The following is a guest post from Morgan Deane, researcher on warfare and the Book of Mormon. Today we have seen many comments all over the internet criticizing the too-eager celebration of Bin Laden’s, (or any human being’s) death. Deane gives another viewpoint informed by his reading of Latter-day scripture and modern music.
I had trouble sleeping last night due to the huge news. In a daring military raid Osama Bin Laden was killed by U.S. soldiers. I recalled these scriptures in 3 Nephi 4:
12And notwithstanding the threatenings and the oaths which Giddianhi had made, behold, the Nephites did beat them, insomuch that they did fall back from before them.
13And it came to pass that Gidgiddoni commanded that his armies should pursue them as far as the borders of the wilderness, and that they should not spare any that should fall into their hands by the way; and thus they did pursue them and did slay them, to the borders of the wilderness, even until they had fulfilled the commandment of Gidgiddoni.
14And it came to pass that Giddianhi, who had stood and fought with boldness, was pursued as he fled; and being weary because of his much fighting he was overtaken and slain. And thus was the end of Giddianhi the robber.
I love “reading between the lines” of these verses. Verse 12 mocks the military strength of the robber “notwithstanding their [threats]”, and then mocks their leader who “fought with boldness” as he “fled”. And finally, the rather matter of fact delivery that recalls President Obama’s somber announcement: “And thus was the end of Giddianhi the robber”.
My highest compliments go to the troops and the best tribute I can offer involves a classic Metallica song. The local radio station played this the day Saddam’s sons were killed. It felt appropriate then, and feels even more so now. Osama Bin Laden was a coward that killed innocent people. The world is a better place without him.
Metallica’s “Seek and Destroy”:
Wheat & Tares 
on the home page of W&T you’ve got a picture of Faux “News” gaffing that Obama Bin Laden was dead, but it doesn’t appear in your piece. It makes one think you’re going to discuss that gaff.
In any case, Bin Laden was essentially a Giddianhi, though we didn’t follow the exactly pattern in 3 Nephi (in chapter 3, Gidgidoni told the people the best plan would be to let the Robbers come into their lands), but I have no complaint about going after Bin Laden wherever he was (and he was never in Iraq, so that was utterly pointless).
Morgan, I’m interested in your wording “and thus was the end,” echoing the verse in the Book of Mormon. What makes you think the death of this leader will bring the end of the violence and hatred that he engendered? How will things change because of this violent act of murder? Isn’t this act of retribution and murder just perpetuating the same violence that is so objectionable when seen in others?
3 Nephi 3:9-10 describes Giddianhi as one who was concerned with avenging wrongs. This is presented in the scriptures as a wicked thing. Aren’t you a little concerned when we adopt the same policy in the name of freedom, liberty, and democracy?
Thanks for the questions BIV, they are excellent. Upon reflection I should have been more clear that “the end” refers to the unglorious and perhaps even cowardly death of a despised figure rather than the end of terrorism itself.
As far as how things will change I think the biggest changes will be the souring of our relationship with Pakistan and a temptation to say the war in Af. (Ten years and I still can’t spell it) is over. We need to keep in mind that it was an alliance of A.Q. with the sanctuary provided by the Taliban that launched the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban is still fighting in Af. and A.Q. has adopted a more decentralized franchise approach so the wars in the GWOT still matter.
I believe there is an important difference between personal violence and inter state violence that makes our action justified compared to Charles Bronson style retribution. Although this case is particularly tricky since the operation was initiated with a special order from the President and apparently done without the consent of Pakistan.
Outside of those question marks decisive victory between between one state over another is the best gurantee of peace. I don’t buy into the endless cyle of violence theory else any application of violence anywhere, anytime, will result in violence forever. The 100 years War (1346-1453) between France and England should still be fought today. Instead they share a currency and sort of shared government, and shared military action in Libya. I could go on with many more examples but continued violence in some areas (Gaza, Northern Ireland etc) stem from a combination of several factors and not just a use of violence.
I’m a little confused about the last part of your question. The linked scripture sounds like pretty righteous and justifiable actions for war and it describes the Nephite (combined with righteous Lamanite) policy. “Compelled for [their] safety” to take up arms in defedning their family. Perhaps you had another scripture in mind?
