Nephi was justified in killing Laban

Brother Renlund recently brought up the topic of Nephi slaying Laban, and stated, “No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory.” [Renlund, Oct 2022 General Conference, A Framework for Personal Revelation] Since the brethren themselves are not aware of the simple and clear scriptural answer to this issue, I feel inspired to publish it, so that we need not continue philosophizing and agonizing over that which the Lord has already explained in excruciating detail.

The context of Renlund's quote is "Some might point out that Nephi violated a commandment when he slew Laban. However, this exception does not negate the rule—the rule that personal revelation will be in harmony with God’s commandments. No simple explanation of this episode is completely satisfactory, but let me highlight some aspects." He apparently considers this episode an exception from following God's commandments. So, at a minimum, a completely satisfactory explanation would have show that Nephi's actions were in fact in harmony with God's commandments. This is what I will show.

The scriptural explanation of the law under which Nephi was acting is laid out in D&C section 98. There are many treasures of knowledge in this section, but the treasure we are studying begins in verse 23, where the Lord says, “Now, I speak unto you concerning your families…” As we shall see, these passages of scripture concern issues of self defense and and the protection of our own lives and our family’s lives, including securing our physical safety, and the safety of our possessions. We begin with the condition, “if men will smite you, or your families.” My opinion is that we are justified in defending ourselves and our families to the best of our abilities at all times, so the word “smite” here implies to me that men have overcome our attempt to defend ourselves and succeeded in doing some sort of violent harm to us or our families. This could include murder, assault, beating, rape, theft, or other violent crimes.

You may disagree with me on the extent one can or should use violence in self-defense, and that is fine, because the main issue which the Lord addresses in these scriptures is not self-defense, but instead he is addressing the topic of revenge. In other words, the condition is that violent harm has been done to you or your family, overcoming any attempts to resist, and the question is, what do you do next in response? And the Lord answers, “if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded”. The Lord affirms that we should not seek revenge for offenses committed against us, but that we should bear it patiently, and even forgive the enemies who commit such offenses against us. Vengeance is something the Lord reserves for himself, as the Righteous Judge, whose omniscience allows him to know all the circumstances by which men are led to commit such wickedness. “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” [Romans 12:19] “But of you it is required to forgive all men.” [D&C 64:10]

There are many scriptures exhorting us to love and forgive our enemies. For example, Romans 12:20-21 tells us, “Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.” And D&C 64:11 says, “Ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds,” which hearkens back to instances in the Old Testament where people actually speak those words to their enemies (1 Sam 24:12).

But I think the most remarkable condemnation of revenge is the next verse in D&C 98, verse 24, “But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.” This is a truly incredible statement from the Lord. If you are the sort of person who seeks revenge on your offender, then whatever was done to you is accounted (retroactively!) as a just measure for the violence you commit in seeking revenge. We should all ponder on the the implications of this verse, especially when we are feeling grudges and resentment for wrongs committed against us.

I will add my personal opinion again, that this does not mean that justice should not be carried out. We have a justice system which removes the need for retributive violence from the individual and assigns that responsibility to officials who do not have a personal stake in the crime. This allows them to be more fair in their judgments and punishments, and prevents cycles of revenge and retribution which can go on for generations in societies which do not have such an organized system of justice. Indeed, it can even make it easier for us to forgive, if we know that others will take care of seeing that justice is carried out. It is not your responsibility to see justice done for offenses against you, or even to imagine what sort of justice should be done. That is the responsibility of God, or of relatively unbiased people in the civil justice system. You are free to work on personal healing, forgiveness, and even showing mercy to your offenders, knowing that others have the responsibility for doing the justice and punishment. Anyone who escapes civil justice will face the justice of God when all men are judged according to their works.

Returning to D&C 98, consider again verse 23. We are to bear the first offense patiently, not even reviling in words against them. The word “revile” means “to criticize in an abusive or angrily insulting manner.” Bearing it patiently does not imply keeping silent. It seems just to me to declare the crime, especially to the offender himself. Many non-violent offenses cause lasting harm and grudges without the offender even being aware that he has said or done something wrong. Therefore we should declare when we have been offended rather that harboring silent grudges, and give the offender a chance to consider that someone has been offended by his actions. But if they do not repent, we should bear it patiently, forgive, and in the case of non-violent offenses, even consider whether we are too eager in taking offense. To angrily revile would risk starting a cycle of insults and accusations back and forth which will add bitterness, resentment, and other psychological damage on top of the damage from the initial crime.

