29 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blogger of Jared
- Blognitive Dissonance
- By Common Consent
- Don't Let's Start
- Ethesis
- Exponent II
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Latte Day Saints
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Popcorn Popping
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Purim
- Rhapsidiom
- Segullah
- Spinozist Mormon
- Sunstone Blog
- The Cultural Hall
- Times & Seasons
- Unofficial Manifesto
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Often the two end up being pretty similar. |
If the analogue is our effort in Iraq, multiple Al Qaeda broadcasts and publications have articulated that the useful idiots in this situation are the moveon.org crowd. |
Dan E., Please explain yourself, because frankly Al-Qaeda has no better friend in America than those who push for violence in the Middle East. Violence against Muslims is the bread and butter of a well oiled terrorist Islamic organization. Bush and Bin Laden need each other. McCain and Bin Laden need each other. They use each other as their boggeyman to stir their fellow compatriots to action. Bin Laden is mad at those in America who demand reasonable and peaceful actions because it undermines his very point: that America wishes to control the Arab world! |
I sort of picture Zeniff as a liberal sociologist or anthropologist for his time. Maybe it’s that line where he writes: “I saw that which was good among them I was desirous that they should not be destroyed. . . .” … that strikes me as a very idealistic view of the world and of people. It’s a little bit shocking that a Nephite force would fight amongst themselves and actually kill each over in regards to a debate over the character of the Lamanites. |
Dan and Dan E, I’d go even further and say that those that have over-reacted to 9-11 have both harmed the USA more than the terrorists ever did and have also in some ways been great friends of Al-Qaeda. Certainly the misguided invasion of Iraq has given Al-Qaeda a foothold in that country where it did not exist before. |
danithew: Modern (at least past 30 years, say) LDS missionaries have fought each other (not killed, but at least come to blows) over the nature of the people among whom they serve, how to treat them, and how to serve them. Many disagreements existed back in Brigham Young’s day about how to deal with the Indians. If I remember reading correctly, BY thought it cheaper to pay off the Indians with goods and food than it was to fight them. |
I’ll note that for my own part, I tend to sympathize with Zeniff — but given the relationship with Lamanites for the previous several centuries, it was a bit naive of him to lead a group right into the middle of Lamanite territory and expect things to go smoothly. What I like about this story — and much of the Book of Mormon, particularly in Mosiah through Helaman — is how subtle, nuanced, complex and true-to-life the politics, social issues, and war accounts are. And, of course, I always come back to Nibley’s phrase: “Woe unto the generation that understands the Book of Mormon.” The Book of Mormon bears a far greater resemblance (and relevance) to current global civilization than it ever did to upstate New York in the 1820s. ..bruce.. |
bruce,
I honestly cannot see that. The Book of Mormon is an account of two factions in a limited regional area with no accounts of any other peoples besides ones destroyed (Jaredites) or ones left behind (Jerusalem). The socio-political permutations of the Book of Mormon are bi-polar. There are two main players and only a few very minor players. The world today, post-Cold War, is a highly complex multi-polar world like no other in the history of the world. To try and make comparisons, generally, between the two just won’t work. The comparisons would oversimplify the world today, and take far more than is there in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon cannot show you how to deal with China and Russia and the multitude of various countries in the Middle East all at the same time. It is impossible. It is better for us to look at the world around us today for what it is. The lessons we should take from the Book of Mormon are those that deal with how to love our neighbor, how to love our enemy, and how to stand for our liberties, freedoms, and religious practices. The Book of Mormon, unfortunately, does NOT preach that we should stand for the liberties of others. I’m sorry President Hinckley, but you were wrong in your War and Peace talk.
No we are not, President Hinckley. Captain Moroni certainly wasn’t. Neither was Gidgiddoni. Neither was Alma. They never went into Lamanite country to “liberate” Lamanites and “defend liberty” wherever it was in jeopardy. They only protected their own, defensively. We cannot look at scripture to define our foreign policy. I know many Christianists wish to use Ezekiel 38 as a base of their Middle East foreign policy. How dumb can you get! |
danithew, #4,
Huh, I picture the Lord saying the exact same thing. Maybe Joseph Smith was right, “God is more liberal than you think.” |
Dan: First, I think you’re reading a bit too much into what I said. As a software engineer/architect, I deal with patterns in IT project management (and, for that matter, patterns in software design and architecture). I’m not proposing using the Book of Mormon for foreign policy; what I am saying it that it constantly presents little vignettes — patterns — that have strong echoes with modern domestic and global situations.