Thanks again for the questions and letting me post here. The Fox News picture should make this quite an interesting thread.
BiV:
The fact that both sides in a war are convinced they are in the right means that AT LEAST one of those sides will be wrong, but I think people are still obligated to make moral judgments as best they can and act (or not) accordingly.
Hitler and bin Laden both thought they were avenging wrongs. I’ll take my moral stand that they were deceived and rejoice they will kill no more innocent people of any faith.
Ahhh, now I see it. This is a great point. In modern day I would think the terrorists are more closely alinged to the Gadiantion robbers than we are. Both in the tactics they use which model many of the 20th century Marxist revolutionaries, and in their many perceived griveances. While the Nephites are the ones forced to “search and destroy” (Hel 11:28) to prevent their cities from being “laid waste”. (3 Nephi 2:11)
I also keep in mind that any detailed speech or letter from the “bad guys” in the BoM is often a gold mine of Sophistry, cunning, and rhetorical slight of hand (not to mention gospel principles). This speech is no different. I know patriotism seems to be frowned upon in many places around the LDS blogging world (just see the comments to the FPR post on this topic) but we don’t sound like the bad guys here. As my recent paper argued, the War in Iraq and the military actions of the U.S. post 9/11 are supported by the BoM and justified.
I actually think this relates better to the story of Amalickiah. As per Alma 51:25-26, he was cunning and taking control of a number of cities. He was spreading destruction.
Finally, Teancum had had enough. It was time to end it. From later in the chapter:
While I also agree that we shouldn’t celebrate the death of anyone, it seems that we sometimes celebrate these types of things. Just yesterday, I taught my Primary kids the story of Lehi and Nephi leaving.
The essence of the story: Nephi murdered someone, stole their property, and kidnapped someone. Yet we celebrate what he did and pass his story along as a prophet doing what God wanted.
So, I don’t think we should celebrate bin Laden’s death per se, but we should represent that perhaps HE won’t cause the deaths of anyone else. There will always be others and we will never end terrorism, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.
“killed by U.S. soldiers” “My highest compliments go to the troops ”
Actually they were all sailors and sailors aren’t soldiers nor ‘troops’.
This events of this spring were very surprising to me. Basically, modern communications and courageous ordinary people were able to make the kind of political changes that a foreign army could never make. North Korea is now clamping down on illegal cell phone use. We can seriously say that the internet and cell phone network is mightier than the sword. I think that in the long run the Arab spring will be very important and the OBL killing will be a footnote or bookend to the Bush presidency.
In the same way that Gidgiddoni’s heroism and leadership during a national crisis was insufficient to address the disunity that threatened the Nephite government in the longer term, these heroic actions don’t solve any of our fundamental problems, which are entirely internal and are not being addressed in a practical way due to disunity and the hardening of attitudes.
So are you saying that it is justified that we destroy whole nations to attack one person? Are you saying that it is not justified for the Arab world to fight back after decades of US dominance on their soil?
I can see the justification of attacking al-queda (sp) and killing their leader, but in the BoM were they not defending their own lands when war was justified? How is it OK to attack countries when they haven’t attacked our lands? When the US overthrows democratically elected leaders and installs dictators, or even upholds dictators in other’s land why is it not OK for those people to fight back for their lands? This is all well documented. I can understand protecting your own country but what about other peoples protecting theirs?
Wouldn’t a proper response to the situation been as Ron Paul proposed after 9/11 by attacking the perpetrators rather than whole nations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_JEVhtwuU8&feature=uploademail
I guess I have the same questions as BiV. Don’t get me wrong, the world is better off without OBL. No question. And perhaps shooting him was really the best/only alternative given the situation they were in. I’m okay with that.
I’m just not sure that without a recognition of what we did to create the situation in the first place will we ever be able to prevent such a scenario from happening all over again. As we speak, er write, AQ is preparing to avenge the death of OBL. We’re caught in a vicious cycle of violence, each side convinced it is rectifying past injustices.