Verse 23 contains the word “once.” In 25 and 26, we see that we should also bear the second and the third offense patiently, without reviling. “And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred-fold. And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold.” That is a lot of rewards. When the Lord says “I will repay,” he means he will recompense those who forgive for the offenses against them, as well as repaying the offender for his crimes. Skipping ahead slightly, in verse 30, we read that if you continue to spare your enemy when he commits further offenses, God says, “And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” The only other scripture I can think of which promises such great rewards is the promise for paying tithing in Malachi 3. “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” If you want to live a blessed life, paying tithing and forgiving others would be very good things to do.

But something different happens after the third offense in D&C 98. Verses 27-28 say, “And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out. And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.” After three offenses, if he has not been punished by the Lord (or by the justice system), you are justified in warning your enemy that you will be patient no longer. Of course this would be in a non-reviling, non-angry, non-insulting manner. And after all that, the Lord will apparently help us against our enemy, if he continues to offend.

Verse 29 reads, “And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands.” This is a direct link to the story of Nephi and Laban. Consider 1 Nephi 4:11, “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.” The words “delivered him into thy hands” are used in both of these scriptures, showing that Nephi was aware of the Lord’s standard for justice. Nephi even counts three offenses in this verse. Laban sought to kill him. Actually he did that twice, having tried to kill his brothers (his family) as well. Laban did not hearken to the commandments of the Lord. This could imply that Nephi delivered a warning to Laban at some point. And Laban stole all his treasures. Of course, Nephi is also following the voice of the Spirit, just as Brother Renlund preaches in the talk referenced earlier. “And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands.” [1 Nephi 4:12]

In such cases, after three offenses, we have the choice to spare our enemy and receive the great blessings mentioned in verse 30, or to take justice into our own hands and reward our enemy according to his works, as stated in verse 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.” This is the Lord’s standard for justice, and though it may be a hard saying, it does justify killing in self-defense, if your life or your families lives have been endangered.

But if we have any doubt that Nephi was following the Lord’s standard of justice, as set forth in D&C 98, then just read the next verse (D&C 98:32) “Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi.” How could the Lord make this any more obvious? I think D&C 98 is a completely satisfactory explanation of the justice in the episode of Nephi and Laban.

The only thing I find slightly unsatisfactory, is that Nephi relates only two actual incidents of violence from Laban. The first incident is in 1 Nephi chapter 3, verses 11-14, when he tries to kill Nephi’s brother Laman. The second incident is in chapter 3, verses 22-27, when Laban tries to kill Nephi and all his brothers and steals their stuff. I usually count two attempted murders and one theft to get three offenses, but Nephi really only relates two incidences.

One possible way to harmonize this, is to consider another time in the Book of Mormon, where other Nephites speak of this same law and standard of justice. In Alma 43:46, this same standard of justice is briefly stated. “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.” This scriptures shows that this law was well known among the Nephites and taught from generation to generation. But it is possible that the version given to Nephi and the Nephites was a “two strikes and you are out of patience” instead of the “three strikes” given in D&C 98. However you interpret the events, it is clear that Nephi had lived up to the Lord’s standard of justice in slaying Laban.

If you continue reading D&C 98, verses 33-38 teach that this same standard of justice applies between nations, just as it applies between individuals. We should read again the remarkable statement in verse 24, and ponder about what the Lord thinks of the wars of retribution our own nation has recently waged against its enemies. Indeed, we are told that we should not go out to battle until the Lord commands it, and if we obey his commands, the Lord will fight our battles. [D&C 98:36-37, D&C 105:14]

The rest of section 98 repeats this standard of justice a third time, this time adding what we should do if the enemy repents of his trespass, which is to forgive him each time (until seventy times seven).

When I finally found this explanation in D&C 98 and the clear declarations from the Lord that this applies directly to Nephi, frankly I was amazed that church members, including myself, have agonized for so long, and continue to agonize, over the justice of Nephi killing Laban. And then I wonder how many other great truths are clearly stated in the scriptures, but our minds are too darkened to see them?