I disagree, strongly. The permutations are anything but bipolar; each side comprises multiple factions with shifting alliances, schisms, mergers, religious affiliations and conflicts. There is far more independence among the various Nephite city-states and Lamanite kingdoms (which are themselves from time to time co-opted by Nephite ‘dissenters’) that most people realize on a casual reading — on top of which you have the Gadianton group as well. I’m currently putting together an analysis of the Nephite governments and city states during the time period from King Mosiah’s abdication through the end of the Book of Mormon record, and it is far messier and more complex (and far less like democracy) than most casual readers realize. ..bruce.. |
Bruce, I’ll give you that Helaman has more resemblance to modern times, but not really. In Helaman, the greater political system breaks down to a more city-state system, while today’s world is quite strongly a nation-state system. In Helaman, the only reason the system was multi-polar was because of the breakdown in the greater system, while today’s world is multi-polar is the way nations have chosen to design it. Ironically, it was Moroni’s war against Amalikihah that broke down the Nephite society. That’s a lesson we should really consider. |
Dan: Go back and re-read Omni, Words of Mormon, Mosiah and Alma. Even before the ‘reign of the judges’, you had Mosiah[1] (father of Benjamin) migrating from the land of Nephi and leaving behind Nephites who — one has to assume — either were fully assimilated by the Lamanites (who expanded into that territory) or were just wiped out. Mosiah[1] then takes control of a much larger and quite distinct existing population/culture (the so-called ‘Mulekites’ at Zarahemla). Then Zeniff moves back to Nephi and sets himself up as a king. Yet later on, you have the former priests of king Noah (Zeniff’s son) setting themselves up as a city-state under Lamanite influence. In the meantime, king Limhi (Noah’s son) has his kingdom become a vassal state to the Lamanites. Both Limhi’s group and Alma’s group flee the land of Nephi and move into the Zarahemla complex. Mosiah[2] then abolishes the kingship — though reluctantly and only after all his sons turn it down — and you start ‘the reign of the judges’. It’s clear at that point that the ‘Nephite’ civilization comprises several loosely federated city-states — some of which felt little or no allegiance to the ‘central’ government in Zarahemla or to (Mosiah-Nephite) culture, religion, and genealogy. After Mosiah[2]’s abdication, major internal political factions keep breaking out into civil war, including once during the major war (Alma 43-63) with the Lamanites, causing the existing government to flee from Zarahemla into exile. For that matter, that major “Nephite-Lamanite” war is really a civil war (with strong religious undertones): Nephites ‘dissenters’ go over to the Lamanites, take control of Lamanite government (such as it is) through some rather clever and Machiavellian efforts, engage in classic ‘big lie’ propaganda to whip up anti-Nephite hatred, and seek to use Lamanite forces to conquer the Nephite city-states as well. Through all this, the Lamanites themselves have a collection of kingdoms, gathered again into a loose coalition under the ‘king of the Lamanites’. Even that splits apart — and again goes into civil war — for religious reasons. It clear from some of the incidents regarding Amalickiah and Ammoron that there’s still a fair amount of division among the Lamanites; they are being ’stirred up to war’ by non-Lamanite groups seeking power, but they are quick to stop fighting on their own and remarkably quick — after capture in battle — to simply settle among the Nephites. As for Moroni[1], while he was clear that he didn’t want that war, he also made it clear that he was willing to invade Lamanite territory and wage war with the explicit intent of permanent occupation, if not outright genocide (cf. Alma 54:7-13) — though you could charitably read that to refer just to the Nephite dissenters on the other side, rather than all the Lamanites per se — so you may want to be more careful in citing him. Likewise, some of the best times in Nephite history come after the end of the Nephite-Lamanite wars — which really last through Helaman 5 and which continue to be driven by Nephite dissenters. Ironically, it is that peace and prosperity that leads to internal corruption among the Nephites and the rise of the Gadianton faction (cf. Helaman 6-12). Throughout all this, there are significant populations shifts between the two major groups (usually as an aftermath of the civil wars). There are major periods of invasion and occupation, as well as other periods of peaceful co-existence and even a near-complete vanishing of any distinctions between the various groups. As mentioned, we also have the Gadianton movement, which