My solution is to stop being on the offensive anywhere in the world (this means stop occupying other countries with our military), and go back to providing for the common defense (read: thwart attacks on our own soil).
I don’t know, I just don’t feel like celebrating. More like crying since our world can’t seem to move past violent means to accomplish its objectives.
JMB,
think of it like voting Russell off Survivor. It comes at a great cost, but you remove the poison out of the well.
I think a majority of wars start as sins of omission rather than sins of commission. We are all sinners needing salvation, but a lot of those sins trace back “unto the third and fourth generation”, and ALL people, not just Americans, play in this game of humanity.
Like galaxies growing from minor quantum fluctuations billions of years in the past, the world of violence we see today is traced to minor decision points of personal histories. And its a lot easier to change a galaxy’s structure before it becomes a galaxy. We don’t have that option anymore.
Re Dan
Dang, you’ll have to come up with a different analogy. I’ve never seen an episode of suvivor…too busy reading Ayn Rand books, mises.org, and otherwise conjuring up kooky stuff to demonstrate what an ignoramus I am 😉
jmb,
haha, well, then you’ve missed out at the joyous feeling that comes from seeing Russell Hantz voted off Survivor. It’s the same feeling when we voted Osama Bin Laden off our island.
And the moral of the Teancum story is??? [PS – it also happens to be my daughter’s (age 8) favorite BOM story)]. Seriously, what lesson do we take from Teancum… that it’s best to kill someone if we think they’re wrong and responsible for perpetuating murders/killings? What about the anger with which Teancum “went forth”? Do we learn from that as well.
As to the initial sections of the BOM and how it’s essentially a history of a people whose very foundation was built on a violent act, and how do we take that? I’d personally never given it much thought until I heard/listened to the “Non-Violent Reading of the BOM” [first video on that page], along with a few other things I’d begun thinking upon dating back a year or more.
Of all the symbols we maintain of the Nephite culture, the most prominent one is arguably the sword of Laban, a symbol of war, murder and kidnapping… the “sword of Laban” as becoming a symbol of Nephite culture”.
It occurs to me that what Joseph Smith found buried on the Hill Cumorah was what is normally left at a crime scene: the murder weapon (the Sword of Laban) and evidence that a crime had been committed (the Golden Plates). So, crying from the dust is a testimony from those who fell victim of the Sword of Laban, a weapon of foundational murder responsible for both the establishment and the ultimate demise of the Nephite nation.
@Morgan D,
The violence stops when the empire runs out of money (or repents). I propose the US has been at constant war since at least WWI. WWII is just an extension of WWI. Then started the cold war (which wasn’t cold by the way, there was much blood shed for that war). Then there was the wars to bring peace to countries with dictators (including both Iraq wars) and also the counter terrorism wars. We’ve entered a period now where the wars have no lulls, and we have constant battles.
@Morgan D,
Why?
Jon,
riiight, world war II started in 1918…what a joke…
Hey Dan,
Wars and battles are different things. Wars have multiple battles in them. Thus the connection between the “two” wars. The Germans were oppressed and under occupation between the “two” wars and thus, there were not really two wars but one.
Did I tell you already on this thread that I love you and that you make a good friend. I have learned many things from discussions with you and you have made me question some of my beliefs and made me look deeper into some of my assumptions.
Jon,
Stop with the ridiculous comments. The Germans were not oppressed or under occupation between the two wars. They were their own country. The French, British, Russians, Americans, none of them had a military presence in Germany during the intercession. The involved parties signed armistices which are times of peace, Jon. I know it doesn’t fit your narrative that we’ve been in a state of total war since 1914, but I frankly don’t care. You’re plain dumb.
Re Dan-
Just don’t participate here if you can’t be a grown up. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what Jon’s saying. You don’t need to be a prick to disagree with him. It’s getting pretty ridiculous. You know that Jon didn’t say that WWII started in 1918. You’re just being a jerk. You’ve been told by many commenters that your approach is unnecessary. Please change it. It would be nice to have a discussion with you. But it all breaks down when you resort to acting like a 5 year old.