British Slavery Compensation debt

The Slave Trade Act 1807 abolished the slave trade in the United Kingdom and British Empire. The fines imposed were not enough to deter all trading, so the Slave Trade Felony Act 1811 made the crime a felony. Since slavery was still legal, it became necessary to distinguish between legal slaves who were imported before 1807 from slaves who were imported illegally after that Act. This incited British colonies to register slaves, and in 1819 a centralised Office for the Registry of Colonial Slaves was established in London.

The Slavery Abolition Act 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire. (After a 6-year apprenticeship period, and except in certain colonies controlled by the East India company, where slavery was abolished int 1843.) Presumably to make this politically feasible, the act allowed for 20 million pounds to be paid in compensation to slave owners. The payments were managed by the Slave Compensation Commission, and their records form a complete census of slave ownership in the British Empire in the 1830s.

The records from the commission and previous registrations are kept at the Legacies of British Slave-ownership site and at the National Archives) Another source for information is the book “The Price of Emancipation” by Nicholas Draper.

The National Archives site includes this description in their summary of the data:

“In 1834 slavery was abolished in British colonies under the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. This Act also provided for a sum of £20 million to compensate slave proprietors. Its distribution was entrusted to a Slave Compensation Commission which began to meet in October 1833 and included representatives of the Colonial Office and the slave registry. It worked on data collected by assistant colonial boards of compensation nominated by the governor in each colony, and compensation was allowed on slaves appearing on the books of the slave registry on 1 July 1835. Actual payment of the claims was made by the National Debt Office. 

The commission was terminated at the end of 1842, but one of the commissioners was appointed as an arbitrator to adjudicate upon outstanding claims. At the end of 1845 all money unappropriated reverted to the public purse. The registry continued in existence until 1848.

(Note: according to the Legacies for British Slaveownership organization, £18.7M had been awarded by the end of 1837, and with expected in the intervening years, so it is unlikely there was much, if any, to revert to the public purse in 1845.)

Why do people care? 

In February 2018 the British Treasury published a tweet saying the debt for the £20 million was not paid off until 2015. The tweet was later deleted, but memorialized and quoted in articles such as this.

“Millions of you helped end the slave trade through your taxes” 

“Did you know? In 1833, Britain used £20 million, 40% of its national budget, to buy freedom for all slaves in the Empire. The amount of money borrowed for the Slavery Abolition Act was so large that it wasn’t paid off until 2015. Which means that living British citizens helped pay to end the slave trade.”

What does it actually mean for a 1833 debt to be paid off in 2015? Can we follow the money for nearly 200 years? Much of the hype since the tweet has been bemoaning that the money was paid to slave owners, rather that as reparations to slaves themselves. We can chalk that up to unfortunate political expediency at that time. But how and why were we continuing to pay off a debt for that until 2015, and who were we paying all that money to?

FOI question on the payoff in 2015

A 2018 Freedom of Information request asked “Is it true in 1833 Britain used 40% if it budget to buy freedom for slaves in the Empire? Can you confirm that the borrowed money for the Abolition Act was only paid off in 2014?”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680456/FOI2018-00186_-_Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833_-_pdf_for_disclosure_log__003_.pdf

The Slavery Abolition Act (1835) Loan was rolled over into the Government’s gilt programme, ultimately into an undated gilt, the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after). 

The term ‘undated’ refers to the fact that this gilt was issued with an earliest potential redemption date of 1957, but it was not compulsory for the gilt to be redeemed at this date. The 4% Consolidated Loan was redeemed on 1 February 2015, as part of the Government’s decision to modernise the gilt portfolio by redeeming all remaining undated gilts.

FOI question on interest paid on the 1835 loan.

Another FOI question asked for more details on the loan, including the interest rate and amount of interest paid on it.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/amount_paid_per_year_to_repay_sl

The 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after) redeemed on 1 Feb 2015. Its redemption value was ₤218M. This does not include any previous interest payments.

While the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) load was ultimately repaid through the redemption of the 4% Consolidated Loan (1957 or after), between 1833 and 1927 (when the 4% Consolidated Loan was first issued), the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan would have been converted into new stock. At this point, holders of the original loan would have been offered a choice of redeeming their holdings or converting it into the new stock. However, we do not hold records of their decisions, so it is not clear how many holders, if any chose to convert their holdings in to the new stock. For this reason, it is not possible for HM Treasury to determine how much of the 4% Consolidated Loan was made up of Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan, or how much was left on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan in 2015. It is therefore not possible for us to provide the total sum required to repay the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan. 

