War in the Book of Mormon

[_sethpayne]

Hi Guys,

My latest entry to WWE:

http://www.withoutend.org/book-mormon-s ... war-peace/

Check it out! All the cool kids are doing it.

Seth

[_RockSlider]

good read, thanks seth!

The term/name "anti-nephi-lehi" always seemed weird

[_Sethbag]

Your analysis seems spot on, as far as explaining what the message is of the various passages.

I am a little troubled at the idea that the Book of Mormon stories establish anything as truth, however.

"Moroni's actions towards his enemies show us that ..."

If you were to perform an analysis on the war- and battle-focused parts of the Lord of the Rings triology, would you use the same kind of language? Ie: "The approach of Aragorn toward Boromir shows us..."

Let me give a more concrete example:

The story of the people of Ammon is important in several respects. First, it demonstrates the possibility that once-violent natures can become peaceful when persuaded by goodness, in this case the loving disposition required of all faithful Christians. Second, it shows that pacifism can be a viable option in efforts to uphold conceptions of Christian virtue — although it is made clear that pacifism is certainly not an absolute mandate. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates the incredible power of forgiveness as the Nephites not only embraced their former enemies but also, honored their commitment to non-violence and vowed to protect the people of Ammon from Lamanite aggression. [bolding added by Sethbag]

I could agree that the stories of the Book of Mormon could be seen as making certain arguments. You seem to be arguing that the Book of Mormon establishes certain facts.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. Firstly, it's not clear that the stories in the Book of Mormon even really happened. If they didn't, then obviously the stories are just ideas conceived in the mind of another human being, and at best represent their opinion on some subject. Even if the Book of Mormon stories really did happen, rather than establish the truth of some propositions that you have offered up, I would argue that they only represent data points that can be used to support certain arguments (not prove them).

I do acknowledge that in literary talk people often discuss arguments made in a particular piece of writing as establishing, demonstrating, showing, whatever. It is unstated that it is understood that a piece of writing merely argues for something, and perhaps offers up evidence, or whatever.

[_sethpayne]

Your analysis seems spot on, as far as explaining what the message is of the various passages.

I am a little troubled at the idea that the Book of Mormon stories establish anything as truth, however.

"Moroni's actions towards his enemies show us that ..."

If you were to perform an analysis on the war- and battle-focused parts of the Lord of the Rings triology, would you use the same kind of language? Ie: "The approach of Aragorn toward Boromir shows us..."

Let me give a more concrete example:

The story of the people of Ammon is important in several respects. First, it demonstrates the possibility that once-violent natures can become peaceful when persuaded by goodness, in this case the loving disposition required of all faithful Christians. Second, it shows that pacifism can be a viable option in efforts to uphold conceptions of Christian virtue — although it is made clear that pacifism is certainly not an absolute mandate. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it demonstrates the incredible power of forgiveness as the Nephites not only embraced their former enemies but also, honored their commitment to non-violence and vowed to protect the people of Ammon from Lamanite aggression. [bolding added by Sethbag]

I could agree that the stories of the Book of Mormon could be seen as making certain arguments. You seem to be arguing that the Book of Mormon establishes certain facts.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that. Firstly, it's not clear that the stories in the Book of Mormon even really happened. If they didn't, then obviously the stories are just ideas conceived in the mind of another human being, and at best represent their opinion on some subject. Even if the Book of Mormon stories really did happen, rather than establish the truth of some propositions that you have offered up, I would argue that they only represent data points that can be used to support certain arguments (not prove them).

I do acknowledge that in literary talk people often discuss arguments made in a particular piece of writing as establishing, demonstrating, showing, whatever. It is unstated that it is understood that a piece of writing merely argues for something, and perhaps offers up evidence, or whatever.

Hi Seth,

I am of the personal opinion that the Book of Mormon is ahistorical and therefore I view it as literature. In answer to your question about the language I would employ discussing the LoTR: I would use similar language. It is simply too cumbersome to always say "Tolkien demonstrates through the character XXXX that...." I appreciate Terryl Given's approach. He reads the text "as is" without taking a stand as to its historicity.

Also, it allows for a common language to be employed in discussions with believers, non-believers, and those in-between.

As to your point about proof. I believe that literature can demonstrate proof through narrative. Narratives need not be rooted in actual occurrence to expose fact or truth. For example, take Plato's Republic -- or any of his dialogues. None of them ever really happened but they still put forth demonstrable truth claims. Thus, when I state "Socrates defines justice as ...." I'm not actually claiming that Socrates ever really said any such thing. Rather, I'm simply acknowledging that the character of Socrates is arguing for, and establishing certain moral facts. In this particular case the true voice is that of Plato but again, it simply becomes too cumbersome to refer to 2 layers of authorship when discussing literature for purposes of philosophical or ethical discussion.

Look at most writers approach Dostoyevsky. I try and approach things in a similar way.