Your opportunity to comment in this way won’t be infringed (yet) because we highly value free speech, but it won’t win you supporters, won’t advance the discussion, and otherwise detracts from a reasoned discussion.
Correction, they were not occupied, but they were oppressed with war reparations.
@George,
Great video. Interesting viewpoint of the Book of Mormon. Definitely answers some questions but creates new ones also.
jmb,
how else do you respond to someone who, after constantly repeating to them that their view is not reflective of actual reality but by calling them dumb?
I see Jon corrected himself now, finally, and noted that in fact Europe was NOT in constant war from 1914 to the present. That’s good. Finally he realizes something of actual reality. From 1918 to 1938, there was peace. War reparations are not “war.” As oppressive as it may be to the losing party, it isn’t war. To claim it is, is dumb, JMB. That’s what you have to call it particularly after constant such blatherings out of Jon’s keystrokes. And frankly I don’t care if I don’t win brownie points with you.
Economic sanctions are war. By extension reparation is war. It is a form of occupation, even though there are no soldiers there.
At one point in history sanctions were considered an act of war. At some point that changed. Sanctions is the moder equivalent as surrounding a castle and waiting for the people to starve to death. Hence the sanctions against Iraq were considered to contribute to around 1 million dead children and elderly.
Jon,
That’s like saying harsh language is war. At some point you have to differentiate between actions. Economic sanctions are not war. No wonder you think we’re in constant war. Well then, Jon, this world has never seen a day of peace. Pretty sad freaking world you live in.
Re Dan
I don’t know, you’re the sunday school teacher. You tell me how Jesus would have responded. I’ll bet I know infinitely more than you about virtually any technical/mathematical subject. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to consider you an idiot because of that.
Just try to understand. Just give it one ounce of energy. Jon didn’t say Europe was in a constant state of war. He said WWII was an extension of WWI and said the U.S. had been at war constantly since WWI. I don’t know about you, but that’s not far off what I was taught in school. Those wars were separated by short amounts of time, and the end of one was eventually in part what triggered the next one. I’m not a historian, but I’ll bet I can garnish support from experts that view it that way too.
jmb,
This is what Jon said:
Not even Germany, but the US was at “constant war” since WWI. That’s from 1914 to the present day. Constant implies no break. But from 1918 to 1941, the United States was not at war with anyone. The Cold War being what it is, was not a state of war. From 1989 to 2001 we had several years of no state of war for the US. To state that the US was in a “constant” war since 1914 is just plain ludicrous, unless we’re redefining the meaning of the word war to the point where it becomes a meaningless word.
as for the analogy to math, I’m not coming into a debate on math and claiming absolutes, am I?
Re Dan
This is what I mean. You’re right, he said that. Do you really believe he meant that each day since then that American troops were in the trenches firing weapons on the enemy?
1917-1918 WWI
1939-1945 WWII
1950-1953 Korean War
1960-1975 Vietnam War
1961 Bay of Pigs
1983 Grenada
1989 Panama invasion
1990-1991 Iraq
1995-1996 Intervention in Bosnia/Herzegovinia
2001-present Afghanistan
2003-present Iraq
2011-present Libya
And that’s not including the Cold War or other military operations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations
Sure, constant is what he said, but “constant” could be interpreted (with an ounce of compassion) to mean “nearly constant” or “seemingly constant.” To state that the U.S. has been in “constant” war since 1914 is not ludicrous. It’s an exaggeration, probably used to make a point. Saying the earth is flat is ludicrous. We’re talking orders of magnitude in degrees of difference here.
I’m not making an analogy to math except to point out that just because you know more about something than someone else doesn’t mean you have to be a prick to explain to them they don’t understand. If you’re really that much more knowledgeable in this area than Jon shouldn’t you take the opportunity to inform him rather than ridicule him? And if you’re extra nice, you might even consider that your knowledge of it could be wrong. After all, history isn’t exactly mathematics where you crunch the numbers and end up with one answer.
Jon: What may be innapropriate in personal realtionships is justified in internal relations. For example, a part of the just war theory states includes the war being waged by the proper power.