at various times (a) is an independent political and military power conducting guerrilla warfare, (b) had a strong political and governmental influence among the Lamanites, and (c) actually gains control of the Nephite government, co-opting the existing structure. You also have groups moving out from the Nephite core all the time, particularly to the ‘north’, whose relation and ties with the Zarahemla government seem tenuous at best. I could describe the Israel/Palestine/Lebanon/Syria situation as having bi-polar (Jew v. Arab) socio-political permutations in a limited geographical area — but it would fail to capture the divisive and shifting complexities of that region over the past 2000 years or even the past 100 years (or past 100 weeks). My suggestion is that a careful reading of the Book of Mormon likewise shows that it is far more complex than most people, in and out of the Church, realize. ..bruce.. |
Reconquista? |
But Bruce, how often do you get third parties that are consistently at odds with the other two (Nephites and Lamanites)? Broadly speaking, a group that leaves the Nephites generally hooks up with the Lamanites, even though they may temporarily stay independent. The pull of the central power of both the Nephites and Lamanites is too great for an independent third party to really take hold until the book of Helaman, after the major war that really destabilized the central stronghold of both the Nephites and the Lamanites. |
I’m going straight for the extra credit: All that is good…oil - don’t destroy it sounds a lot like speculation, and when all else fails go for the corn fields… While in Nam i was told this war is 10,000 years old - BUTT OUT - i said who started it? - can’t remember, doesn’t matter anymore - today its mostly beach resorts Anybody want to go halfzies on a time share in Bagdad |
[If a lot of what I'm writing here shows up in a later, separate post at my own website, it's because -- as I said above -- I'm preparing a lengthy post on Nephite government, and I'm ending up writing a lot of it here first. :-)]
That’s pretty much the situation you do have throughout Alma and Helaman. What we tend to think of as “the Nephites” is frankly much more like the Balkans. You have at least two distinct ethnic heritages (Nephi v. Zarahemla), at least two major languages (Omni 1:17-18), at least two major religious groups (the Church of God v. the Order of Nehor, with a few other variants in there, such as the Ammonihahites and the Zoramites), and at least two major political philosophies (judges v. kings). This leads to constant political upheaval, city-states breaking off, and outright civil war on a regular basis. These differences account for most of the wars in Alma and Helaman; purely Lamanite attacks tend to be limited, brief, and opportunistic, with “Nephi robbed Laman” overtones, but the “Nephite v. Nephite” attacks tend to be very bitter, ideological, prolonged, and to the death. The “Lamanites” (also somewhat balkanized) do attack “Nephite” city-states from time to time, including breakoffs (such as Ammonihah). However, by early in the book of Alma, they’ve reach a detente with the Nephites; when one of King Mosiah[2]’s sons shows up in King Lamoni’s court, Lamoni immediately offers his daughter in marriage, apparently hoping to join the two royal families. Failing that, he tries to set up Ammon’s death; failing that, he repents and converts, as does his father and a few other Lamanite cities. Note who doesn’t convert: Nephite “dissenters” living among the Lamanites; cf. Alma 23:14. That same Nephite faction stirs up civil war among the Lamanite kingdoms, and the converted refugees — led by Lamoni, who is now renamed Anti-Nephi-Lehi — flee into Nephite lands. A brief war ensues; the Nephi/Church of God/free forces win; and the Lamanites decide to leave things alone. It is the Zarahemla/Nehor/kingmen faction that — having failed to secure control of “Nephite” territories by internal civil war — now takes over the Lamanite government (by guile and political assassination rather than outright war) and forces the long war against the Nephi/Church of God/free faction. So, you have at least three major political/military factions using political manipulation and outright force against each other all through Alma and into Helaman. You then have the rise of the Gadianton faction, which seeks to either control or overthrow both the ‘Nephite’ and the ‘Lamanite’ governments, first by political corruption and subversion, and then by outright war. It’s unclear whether the Gadiantons arise from the Zarahemla/Nehor/king group or represent a fourth major faction. I think we’re actually in “violent agreement” in certain respects, and your questions and issues are all good and relevant. The Book of Mormon does indeed describe something more akin to the Balkans that to our modern global situation. However, that does not mean — in my opinion — that it’s irrelevant to modern geopolitics. As I noted previously, the Book of Mormon captures vignettes — patterns — of interactions between groups in conflict that are (in my opinion) quite sophisticated and that appear in or are relevant to 20th and 21st century geopolitical conflicts. As always, your mileage may vary. ..bruce.. |
