A police officer is lying in the street, he has been hit over the head and unconscious. This police officer raped your wife. You take his revolver out of his holster and shoot him in the head. Its murder, maybe second degree, but its murder.

Again, you’re being presentist. Modern American/Western law (or law in Joseph Smith’s day) is not the same as Jewish law. Interesting that Joseph gets the law right for Lehi’s day, but wrong for his own.

The penalty for rape is not death under North American law, so you are again using a false modern analogy.

By contrast, Laban was worthy of death on several grounds under Jewish law. (Did you read the references I linked to?)

I don’t deny God commanded it in the text. But, it does not follow that God commanded “murder.” God commanded, essentially, a judicial execution consistent with Mosaic law.

Unless you think capital punishment is always murder?

You’re welcome to consider it murder. But, the Book of Mormon does not so consider it (and goes to considerable length to defuse that potential accusation).

It is therefore dishonest to continue to insist that the Book of Mormon admits or says that “Nephi murdered” Laban.

It doesn’t. And, it goes to considerable effort effort to avoid just the naive conclusion that you’re trying to foist upon it.

A police officer is lying in the street, he has been hit over the head and unconscious. This police officer raped your wife. You take his revolver out of his holster and shoot him in the head. Its murder, maybe second degree, but its murder.

Laban was unconscious. you can twist it all you want but its still murder. I love how dishonest you people are. Did God command Nephi to do it? If so then God allows for murder. Why do you have to jump though these hoops?

The Book of Mormon is quite honest in explaining that Nephi murdered an unarmed, drunken old man when he could have easily bound him, kidnapped him, or just left him and still take the plates. The Book of Mormon makes no excuses for this behavior except that Nephi was commanded to do this horrible deed.

Nonsense.

#1: “Nephi murdered”

The Book of Mormon no where grants that this is murder, and indeed goes out of its way to demonstrate that it is not, by Jewish law.

#2: “Unarmed”

Laban had a sword. Not unarmed.

#3: “Old Man”

It says nothing about Laban’s age, and given that Laban is in full armor, wearing a sword, and seems to be a military leader of some prominence, this makes it unlikely he’s a decrepit old relic. Plus, he “commands fifty,” as Nibley pointed out years ago.

See: Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, 2nd edition, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1988), 77.

#4: “The Book of Mormon makes no excuses for this behavior”

Again, nonsense. The text very clearly delinates several bases upon which Laban is worthy of death under the law of the day.

See here with links to the literature on the subject.

#5: “he could have easily bound him, kidnapped him, or just left him and still take the plates.”

Right. Laban knows, after all, who Nephi and company are. They’ve been to see him twice. And, powerful military leaders with men at their command likely just swallow insults like having prized records taken from them, right?

Lehi is at risk of death–people have already plotted his death, and if charged as a “false prophet” could be subjected to judicial execution.

If Nephi takes the plates, his whole party is likely dead unless they can outrun Laban’s retaliatory strike (unlikely, given that Laban would be just military men, while Nephi’s group has women, children, and provisions for alonger journey) or make sure Laban doesn’t come after them.

Have you read the Book of Mormon, or anything about this chapter at all?
==

Why do Mormon apologist have to jump through hoops when it comes to MMM and Brigham Young?

Speaking only for myself, I’m interested in the facts of the matter because I rather think the facts are interesting, and well, matter when it comes to deciding what I think of it.

Along with most historians, I’m not convinced that Brigham ordered it. I don’t think Brigham STUPID enough to order it, whatever else one might think of him.

Thus, I’m not convinced Brigham thought God commanded it, or said so.

Thus, the analogy to Laban or Jericho is inapt at best.

If you are confused at any of my “riddles,” just ask and I will be happy to clarify.

I don’t have a high regard for Mormon fundamentalists. They take an oversimplistic view of Brigham Young and filter out any information that doesn’t fit their preconceptions. And there are some strains of violent fundamentalists I would not want to be anywhere near, like Ervil Lebaron and the Lafferty brothers.

I do have a high regard for Brigham Young, but I consider him to have been on the wrong track at the rock monument, but on the right track when he offered to help Wilson bring the MMM perps to justice.

As for Brigham Young immersing himself in Old Testament times, he seems quite aware that parts of the Bible are figurative and that he is not operating in Old Testament conditions. Old Testament metaphors appeared in his more fiery sermons but usually in the same diatribe he would indicate some reason or another why there was to be no practical application.

I had hoped for more, but I can see this is nothing more than the shallow stuff I have found from other apologists. I asked why we cannot give Brigham his due, that he was not acting any different than other prophets in the Bible and Book of Mormon. He saw himself in this way but apologists have to tear him apart and re-invent him. How sad that the truth is thrown to the wayside. This is why I grew to respect, though not approve of their lifestyles, fundamentalist that take Brigham at his word. If you cannot see the damage apologists are doing to the church then we have nothing more to talk about.

Brigham also said that the massacre was divinely sanctioned. So the question remains, was he or not a prophet?

I don’t read Brigham’s remarks at the rock monument in the same manner you do. First, John D. Lee reports that Brigham Young was not thrilled with the massacre of women and children, while being misinformed that the men “meritd their fate.”. If Brigham didn’t approve of some elements of the massacre as he understood it, how can you make a case that Brigham thought God approved of it in general? The lack of approval suggests that Brigham did not have any special revelation in his role as a prophet about whether God divinely sanctioned the massacre or not.

There are many other times when Brigham was quite against the massacre. For example consider this part of Alexander’s paper:

Significantly, however, Young and the leadership still believed that the principal culpability lay with John D. Lee. In April 1863, after the general conference, Young; his first counselor, Heber C. Kimball; and apostles George A. Smith and Orson Hyde headed south with a large party.’37 On May 6, 1863, they visited Lee in Washington and Young condemned him before the apostles and others present. Recording the event, David John wrote: “Young spoke to… [Lee] about the ‘Mountain Meadow.., [Lee] tried to blame the Indians for the massacre, but Pres Young, would not accept his testimony, and at last said, ‘John D. Lee, do all the good you can, while you live, and you shall be credited, with every good deed you perform, but, where God and the Lamb dwell, you shall never be.’ Lee, wept bitterly.”’38 Although the General Authorities did not officially excommunicate him until 1870, Lee himself reportedly said that in 1863 he considered himself cut off from the church.’

Brigham also said that the massacre was divinely sanctioned. So the question remains, was he or not a prophet?

You people do the same thing with Joseph Smith. You can’t take him for his word. I am so tired of this lack of honesty.

On your other comments in the bloggernacle you come across as a Michael Quinn and David Bigler apologist. If you are into those authors, then it is seems to me that conservative scriptural approaches would have waved bye-bye to you a long time ago. You recognized that prophets (you specifically used Brigham Young as example) could be fallible. Now my question is, why are you so anxious to have Mormon apologists defend views you yourself likely reject? I am not interested in defending a strawman.