Teancum is an interesting story. Since his selected strike resulted in the army retreating you could say that his action saved lives. So a precision strike to decapitate an enemy force was a moral positive….
I forget who mentioned the “non violent reading of the BoM”. It was an interesting paper to read but there were several major flaws with it. To mention one of them here, it doesn’t do anything to address the several strong instances where the Lord expressly supports and even commands warfare throughout the BoM. So when the Lord says “you should defend your family” or “never take offensive except in these cases” we are supposed to believe that Christ says “never mind” in the 4th act, or that the symbolism of the BoM actually says the opposite of concrete principles within it. Plus, his paper ignores the very real notion that ancient societies measured their health by wars. So the BoM directly ties their successful wars to spiritual health.
So it was a pretty good paper and certainly gives pacificists something to believe in, but it is contradicted by the ancient historian that wrote it with the priciples and societal values he describes.
JMB: If you are arguing for consant war you will want to check out “The Savage Wars of Peace” by Max Boot. He describes the many military interventions by the U.S. and includes several operations by Marines in Central and South America that last for dozens of years. I beleive there is one in Haiti that lasted from about 1916 until about WWII. Just fyi.
By constant I mean that we were either directly in war, having reparations against a country, economic sanctions, preparing for war, making citizens afraid of war, warring with against smaller skirmishes (as Morgan D pointed out, I actually started to do a graph that shows this, there is so much going on with the US and the military it’s hard to keep up), propping up dictators, overthrowing leaders in other countries (like Chile, etc). All of these are acts of war against other countries, therefore, constitute war in the real sense of the word.
I define war as the aggression of one country against another to incite violence, or the threat thereof. If you can direct me to a better word than war then please do, but that definition is what I go by.
Wiktionary:
Wikipedia (Types of War):
Apparently I’m not the only one who calls sanctions war since it is unconventional warfare.
The cold war wasn’t cold, we fought the Soviet Union through other countries.
Morgan D,
I would have to read up more on that concept, but coming from the individualist point of view the group and the individual are on equal footing when it comes to morals. I guess that’s why I call taxation theft and others call it justified violence or the threat thereof against people.
Yeah, I was thinking similar things to what the video said too, but I think the general idea works, in that, violence isn’t the true answer since it just leads to more violence and only through Christ can we achieve lasting peace.
I think we get to the essence of the conflict between Dan and Jon here in this post by realizing that war and peace can properly be defined as a spectrum like “cold and hot” where the terms are only meaningful when defined in common by the people debating.
Jon has now given a very expansive definition of what he means by war. I’m not clear about what Dan’s definition is yet.
Dan, would you consider the following as war or not:
Covert operations such as last Sunday’s raid, even if not publicized afterward?
Supplying weapons and real time military intelligence to a nation engaged in war (a la the Falklands War)?
Supporting governments suppressing a violent revolution or crime at the level of seizing territories (a la the Central American or Mexican drug wars)?
Instigating such revolutions against hostile governments or supporting them once they start (Eastern Europe, Mideast, Latin America)?
Positioning and training forces (hiding our boomers and trying to get our attack subs behind the Soviet boomers) to prepare for nuclear launch, or maintaining active CAP over a carrier group or AWACS on station?
Cyber attacks on military installations (like the STUXNET attack on the Iranian centrefuges)?
Until you define the terms of war, you’re talking past each other, because there IS a lot of “stuff” going on “constantly”. The first American soldier in my family tree was sent to Russia in 1919 to fight the Commies AFTER the fall of the Czar — post WW1.