#3 Dan, Al-Qaeda has better friends than warmongering Americans- especially those friends that don’t kick their buns out of Iraq. Frankly, attaching their name to insurgents in Iraq has been horrible PR for the group- they are butchers and tyrants to Arabs as well as unbelievably vulnerable/vincible, not to mention cowardly. To say McCain needs Bin Laden is needing Bin Laden to discredit McCain. You also need Bin Laden, as does Obama. Depending on your perception of the situation, there is a political use of Bin Laden- you have shown this quite well. And kudos for calling out President Hinckley. Sheesh, you must not have heard the talk. He, as he always did, was telling us who we are to be as members, not who we are at the moment. And which Alma never went to liberate the Lamanites- if not by the sword, by preaching his religion- an intervention, no doubt. Those Nephites were always meddling in one way or another. As followers of Christ, we are expected to “meddle” and defend liberty, freedom, agency, what have you. Not by the sword, but by the word of God. That much you can argue, as President Hinckley did in that very talk. Free Tibet!, right? The Lamanite would havegone to war with the Nephites far less had not third party dissenters of the Nephites not stirred up the Lamanites with false accusations of injustice. That sounds remarkably familiar. Third parties always existed in the Book of Mormon and were critical players in the geopolitics of the history. Generalizing the peoples as “Nephites” and “Lamanites” only serves to simplify the tale- it really shouldn’t be taken literally in many instances. Bruce, Great post. |
Bruce, But you are attempting to compare with the modern world. The modern world (up until 1990) was just as complex at the micro level as you are describing the Nephite/Lamanite groups. Yet still, there were two opposing sides, a bi-polar system, which attracted the parties to one side or the other. I give you that in the book of Helaman there was a significant breakdown of this bi-polar system, but if you look carefully at the book of Alma, you’ll see that if a group broke off from the Nephites, they instinctively flocked to the Lamanites (Amalikiah and his bunch). Conversely, if a group broke off from the Lamanites, they transitioned over to the Nephites (the Anti-Nephi-Lehis). While the Zoramites and the Nehors broke off from the Nephites, their power was significantly weak enough that they could not add an extra polar to the power system. In the end, they were too minor to affect the bi-polar nature of the system.
Just a minor quibble here, but I don’t think he offered his daughter to unite the two “royal” families, as Ammon didn’t, as far as I recalled, ever announce himself as a prince of the Nephites. How could King Lamoni know who Ammon was? I really believe that the massive war that the Amalikiah and Moroni had led to the breakdown of the bi-polar system. In Helaman, it no longer mattered, and the various city-states had more power and influence than the more central government did. This weakening was exacerbated by the introduction of the secretive Gadianton Robbers. Basically my only disagreement with you is characterizing the book of Alma as multi-polar, which I don’t see it that way. I think from the 2nd book of Nephi through the end of the book of Alma, you have a broad bi-polar system going on which breaks down. I think that King Mosiah ending the kingship led to it. I think his introduction of a judicial system of governance led to the breakdown of the society they adhered to. I think the constant warring also eroded their society. And the final nail in the coffin was the introduction of secrecy in the government. Now, what lessons can we learn today from this? 1. Don’t give judges and lawyers too much power. In all three cases, the United States is failing badly. Finally, Bruce, I was curious to know what you thought of the Jaredite system. Can you see it as anything but a uni-polar system with constant internal civil strife? I can’t think of a good modern example. |
nasamomdele, #17,
Well, seeing that warmongering Americans opened Iraq for Al-Qaeda to pluck out new terrorists…really has Al-Qaeda had a better partner than America? America goes in, kills Iraqis, and Al-Qaeda swoops in and recruits their brothers.
I don’t need Bin Laden. See, I’m not pressing for more war against Muslim countries, nasamomdele. I want to make peace with the people Bin Laden wishes I would kill.
Yes, I did hear the talk and read it a number of times.
