Some literary scholars of the Book of Mormon have used this incident to question Nephi's reliability as a narrator. Grant Hardy has written that Nephi's narrative was written long after the events actually happened "from the spiritual and political needs of thirty years later." In a 2020 article in the official LDS publication, the
Ensign, Clyde J. Williams emphasis the utilitarian calculus of the act, which weighed the interests of one person against the interests of a whole people, or "one life lost versus many." Nephi recognized that the record "would help preserve his people’s language and that his posterity would need to know the commandments in order to keep them," Williams claims. "Without the brass plates, they would not have the prophets’ words. Nephi also knew by the Spirit that the Lord had delivered Laban into his hands and that it was 'better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.'" Other Latter-day Saint scholars have urged caution with the implied premise of the utilitarian argument that God had no other options available for getting the plates to Nephi. "While there is no question that the possession of the plates was important to Nephi and his people," suggests Charles Swift, "we must be careful not to ignore the unlimited alternative ways to acquire the plates without Nephi having to kill Laban."
Justifiable homicide Many commenters have pointed to Laban's actions towards Nephi and his brothers as at least a partial justification for Nephi's actions. LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, writing in 1976 when he was the Church Education Commissioner, argued that Laban "has not been guiltless in his dealings with Lehi’s family." Holland points to five offenses that Laban committed against Nephi and his brothers: "Laban has
at least: (1) been unfaithful in keeping the commandments of God; (2) falsely accused Laman of robbery; (3) coveted Lehi’s property as a greedy, “lustful” man; (4) stolen that property outright; and (5) sought twice to kill Nephi and/or his brothers." Clyde J. Williams gives a similar list of offenses as states that "As Nephi looked upon this man who had sought their lives, the Spirit constrained him to slay Laban." In an extensive analysis titled "Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban," LDS legal scholar
Jack Welch cites Mosaic Law to suggest that Nephi's actions did not rise to the level of premeditated murder and should instead be considered a "protected manslaughter" rather than a "criminal homicide." Welch further argues that Laban's false accusations against the brothers, and his attempt to kill them under false pretenses, would have acted as factors mitigating Nephi's guilt. "Laban effectively stood as a false accuser," Welch insists. "Such an accusation, coming from a commanding officer of the city, was more than an idle insult; it carried the force of a legal indictment. Since Nephi and his brothers were powerless to rectify that wrong, God was left to discharge justice against Laban."
Obedience Most defenders of Nephi's actions, for whatever other reasons, ultimately rest with the argument that God commanded Nephi to kill Laban and that God rightfully has power over life and death. "In the end," Welch concludes, "Laban was killed for one and only one reason, namely because the Spirit of the Lord commanded it and constrained Nephi to slay him." Swift concurs: "In my view, there is only one justification for what Nephi did: God commanded him to kill Laban." And Holland concludes that, ultimately, the moral of the story is that one should always obey God: "It would seem, finally, that obedience to divine revelation, not death, is the focal point of this story. God can restore life in time and eternity; he can do almost nothing with willful disobedience. The quality of our obedience to God’s commandments is still the clearest expression of the quality of our faith in him." == Literary and artistic representations ==