HM Treasury does not hold any detailed information on the structure or amounts of repayments made under the original Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan; however it is likely that this would have been through twice-yearly interest payments, similar to the current structure of gilts. HM Treasury does not hold information on the total interest paid on the Slavery Abolition Act (1833) loan.

What was included in the 4% Consolidated Loan?

https://www.history.com/news/6-longstanding-debts-from-history

In 2014, the British government announced plans to pay down a chunk of debt dating all the way back to the early 18th century. The bills existed in the form of perpetual bonds left over from the “Four Percent Consolidated Loan,” which Prime Minister Winston Churchill had issued in 1927 to refinance national war bonds from World War I. These “4% Consols,” however, included more than just World War I debt. Thanks to decades of government refinancing and consolidation, the stew of old bills also contained borrowing from the Napoleonic and Crimean Wars, an 1847 loan to assist Ireland during its Great Famine, and even money paid to compensate slaveholders when Britain’s Slavery Abolition Act was passed in 1835. By far the oldest debt was from a government bailout that followed the so-called South Sea Bubble, a 1720 financial panic caused by rampant stock speculation in Britain’s South Sea Company. In a 2014 press release, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer said there were over 11,000 bondholders still collecting interest on the centuries-old debt. At the time, the government had not made an effort to redeem any of its perpetual bonds for 67 years.

(The other debts described in this article are also interesting to read about.)

What we know about the original loan

We do know (according to wikipedia) that the British government provided £5 million, and got a loan in 1835 for £15 million from bankers Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore. Wikipedia says “£20 million amounted to 40% of the Treasury's annual income or approximately 5% of the British GDP.”

We can surmise from their inclusion in the 4% Consolidated Loan, that the gilts issued in 1835 were perpetual bonds, with no maturity date. We don’t know the interest rate originally negotiated, but since being included with the Consolidation Loan in 1927 it was 4%.

The Rothchilds were bankers, practicing fractional reserve finances, so there is no need to assume they actually had that much money to lend. They just have to issue bank notes promising to pay up if anyone asks for the money.

More on consols

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/07/consols-the-never-ending-bonds/

Consols are bonds without a maturity date. “Consols were first introduced in 1751 at 3.5% and have been in circulation ever since, although interest rates have varied. In 2015, the British government decided to redeem all consols in circulation.” (The FRED site above has information on the interest rates of consols over the years.)

Effects of the loan

https://www.bondvigilantes.com/blog/2017/09/06/2nd-largest-bailout-british-history-economic-effects/

This research shows that the slavery compensation payouts resulted in, among other things, 10% inflation in 1836, about 4% in 1837-1839. Economically, this means that while the slave owners were being paid a windfall to invest in various industries (some are listed in the article), the people who did not own slaves paid for that windfall in lost buying power. Adding 5% to the the GDP resulted in 10% inflation.

A very rough guess at an answer

So in answer the question of how much was paid in interest and to whom, we can only guess with a very rough estimate. A 4% annual payout on £15M (£600k/year) from 1834 to 2014 (180 years) is £108M. That is aside from the principle amount of £15M, which was repaid in 2014 unless it was specifically requested to be redeemed at some earlier time by the debt holder. The principle receivers of this money were the Rothchilds and their banking heirs. They could have sold off some of their shares in this debt to others, of course, but they receive their compensation from that in the price of the sale.

Violence against the womb

Big Ocean Women speak of violence against women in these terms: "our first natural environment of the womb has become abused, violated, neglected, and ignored ... and we must acknowledge it."

Framing violence against women as violence against the womb brings the violent act of abortion into the picture, so I was curious about comparing abortion with the usual violent act against women, rape.

Here is a graph of the abortion rate (source)

Here is a graph of the rate rape (source)

The interesting thing here is that abortions are reported as rate per 1000, while rapes are reported at rapes per 100,000. They need completely different scales to talk about the rates.

Put in rather stark terms, then, the rate of self-inflicted violence against the womb is approximately 50 times higher than the rate of other-inflicted violence. In other words, if we compare frequency, there are 50 abortions for every 1 rape.