Firetag,
I think the nature of warfare has changed dramatically since World War I, but if we’re just going to go by our own separate definitions of warfare, then I’m gonna bow out of the discussion and let Jon have at it with his “constant warfare” crap. Are we going to call any day that a weapon fired by an American soldier/mercenary a day of war? Then the word ‘war’ has no meaning. Technically we’re in a ‘war on drugs’ that has gone on for quite a long time. Is that a ‘war?’ Why not throw that in the mix too. War on poverty, etc. You name it, we’ve got a war on it. For me, I have to differentiate between different levels of conflict, and thus for me a “war” is when there is a “state of war” between two or more nation-states. This obviously excludes asymmetrical conflicts such as the “war on terror” which isn’t technically a war in any case except where one nation starts fighting another over the issue of terror. So for instance, a “war” would be the War in Afghanistan or the War in Iraq. Drone strikes in other nations, or surgical operations like the one on Sunday generally have the approval of the nation in which they occur. For instance in Pakistan, the CIA drones are actually stationed in Pakistan, thus showing that Pakistan approves them there. Non-state actors like Al-Qaeda can declare war on a state, but when a state fights against them, it isn’t a war, because Al-Qaeda members do not belong to their own state, but reside within some other nation-state. Actions by a state against Al-Qaeda members has to get the approval of the nation-state in which they reside, otherwise, the state which wants to attack Al-Qaeda will effectively be at war with the state in which Al-Qaeda resides. This is the nature of the war in Afghanistan. There are obviously tons of other permutations (siding with one faction over another in a disputed state, supporting rebels against a state, and so on), and those do muddle the whole distinction of what exactly is warfare, but for instance, in the case of our strikes in Pakistan, those strikes do not indicate we are at war with Pakistan or with Pakistanis. Americans are free to go to Pakistan, and Pakistanis are free to come here. There is not a ‘state of war’ between the two nations. That, for me, is the distinction between ‘war’ and various other forms of conflict.
Thus for the United States, since 1914, it has participated in
1. World War I (1917-1918)
2. World War II (1941-1945)
3. Korean War (1950-1953, an armistice was signed between the warring parties, thus not the full effect of a peace treaty, but not still in a state of war)
4. Vietnam War (whatever the dates are)
5. Grenada
6. Persian Gulf War
7. Kosovo War
8. Afghanistan War
9. Iraq War
I’m excluding peacekeeping missions because their very nature is not war but the attempt to stop a conflict. Thus our involvement in Bosnia was not war. Our involvement in Haiti was not war. And so on.
It would be better for Jon to claim the United States has been in a state of perpetual conflict, which would account for things such as economic sanctions, UN actions, and so on. Then he would be at least somewhere closer to reality. But to claim we’re in a constant war is just simply not accurate.
Dan:
OK, So I understand your definition of war as something close to declared state on state conflict as defined under international law. And if Jon used the term “perpetual conflict”, you think that would be a fair point to make on his part. Am I correct in understanding you?
Regardless, perpetual conflict or perpetual war it doesn’t change the facts. Innocent people have been killed for a long continual time period. Innocent people’s properties have been destroyed for a long continual time period. All this at the hands of the state.
This is causing continuous “conflict” and blow back. If the Chinese or whomever else would do the same to us we would call the people that attacked back heroes. We call them terrorists. Either way it is not OK to attack civilians. Either way all parties have innocent blood on their hands. When will it end?
Yes, Firetag. perpetual conflict, or ‘constant conflict’ is a much better way of describing it. Obviously Jon doesn’t care as his comment #37 he says “it doesn’t change the facts.” Yes, Jon, it does. The usage of the word war is intended to have a particular effect because the word “conflict” is not as visceral as the word “war”. You must use the more emotionally laden “war” as opposed to “conflict” or your point doesn’t have as much weight behind it. It is a purposeful distortion of reality in order to attract attention to your worldview. But that would make you no different than a Glenn Beck who does the same thing.
Actually it doesn’t change anything. War kills innocent people and so does “conflict”. It is estimated that about a million children/elderly died in Iraq because of the economic sanctions. You can’t tell me that that isn’t just as bad as any war. I would say it is even worse. But considering our wars still affect children and elderly the same I would say they are all equally bad therefore, they should be called war since so many are dying.
Why are we arguing semantics anyways, it wastes so much time and avoids the main point that I was making. Why don’t you address the main point? Why must you always address the side issues that don’t even matter? Why don’t you care people are dying?
