smiting." It also doesn't say he put on his sandals in the morning and ate his mush, but I bet he did. It also doesn't say he dragged Laban to a dark nearby area so as not to be seen, but I bet he did.
If someone rejects the BOM because of 'where is the blood?' They really aren't very interested anyway or have other issues with the BOM or the Church or our religion because frankly that's just pretty weak.
Todd RNovember 9, 2021
I found more scriptural support for why Nephi was justified in killing Laban in Doctrine and Covenants section 98:23-38.
It says in effect don't react to your enemy when they "smite you" two times, and if you spare them after the third time you and your posterity would have eternal rewards, "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 ENDARGERED BY HIM, thine enemy IS IN THINE HANDS AND THOUGH 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.
Nephi's account explicitly lists two times that Laban tried to kill them, and we can easily deduce that as and "elder of the Jews", Laban had tried to kill his father, just like the elders of the Jews killed the Savior. (No wonder, Laban and Lemuel said "it was a hard thing" to ask them to go back and face Laban when he had already tried to kill their father)
Nephi stated twice that "Behold THE LORD HATH DELIVERED HIM INTO THY HANDS" which is the same wording as the D&C.
Nephi wrote this account approximately 30 years after it happened and due to the difficulty of writing on plates, it is not surprising that he would not give every little detail of what the spirit may have told him, but what he did write is absolutely consistent with the law in the D&C, and the Lord told Joseph Smith that this was the law that he taught Nephi.
Comments | Return to Story
BoBNovember 9, 2021
I offended an investigator recently who used this, where's the blood question, for his pretext to not put any serious effort into examining the Book of Mormon or its claims. I offended him because I just could not understand what the problem was. We do not have a detailed step by step drawn out picture of the precise events of that evening. By the way, the Book of Mormon is a book of doctrine not court room minutes. Nephi is explaining God's instructions and reasoning for why and how they were to proceed. He is not performing a dramatic reenactment. If you read the pertinent verses in 1 Nephi 4 you should realize this was not a thirty second mugging. Nephi spent time there with drunken Laban and with the Lord. He took time to ponder, pray, respond, deliberate. What verse 19 does not say is I cut off Laban's head and then proceeded to remove his clothing ( Wow. I really did this in the wrong order. Gosh. That was stupid.) What it does say is after I cut off his head, I took his clothes and put them on. Why was Nephi holding Laban's sword prior to having any thought about killing him. The most logical/reasonable answer is he was removing drunken Laban's clothing. Remember the mission is to get the plates. This is simple (I really don't mean to be a jerk, but) pretty obvious, and based on the fragments of information concerning what happened that evening, the most logical and rational idea concerning how Nephi proceeded. There was lots of blood. Of course there was, but not on Laban's clothes. They had been removed. This is far more economical than saying when Nephi says, 'I picked him up by the hair of his head and cut it off.' that he doesn't mean 'I cut it off'. No, Nephi cut off Laban's head and put on his clothes, just as the passage relates. My investigator friend was troubled that I would insinuate Nephi took his clothes off first. "The passage doesn't say that." Neither does it say he took them off after the head smiting." It also doesn't say he put on his sandals in the morning and ate his mush, but I bet he did. It also doesn't say he dragged Laban to a dark nearby area so as not to be seen, but I bet he did. If someone rejects the BOM because of 'where is the blood?' They really aren't very interested anyway or have other issues with the BOM or the Church or our religion because frankly that's just pretty weak.
Todd RNovember 9, 2021
I found more scriptural support for why Nephi was justified in killing Laban in Doctrine and Covenants section 98:23-38. It says in effect don't react to your enemy when they "smite you" two times, and if you spare them after the third time you and your posterity would have eternal rewards, "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 ENDARGERED BY HIM, thine enemy IS IN THINE HANDS AND THOUGH 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. Nephi's account explicitly lists two times that Laban tried to kill them, and we can easily deduce that as and "elder of the Jews", Laban had tried to kill his father, just like the elders of the Jews killed the Savior. (No wonder, Laban and Lemuel said "it was a hard thing" to ask them to go back and face Laban when he had already tried to kill their father) Nephi stated twice that "Behold THE LORD HATH DELIVERED HIM INTO THY HANDS" which is the same wording as the D&C. Nephi wrote this account approximately 30 years after it happened and due to the difficulty of writing on plates, it is not surprising that he would not give every little detail of what the spirit may have told him, but what he did write is absolutely consistent with the law in the D&C, and the Lord told Joseph Smith that this was the law that he taught Nephi.
ADD A COMMENT