This, of course, was the crux of the argument. I suggest that, despite all of the reasons why the family could not return, Laman and Lemuel very possibly were defining themselves out of the family. It was their father, not they themselves, who had made himself offensive to the religious establishment. It was their brother, not they themselves, who had killed Laban and taken the brass plates. Even though their own social standing would suffer by association with their family, they could see no reason why they must accept their current deprivation. They preferred turning back, seeking the comfort of the city over the rigors of the road. After all, they were Laban’s kinsmen. Even though Laban had appropriated their wealth, they might be able to negotiate with his heirs for the return of all or part of it, especially if they could present themselves convincingly as people who knew nothing about his murder.
The desire to return was also likely enhanced by their proximity to Jerusalem, which always pulled at them, but would certainly have a greater hold on them when they were so close. And perhaps they knew that now, possessed of the brass plates and future wives, there would be no more trips back. This departure was permanent and their reluctance had never been more intense.