Now, can we use the Book of Mormon to help us explore Mesoamerican question of archeology? I don't think so. Can we use it to explore moral truth? Without question.

Seth

[_Sethbag]

Ok, as I said in my post, I do acknowledge that in literary discussions it is often implied, but left unsaid, that when when one says "such and such shows..." one is really saying "such and such makes the argument for..."

I have no problem with attempts to look for messages in the Book of Mormon, just as people would attempt to look for messages in any text.

I do have a problem with people making the assumption that any such message gleaned from a work designated as "scripture" automatically carries more weight than such a message gleaned from some other work. I am not saying that you made this claim, though I am certain the more faithful LDS would probably read what you wrote in that way, ie: a message coming from the Book of Mormon clinches it as far as they are concerned, because it comes from the Book of Mormon.

[_sethpayne]

Ok, as I said in my post, I do acknowledge that in literary discussions it is often implied, but left unsaid, that when when one says "such and such shows..." one is really saying "such and such makes the argument for..."

I have no problem with attempts to look for messages in the Book of Mormon, just as people would attempt to look for messages in any text.

I do have a problem with people making the assumption that any such message gleaned from a work designated as "scripture" automatically carries more weight than such a message gleaned from some other work. I am not saying that you made this claim, though I am certain the more faithful LDS would probably read what you wrote in that way, ie: a message coming from the Book of Mormon clinches it as far as they are concerned, because it comes from the Book of Mormon.

Gotcha.

Well, in this particular case if true Book of Mormon believers are led to embrace a moral stance on war then that is a good thing.

If, however, they take the story of Laban as a guide for their own actions without considering the serious moral problems that story seems to promote uncritically, then things can get ugly.

On the whole, Book of Mormon narratives are pretty morally sound, in my opinion. The more problematic narratives are found in the Old Testament and I cringe when I hear talk of genocide and mass murder as if this is just something God wants us to do sometimes....

In other words, we are on the same page methinks.

[_Sethbag]

Read some of this exchange.

Whatever Moroni said and intended to do, was right, and we should learn from him. For he was a man of perfect understanding about these things. He knew how serious and evil it was for someone to not be willing to support freedom and fight for it.

This is a pretty good example of what troubles me. Real people, arguing about principles they would apply to the real world, with actual, real guns, making their decisions by parsing the words attributed to (most likely fictional) characters in a book.

This is very similar to how I feel when I read people arguing for or against various laws on the basis of their interpretations of words attributed to Jesus in the new testament.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Not sure it has much to do with your OP, but one of the things that had bothered me so long, long ago was the warfare in the Book of Mormon didn't sync with warfare in the Americas given any era.

It just didn't match up.

Additionally, to sustain the warfare narrative you would require a very complex geopolitical message that drew boundaries and political alliances that simply didn't mesh the Book of Mormon version of Black Vs. White.

I sense you're trying to make sense of the Story, but the history and reality of basic human needs doesn't mesh. :/

- VRDRC

[_sethpayne]

Not sure it has much to do with your OP, but one of the things that had bothered me so long, long ago was the warfare in the Book of Mormon didn't sync with warfare in the Americas given any era.

It just didn't match up.

Additionally, to sustain the warfare narrative you would require a very complex geopolitical message that drew boundaries and political alliances that simply didn't mesh the Book of Mormon version of Black Vs. White.

I sense you're trying to make sense of the Story, but the history and reality of basic human needs doesn't mesh. :/

- VRDRC

Dr Cam,

I completely agree. The narratives are so far removed from any real-world type of warfare that it would be foolhardy to try and find any significant analogs.

What I'm attempting to do is identify the bits of moral truth within the narrative that CAN be applied to real-world geopolitical problems, knowing full well that the black/white dichotomy as presented in the Book of Mormon is utterly unrealistic.

Seth

[_sethpayne]

Read some of this exchange.

Whatever Moroni said and intended to do, was right, and we should learn from him. For he was a man of perfect understanding about these things. He knew how serious and evil it was for someone to not be willing to support freedom and fight for it.

This is a pretty good example of what troubles me. Real people, arguing about principles they would apply to the real world, with actual, real guns, making their decisions by parsing the words attributed to (most likely fictional) characters in a book.

This is very similar to how I feel when I read people arguing for or against various laws on the basis of their interpretations of words attributed to Jesus in the new testament.

Oh man....

I purposely avoided this topic in my post because it is the one part of the Moroni story I find so incredibly troubling. I actually asked Chris Smith about this issue earlier this week to get his perspective and he pointed me to some good information on rebel vs. loyalist unpleasantness. Were the rebel actions against loyalists justified? I don't know enough about the particulars (yet) to make a judgement.

The way that Moroni massacres those who won't fight in such a cavalier way is as morally problematic as the story of Laban. I can tell you that none of my believing family members would EVER consider such actions. Most sane folks have the good sense to know that they are not entitled to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Seth