It does change things, Jon. People die and frankly I don’t care. It’s a part of life. Every single day millions of people die. Most die of old age diseases, and many more die violently. It’s a part of life. I used to think as you do that if maybe we just get people to Christ, that somehow we’ll stop killing each other, but that’s just bullcrap. Christianity is a highly militant religion (all sects and denominations including our own). Just look at our hymnal. Battle Hymn of the Republic. Onward Christian Soldiers. “marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus…” As is clear, even the prophet of God is not immune to the justification for warfare as our own prophet, President Hinckley approved of going after Saddam Hussein even though Saddam was not a threat to us. You’re wasting your time trying to indicate that all conflict, whether violent or economic, is war. It’s not. Grow up.
Is this truly your true colors? Is there no love in you? I understand now why the liberal school of thought attracts you. A violent institution that breeds more violence and death. And you don’t care. Well, I do and I will not stop caring. Dan I urge you to find love in your heart and rid yourself of hatred.
ah, here comes the self-righteous crap…
Jon and George,
Glad you liked my brief presentation. My paper which is much longer and lays out my argument in more detail will hopefully be published soon.
Morgan
One of the reasons I didn’t address your “flaws ancient” directly is because they are irrelevant in part to my position. You may have missed it, but I lay out an approach to reading the narrative and weighing the value of statements that resolves all off the alleged inconsistencies. As I mentioned, I put much more weight in the nature of God as being revealed in and thrrough Jesus than in captain Moroni’s or others claims about god. You read the book as supporting wars because you value their truth claims much more than I do. Their claims are suspect because they are not in harmony with the life, words, and death of Jesus of Nazareth as well as their own history which, when read as a narrative, shows the flaws in their claims. The book itself deconstructs that narrative as a whole as well as through the voices of Samuel, Jesus, and others who reject such claims.
As to whether ancient societies measured their health by wars. What does that have to do with the gospel of Christ? Ancient societies did a lot of barbaric things including sacrificing children because it was “god’s will”. In fact, my approach acknowledges that in emphasizing that much of what they do and say is cultural baggage and not from above.
Whoops. Should be flaws only. Not sure why I typed ancient
Morgan:
Does the idea that an ancient society based their “health” on wars change anything for us? When I look at that – on its face – I’d probably label that a faulty premise upon which to base the “health” of the society. Additionally, if I link that to spiritual health, I would label that as little more than a false tradition.
There are people today – including among the LDS cohort – who would likewise agree that armed strength / war strength is a sign of spiritual health… but that doesn’t make it a correct assumption or decision.
What Teancum did was to perpetuate the anger cycle, among other things. It’s not like his actions stopped anything – my reading suggests it only exacerbated the situation. I hardly count that as a “moral positive”…
Josh:
I’d like to read the paper if/when it’s done. Do you have a link for it and/or a location where it can be found?
The video was linked up above by George in comment 15. Im not sure on publication date but I believe later this year it will be.
#20 – Dan, read up on the Treaty of Versailles (signed by the interim German Gov’t upon threat of the Allies to break the Armistice and invade Germany in June 1919, which provided for Allied (primarily French) occupation of the Rhineland for fifteen years (the French withdrew in 1930).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
Keep in mind also that the French, dissatisfied with the Weimar Gov’ts attempt to pay them with inflated currency instead of in goods (mainly coal, timber, and steel), occupied the Ruhr from 1923 to 1925. This is part of what gave Hitler his impetus and credibility (though the Nazis at the time were but a curious fringe element), pointing out the impotence of the Weimar Government.
That Germany was left militarily impotent and at the utter mercy of not only the French and British (an intended result) but also the Poles and Czechs contributed significantly to the then-failure of democracy in Germany, as both left and right wing extremists exploited fear in the German public. It also was a factor in the Reichswehr collaborating with the Soviets, helping both parties build their military w/o oversight.
As for Osama Bin Laden, I’ve heard some say that he’s been dead for years, his legend being cynically exploited by the Bush administration to promote their Middle East agenda and so-called “War on Terror”. Like many “conspiracies”, I don’t see the evidence, but the timing (in light of the pathetic release of an obviously-faked birth certificate of the President), the manner in which contradictory reports of the “hit” have been disseminated, and the all-too-convenient dumping of the body in the ocean. If nothing else, the whole affair, though at least we can cry, “ding, dong, the witch is dead…”, has been handled terribly.