Actually, yes, please provide your evidence that Alma went among the Lamanites to “intervene.”
Okay, let’s get into it here. 1. Meddling. Show me examples of where the Nephites invaded the Lamanites to change their system of governance so that they would be more open and receptive to the Gospel. 2. Liberty, Freedom, Agency. Show me examples of where the Nephites went into Lamanite country to attempt to increase the liberty, freedom, and agency of the Lamanites. The only example I know of is Ammon and his brothers, and then later Nephi and his brother Lehi in the book of Helaman. In both cases, no sword was used, except by Ammon against the sheep stealers. In the case of Ammon, he became a servant of King Lamoni. He didn’t try to decapitate the king, nor criticize the king for smiting the servants who let the sheep get stolen. Do you know of any example of Ammon telling the King, “Yo, Lamoni, bro, you shouldn’t be killing your servants who let the sheep get stolen.” In fact, Ammon doesn’t say a single word. What does Ammon do instead? He chooses to serve the king, and then stops the sheep stealers himself. He saves the lives of the sheep stealers, except for the leader. He works through peaceful means to bring about freedom, liberty, and agency to the Lamanites under King Lamoni. He doesn’t force King Lamoni’s father to accept his son, or even his religion. But when King Lamoni’s father tries to kill his own son, Ammon intervenes and gives King Lamoni’s father a choice. Either let his son live and choose as he desires, or have his own life terminated. He doesn’t kill Lamoni’s father. He saves his life. Even though he was a threat. There are so many examples of using peaceful means to get good things out of bad people in the Book of Mormon that I really wonder if most Mormons who are supportive of modern warfare even grasp what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach us! 3. Did President Hinckley give us a commandment to go preach the gospel to the Iraqi people? Did he send anyone on a mission to attempt to preach to Saddam Hussein? No. He called him basically an agent of evil, a minion of Satan (because after all, our modern warfare is merely a continuation of the fight in heaven against all that is evil). President Hinckley warned America about the evils of an imperial power (which is what we are, though we are in constant denial), but he, alas, gave implicit support for warfare in Iraq, though none was really required. He said so himself, that our political leaders have more intelligence about Iraq than the regular citizen does. He implicitly trusted the Bush administration on Iraq. Bad bad move, President Hinckley. Really really bad move. So yes, I am quite disappointed that President Hinckley gave support to the war in Iraq, and misinterpreted the scriptures, particularly Captain Moroni, to defend a war in Iraq. |
Dan: Well, we appear to differ in our readings both of the Book of Mormon and of history, both ancient and modern. However — and I may be way off base here — I keep hearing a subtext in your comments. It goes something like this: – Some conservative Mormons cite the Book of Mormon as support for the war on terror, the Iraq invasion, anti-Communism, and so on. If that’s the case, you do yourself little credit by this approach, for several reasons: – I have read (and continue to read) extensively in both history (including military history) and modern geopolitics; my history books alone completely fill and overflow from a 6′ x 6′ section of my bookshelves. I find that “ancient” history is often profoundly applicable to “modern” situations; for example, I find that Thucydides’ “Pelopponesian Wars” offers strong cautions against our invasion of Iraq (e.g., democratic assemblies [Athens] whipped up by rhetoric voting themselves into a war that they later regret profoundly and which drags on forever at great costs to all involved). I’m a firm believer in Santayana: “Progress, far from consisting in changes, depends upon retentiveness. . . . Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – You’ve offered little support for your interpretation of the Book of Mormon and no real citations for it. In your arguments, you appear to conflate geography with politics and power, which again ignores highly intermingled and ethnically complex locations such as the Balkans and the Middle East (the exact two places where we’ve been at war for the past 20 years). In a sense, you try to do to the “Nephite” and “Lamanite” lands what England did to Iraq decades ago and what we’re trying to do to it as well, namely force an ethnically and politically diverse collections of peoples into one artificial nation. – You seemed to react to Nibley’s quote (”Woe unto the generation that understands the Book of Mormon!”), yet Nibley himself — a veteran of WWII, including the Normandy invasion, and our greatest Book of Mormon scholar to date — was profoundly anti-military and anti-war. Mormom himself made it clear that the Nephite wars came about from unrighteousness, which is exactly why I think he devoted so many chapters (in Alma, Helaman, and Mormon) to it. As for Ammon and Lamoni: do you really think a Lamanite king would offer his daughter (and thus his throne) to an unknown, itinerant, servile Nephite (whom Lamoni’s father later describes as coming from a race of thieves and liars)? You yourself have noted (a) the limited geography and (b) the movement back and forth between “Nephite” and “Lamanite” territories; do you think that the Lamanite kings really wouldn’t know who the current Nephite king was, nor who his sons and heirs were, particularly given all the trouble that the sons of Mosiah caused? I’ve already linked once to my full analysis of this incident; I don’t want to copy it all over here, so go read it over at my blog. Anyway, as I said, great comments, challenges and questions (Joseph Smith: “By proving [testing or trying] contraries, truth is made manifest.”). And, as always, YMMV. ..bruce.. |