I think Big Ocean Women recognizes this reality when say, shortly afterward, that they are seeking to "safeguard the womb ... to protect it from objectification and violence, whether committed by others or self-inflicted." But even they do not point out the full scale of the violence.

Protracted Warfare

There is an important lesson our leaders have failed to learn about warfare. It is a lesson known to all successful conquerors, but not to those who lead empires to destruction. It is often the cause of the fall of their empire.

Protracted warfare is not war at all. It is training for your enemies.

The Spartans were the most powerful of all the Greek city-states, and defeated the up-and-coming Athenians in the Pelopponesian War. But they were eventually upset by the Thebans. This quote explains how that came about.

[Agesilaus] waived the exemption by law which he had formerly claimed in the matter of the expedition, and presently led an incursion into Boeotia himself, where he inflicted damage upon the Thebans, and in his turn met with reverses, so that one day when he was wounded, Antalcidas said to him: "Indeed, this is a fine tuition-fee which thou art getting from the Thebans, for teaching them how to fight when they did not wish to do it, and did not even know how." For the Thebans are said to have been really more warlike at this time than ever before, owing to the many expeditions which the Lacedaemonians made against them, by which they were virtually schooled in arms. And Lycurgus of old, in one of his three so‑called "rhetras," forbade his people to make frequent expeditions against the same foes, in order that those foes might not learn how to make war.  -- Plutarch, Life of Agesilaus

Sun Tzu warns of the dangers of prolonged warfare in "The Art of War".

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. 

Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people's substance to be drained away.
When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions.
With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.

When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

-- Sun Tzu, The Art of War, book 2 

Mao Tse-tung also understood the dangers of protracted warfare, but he used them to his advantage when he was in a weak position. He espoused protracted warfare because he needed time to build up his strength against the stronger Japanese and Chinese Nationalist forces. And when he was strong enough, he went for the quick, decisive victory.

Russia fought a 10 year war in Afghanistan, which they were unable to win. This was demoralizing to the Soviet army.

Due to its length it has sometimes been referred to as the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War" or the "Bear Trap" by the Western media, and thought to be a contributing factor to the fall of the Soviet Union. -- Wikipedia, Soviet–Afghan War

The United States is now involved in a war in Afghanistan that started in 2001 and a war in Iraq and Syria which started in 2003. Wars of this length are always harmful, if not outright disastrous, to the empire who attempts to wage them. We are training our enemies, ruining our own economy, and patiently waiting for the consequences that must ensue.

Hiking Solo

On my last hike, I was walking on the trail, and I passed at least 5 men hiking alone, just like me.

I thought about how unusual that was. Not that men like to hike alone; that's quite common, I think. The unusual part was that I was on the trail where I could count them.

Men can self-identify as women, but whites cannot self-identify as blacks.

The liberal tunnel-vision of acceptable opinions has narrowed to a new myopic low with this story.

A woman named Rachel Dolezal wishes to identify as a black person, regardless of her actual DNA. But the liberals think this is a travesty. The New York Times writes, "Some people have pointed to this strange case as an illustration that race is malleable. I submit that Ms. Dolezal is a reminder that it is not. Racial identity cannot be fluid as long as the definition of whiteness is fixed." The Washington Post writes, "To adopt this identity under false pretenses is akin to faking a serious illness or childhood abuse to join a support group. Deeply felt empathy is not an entitlement to inclusion via false history."

Can you just imagine their reactions to such statements if black/white were replaced with male/female?

They claim that Rachel cannot be black because she does not qualify based on genetic history. And yet when making gender identity claims, no biological considerations are allowed any more. Consider this definition for example: "Transgender – or trans – is an umbrella term for people whose gender identity or expression is different from those typically associated with the sex assigned to them at birth (e.g., the sex listed on their birth certificate)." There is no mention of biology at all, as if the doctor rolled a dice and assigned the baby a sex completely arbitrarily.

The contrast and hypocrisy is really quite impressive.

Who hates your freedoms?

I am remembering that speech by George Bush, where he gives us a simple explanation of the motives of terrorists: "They hate our freedoms". George Bush is also the president who signed the Patriot Act, which actually does take away your freedoms.

So when you hear this kind of talk of presidents and congressmen, you should ask yourself, "Who hates my freedoms more? The ones they say hate my freedoms, or the ones actually taking my freedoms away?"