Decapitating Laban to steal his clothes:a perfect crime?

[_zeezrom]

Wait,

Why has this idea not been proposed:

Nephi made a mistake in killing Laban. God did not really command it. He felt bad about it but wanted to look good in the history book so he added some divine influence details to the story. Maybe he did some other bad things to cover the evidence...

People say that about the killing of Amalekites - as in the authors added divine influence.

Why don't the apologists say it this way? If they did, it would protect the truthfulness of the book.

It would also make Nephi more human and easier to relate to... maybe.

[_The Dude]

A better question for The Dude might be to ask him if he agrees with my assessment that the Book of Mormon narrative is a literary allusion to the Old Testament narrative of David and Goliath. If he does, then much of his comment is merely posturing. If he doesn't, then perhaps he would be willing to engage me in a discussion of why he doesn't. Obviously, the question of literary allusion can be had completely outside the discussion of whether or not it is an authentic ancient text, so it isn't an issue of believer versus critic, but one of legitimate literary enquiry.

There are a couple of levels for looking at this and you seem to be interested in one level where everyone else, on this thread and the one on MADB, are interested in a different level. The level of interest for all of us is how in the world this story makes sense on its own terms. You apparently have nothing to add.

The other level is the one you are interested in, about deep literary connections between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. This is a completely separate question. But since you ask, I will tell you again what I think. I already said it to Euthyphro. I agree that much of the Book of Mormon can be seen as a "literary allusion" to the Bible, where Joseph Smith (not Nephite authors) ripped off famous Bible stories again and again. Calling them "literary allusions" is a way of turning lemons into lemonade.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Or, maybe a big, sharp, fearsome bejeweled sword was just handy and decapitation was the quickest, easiest thing to do in a "pinch," particularly if one were big, strong and knew how to wield a sword and was used to eviscerating animals for food on a daily basis.

Strangulation could alert the guards if there were a struggle. Somehow I don't think Laban could possibly yell out for help if his head is rolling away on the floor, but who knows. And, possibly his body could run around like a chicken's, but I don't know. I'm not an expert in this area.

And, who's to criticize the text for the bloody nature of the clothes? This didn't happen in the 21st century where we all have nice toilets and toiletpaper every day. Since when did bloody clothes stop the perps of the MMM from stripping the dead and using the clothes?

[_Euthyphro]

Gadianton: So, if he is borrowing from the David and Goliath story (and it doesn't matter who is doing the borrowing as I noted) then we wouldn't necessarily expect to see a discussion about the blood, even if there had been some. It isn't a part of the narrative (although taking the armor, and the sword, and the decapitation, and so on - they are all parts of the shared narrative). So, the title to the OP reads: "Decapitating Laban to steal his clothes: a perfect crime?" The reason Laban is described as being decapitated doesn't have a lot to do really with the stealing of the clothes. The decapitation is presented in the way it is because of the connection to the David and Goliath story. The story obviously doesn't need the kinds of details we get here if there isn't some underlying purpose to the narrative.

My only real issue is the way it gets treated in LDS lessons.

Ostensibly good guy decapitates bad guy. That's about the only similarity between David vs. Goliath and Nephi vs. Laban. Do you see others?

[_Doctor Scratch]

A better question for The Dude might be to ask him if he agrees with my assessment that the Book of Mormon narrative is a literary allusion to the Old Testament narrative of David and Goliath.

You scarcely agree with it yourself, Ben:

any study that deals with intertextuality and authorial intent will always remain hypothetical.

Boy, is that ever an understatement! Wimsatt and Beardsley would make mincemeat out of your argument.

If he does, then much of his comment is merely posturing. If he doesn't, then perhaps he would be willing to engage me in a discussion of why he doesn't. Obviously, the question of literary allusion can be had completely outside the discussion of whether or not it is an authentic ancient text, so it isn't an issue of believer versus critic, but one of legitimate literary enquiry.

Ben M.

Here's the thing, Ben: your argument is pretty terrible because it is taking a huge departure from traditional LDS interpretations of the Book of Mormon. Treating the Book of Mormon as a "literary" text is really a pretty recent phenomenon, and it's probably no surprise that the chief advocates of that reading are apologists.

Then again, if *you* are really serious about your "allusion" argument, perhaps you could explain how it's relevant in terms of increasing faith or understanding the Book of Mormon as a religious text. No offense, Ben, but for anyone with a rudimentary grasp of literary theory and analysis, your argument is beyond silly.

[_Themis]

I disagree with you themis, because it seems quite clear to me that being "willing at all costs to interpret or reinterpret the text to fall within the parameters of our beliefs" occurs on both sides of the discussion, not just on the side of the believers. Obviously you are putting yourself in one of these camps when you say that you are one of those who isn't willing to do this. But, I am not convinced.

Sure people looking at the issues from both sides can do it. The side I was referring to in regards to me was the believing side. Some of us believers are not willing, at all costs, to interpret or reinterpret the text to fall within the parameter of our beliefs.

[_Themis]

I have another question...

I would have to assume that since we have the Bible, there were other copies of the brass plates around. Perhaps even copies that Lehi or Nephi could have copied, right? Why didn't God task Lehi with creating his own set of brass plates years before they were to depart?? I'm quite certain God could have created a non-lethal and much more moral way of obtaining a copy, right?

I gave my answer already :)

The only reason Nephi was there to steal the plates was because he told God, "I'm not writing the whole Brass plates on new Metal Plates"

[_Benjamin McGuire]

The Dude writes:

There are a couple of levels for looking at this and you seem to be interested in one level where everyone else, on this thread and the one on MADB, are interested in a different level. The level of interest for all of us is how in the world this story makes sense on its own terms. You apparently have nothing to add.

I think it makes perfectly good sense on its own terms. In fact, the story is quite easy to understand without asking all the questions you seem to think need asking (and which it simply doesn't speak about). Stories are always that way. People present something because they mean to convey something about it. They always leave out things for various reasons. Your insistence that it has to answer these kinds of issues seems to me to be only motivated by polemical desires - not by any real attempt to understand the story or why it was told.

The other level is the one you are interested in, about deep literary connections between the Book of Mormon and the Bible. This is a completely separate question.

It's not completely separate though - because I am talking about the rhetorical strategies of the text of the Book of Mormon - of this particular narrative in the Book of Mormon. I am talking about what the author was trying to say in providing us with the details that he provides us with. I think it is quite relevant.

For Euthyphro, I wrote a rather lengthy article on the topic and it was published a while back in the Farms Journal.

[_Danna]

Laban was out meeting the elders of the Jews. And drinking with them. What on earth was he doing wearing armor?

It is romantic nonsense to think a soldier would wander around wearing armor when not actually engaged in some sort of operation, or possibly a show of force activity like a military parade. It is heavy and smelly and uncomfortable.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Doctor Scratch writes:

Boy, is that ever an understatement! Wimsatt and Beardsley would make mincemeat out of your argument.

Actually, I really doubt that you could participate in a reasoned discussion of Wimsatt and Beardsley (have you even read them?). I think my position would hold up quite well though, actually, since I never engage in the intentional fallacy (which is quite different from talking about authorial intent).