).Bruce, My apologies that I really haven’t gotten into this debate as much as I should, as you note that I haven’t really cited anything, nor offered much beyond my own words as my defense. In comment #7 you made the contention:
That’s what I took issue with, your contention that the Book of Mormon bears such a great resemblance to our current global civilization. I’m one who never thought it resembled much of anything modern, be it Joseph Smith’s time, or ours today. The most important difference between both Joseph Smith’s time and ours today and that of the times in the Book of Mormon is that there are a far greater amount of players in the world today than there were back then. You can claim the various small, and somewhat insignificant breakaways like Zeniff’s party, as showing more resemblance to the modern system, but alas, they just simply don’t. Zeniff’s party eventually got eaten up by both of the two greater systems, the Nephites and the Lamanites. Now, when I speak of the “Nephites” or the “Lamanites” my definition of them is fairly loose. I do so only because Mormon does it too. He states on several occasions that various sub-groups take on this or that “-ite” name, but eventually he himself lumps them together in one of the two major “-ites”, “the Lamanites” or the “Nephites.” If Mormon sees them as essentially the two major groups, we should consider his words well. The Zoramites, as much as they considered themselves apart from the other Nephites, were still closer to the Nephites, and thusly, in terms of how Mormon labels the various groups, a part of the Nephites. There is no third party within the world of the Book of Mormon that endures longer than a few years separated from the larger two. The Gadianton Robbers are probably the longest lasting. They last about 80 years or so as a separate and distinct group that works contrary to the other two, the Lamanites and the Nephites. Zeniff’s group doesn’t last very long, and is also insignificantly small. It is no threat to either the power base of the Nephites or the Lamanites. The people of Zarahemla are a third party in the whole scheme of things, but note, importantly that as soon as they come in contact with King Mosiah’s people, they relinquish that power, and assimilate themselves within the realm of the Nephites. Or so Mormon would have us believe, since it is his account we are reading. The people of Zarahemla don’t rebel against King Mosiah, but willingly choose him as their focal point, as their power base. Within the Lamanite world, there is no significant breakup to consider there to be more than one main general power base. They may loosely allow provincial kings, but the main power is still at the central core. And there hasn’t been any account of a breakup of that system until the book of Helaman. Amalikiah threatened the Nephite power base with his attempt to overthrow the judicial system and bring back the kingship. But, interestingly, he did not form a third party, as a counter to both the Lamanites and the Nephites. Instead, he shifted to the Lamanites and controlled them, became them to do his dirty deed. But he wasn’t a third party. His power only came from controlling one of the two main groups: the Lamanites and the Nephites.
Now, hold on a second here. I have no problem with using “ancient” books in modern times. There are plenty of lessons that I recommend out of the Book of Mormon for us to learn today. In fact, I mentioned them in my earlier post:
Those are great lessons to learn from the Book of Mormon. Secondly, the limitations of the ‘bi-polar’ system and ‘limited geography’ only limit so much of what you can take as lessons from the Book of Mormon. I get the feeling that you are trying to say that the events of the Book of Mormon could be played out in a similar fashion today if we but applied them. I’m telling you that that is impossible because those limitations truly make an equal comparison impossible. There are just simply too many players with too much power today that are not accounted for in the Book of Mormon account. There is no “China” alternative in the Book of Mormon, for example. There is no “Russia” in the Book of Mormon. There is no “Europe.” But today there is. These exist, and must be accounted for if you wish to make a good, credible foreign policy. How you act in the Middle East is affected by your relationship to China and Russia because they too are affected by what you do in the Middle East. And your actions in the Middle East affect what you do with China in relation to Tibet or Taiwan, or Russia and Chechnya or Abkhasia.
Two points. 1. I really don’t think that King Lamoni knew who Ammon was, or what his lineage was. And I stand by that, unless you can show differently. Communication between the Nephites and Lamanites was poor at best, next to nothing at worst. |
So yes, I am quite disappointed that President Hinckley gave support to the war in Iraq, and misinterpreted the scriptures, particularly Captain Moroni, to defend a war in Iraq. He must have missed the blogging that goes on here. |
I think those are quite a spin to fit your argument- they can be argued- well, at least #1 and #3. #2 has no relevance because it really only applies today. You could have said:
As it is, I still think #1 and #2 are silly. What is the solution to #1? We have only now come up with a medium by which each individual can be represented in real-time. Even then, the opportunity for hacking and unlawful behavior is too prevalent. And the amount of law in the world is so voluminous that it necessitates specialization and a huge amount of dedication paid by the hour. So we have people perform our judgments and dedicate that time for us. Unfortunately there are side effects that are unpleasant as everything in the world is twisted and spun in some way for greed. So here we come to lesson #1 from the BoM:
Lesson 1= Pride. The downfall of the legal system, economy, and social system in the Book of Mormon. Lesson #2 is easier:
GBH never supported the War in Iraq in a specific way. Read that talk again. His conclusion is those three statements. They only relate to Iraq as much as you spin them to. Lesson #3: This is obvious:
This verse, Mormon 8:18: “And it came to pass in this year there began to be a war between the aNephites, who consisted of the Nephites and the Jacobites and the Josephites and the Zoramites; and this war was between the Nephites, and the Lamanites and the Lemuelites and the Ishmaelites” proves that politics were not divided solely among Nephite and Lamanites. Any bi-polar geopolitics can be directly related to generalizations/simplifications formed in our day: G8, not G8; West, not West; Muslim, not Muslim; etc. I don’t think the Book of Mormon perfectly reflects any facet of our day except for the individual sins and shortcomings of people along with the explanation of covenants and plan of redemption, the reason for the Book’s existence. In general, it relates to a very high degree. |
Nasamomdele,
Actually yes he did. If you want, I’ll do a critique of his talk on my blog and link to it here so you can read. |
Please, yes. YOU do a critique of his talk. |
nasamomdele, Here you go: President Hinckley and the war in Iraq. |
Dan, I was happy to see that you would do a critique on that talk. I put YOU in caps because I know you see yourself as expert, though torn apart on many occasions. You simply do not have facts straight and inject editorial too much. By halfway through your ‘critique’ I thought “Dan, you are officially a hack”. By the end, I felt sorry for you for your 1) being a hack and 2) misinterpreting so wildly the assertions of President Hinckley. Your conclusions are illogical and you failed to extract the real purpose of the talks. What a hack job. You officially have no credibility on the topic. Furthermore, you come of as quite a jerk with the assumptions you make. It is one thing to have your own mistaken position on the topic, it is another to drag GBH, a beloved prophet of God, into it by putting words into his mouth and misguidedly attacking the credibility of his counsel which had nothing to do with being pro-Bush or pro-Iraq. My critical response has been added to the post. Again you are wrong, but this time, pathetically so. |
I stand beside you on your critique of Dan’s “critique,” nasamomdele, and added a comment after yours. Differing opinions are not evidence that another person’s position is wrong, Dan. BTW, if you’re interested in how Al-Qaeda or any other group could actually be cultivated inside the US, try reading Chris Stewart’s “The Great and Terrible” series. It’s fiction (as far as I know) but provides an excellent scenario where terrorism could actually come from within our own country. We have no evidence that the evil groups terrorizing the world today are not connected to the US (one more reason your analogy to the Gadianton Robbers is off base). |
nasamomdele, You’re right about my critique. I just didn’t have my heart into it. Like I said in my post, I don’t care that President Hinckley supported the war. He’s perfectly free to do so. But I am disappointed that he did, and how he did it. In any case, I’m going to delete that post. I just don’t like it. It wasn’t good enough. Let me refer you to a more soundly written point I made on this same subject over on Connor’s blog. I explain myself better there. |
