Rock Waterman operates a blog
called Pure Mormonism, his post critiques my chapter, “Offensive Warfare in the
Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” from the book, War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon
Perspectives. Unfortunately his post does not offer a substantive criticism
of my analysis, that relied upon fallacious reasoning and which
failed to identify and respond to my main arguments. (All quotes from his
article unless otherwise noted.)
“But the Book of Mormon goes to great lengths to warn us
that powerful men in our day would combine in secret to use fear as a means of
getting us to believe the only way to save ourselves is to disobey God”
Is there a source for this, a specific
scripture? This reminds me of many antiwar advocates who argue that the Book of Mormon is a book with a strong antiwar
message, but can only say so by being so general that they ignore specific
scriptures which justify, and even praise the use of force. That is why my
chapter has an almost “Jesuitical”
command and application of specific scriptures.[1]
“you could expect to pay as much as $300.00 for [a copy of Warfare in the Book of Mormon]”
This book is available on line for free.
A failure to know about an online
book is not a big deal. Except in this case it combines with other errors in
his post to indicate shallow and dilettantish research of the subject. One of
the first things I do before I start a research project is to identify and
locate the sources. In fact my application to my PhD program largely hinged
upon how well I performed that very skill.
“Deane's thesis is that ‘it was the bloodlust and general
weakness of Nephite society that caused their failure,’”
That is not my thesis. I listed my clear thesis in the traditional
place of the last sentence of the first paragraph, and it reads: “But through a
closer examine of the Nephite decisions, dictated as they were by terrain and
technology, and comparison to the modern challenges that face America, we see
that this neo-isolationist foreign policy is not only dangerous, but also an
incorrect application of lessons from the Book of Mormon.(29)”
This is a bigger mistake than being
ignorant of an online source. As I explain to my students, the thesis is the
one sentence summary of your argument. So
if he doesn’t get my thesis correct, then he is tilting at windmills. The sentence he quotes was my explanation of
some supposedly clear cut antiwar verses in scripture. While Waterman argues against my (not)
thesis, he is actually highlighting how I explore and explain specific scriptures,
compared to the very few, in fact just two that are only referenced and not
quoted, that show up in his post. Yet,
even though I’m the only one that presents scriptures and their analysis to
support my argument, I am the one horribly “proof texting.” But to support that
claim of proof texting he does not offer any verses and solid counter analysis,
but simply vague and tendentious summations of the text.
“That is when he resigned as their leader, and that's the
moment he points to in Mormon chapter four as the reason God allowed the entire
Nephite civilization to be destroyed.”
I disagree, and don’t believe he
adequately understands the chapter. I
review the supposedly explicit prohibitions against pre-emptive war and have
this to say about the pivotal verse to which Waterman referred: “Mormon 3:15 also seems
to prohibit preemptive war. However, the real sin recorded by Mormon was not
the offensive tactics but rather the bloodlust and vengeance that dictated
Nephite strategy (v. 14). The seemingly unequivocal anti-war sentiment
expressed in 4:4 does not record any saying of the Lord, but can just as easily
represent a strategic description. If this is a command against offensive
action it is also contradicted by other writings by Mormon. This is most
clearly seen in a reevaluation of Alma 48:14. The traditional understanding of
this verse is a prohibition against offensive warfare. But a slightly different
reading suggests the Nephites are rather commanded to never “give an offense”
except “against an enemy” and “to preserve their lives” (Alma 61:3).
Finally, there is Mormon’s
statement that the wicked punish the wicked (Morm. 4:5). This seems to describe
the inverse of the ideal to trust in the Lord and implies, unsurprisingly, that
making strategic decisions while not “under the influence” of the Spirit
results in lousy choices with equally horrible results. Here Clausewitz can
again lend us assistance with his description of an essential element of
leadership called Coup De’ Oeil. This
term is complex but it basically describes both a commander’s ability to “see
the light” and his strength to follow it. Clausewitz did not have any spiritual
implications in mind, but it certainly applies here. When the Nephites were
spiritually darkened, their ability to make correct military decisions were
severely impaired. Thus the military prohibition described in the Book of
Mormon is not against offensive or even preemptive action, but it is rather a
condemnation against passive stupor, lacking trust in the Lord, and lusting for
vengeance—in short, a darkened mind.(36-37)”
I have to include what I actually
wrote here because much of Waterman’s analysis consists of saying that I am
twisting, proof texting, and generally just being wrong; but he says so without
offering any counter scriptures or even summarizing my arguments accurately.[2] If he wanted to convince me he would have to
show some specific reasons, not simply mentioning things like, “God does not
justify nations going to war.”
“He points to examples where the Nephites were justified in
conducting offensive maneuvers in order to defeat the Lamanites, without
recognizing those offensive maneuvers took place on Nephite soil and not on the
Lamanite's home turf.”
Huh? Well, if your homeland is already invaded it
wouldn’t be a pre-emptive strike. It would properly be termed an offensive
defensive, which is exactly what I described in my chapter. This strategy
relied upon strategically accepting an enemy attack, before maneuvering
aggressively (i.e., offensively) to initiate a tactical battle of their choosing. As I said in my (real) thesis statement, with
the combination of surprise and increasingly deadliness of modern weapons, the
offensive defensive strategy is foolish and dangerous.
He seems to think that taking the
offensive on foreign soil is the worst, as though there was a sign that said
“50 miles until wicked strategy begins” outside of Zarahemla. But as shown above, that is simplistic reasoning
and doesn’t fully analyze the scriptures about offensive warfare. (Ironically, this is the charge that he says
about me.) As I said, and as he quoted, it was the dark minds that dictated
strategy (and forfeited God’s favor) that brought destruction to the Nephites,
not the soil upon which the offensive was conducted. As I write about Gidgiddoni for example: “In Third Nephi, Gidgiddoni claims that the
Lord forbids them from preemptively going into their opponents lands (3:21).
However, in that same campaign, Gidgiddoni maneuvered his army to cut off the
robbers. His “offensive defensive” operations suggest, at least, a more
flexible approach than an overly simplistic notion that offensive war [on
whatever soil] is inherently immoral.(36)”
“I started my reading by skipping right to the pieces by two
of my favorite experts on Mormonism and war, Joshua Madson and his father Ron
Madson.”
As any freshman philosophy student
can tell you, it is begging the question to support those with whom you already
agree. (Not to mention that being a Mormon and opposing war doesn’t make you an
“expert” in military matters. The lack of true experts commenting on warfare in
the Book of Mormon is a major reason why
I wrote my book.) Waterman’s fondness for the Madsons points to the likely
reason for opposing to my article. But it is one thing to say an argument is wrong,
but it is another to come up with solid and detailed analysis explaining
why. Before launching into his analysis
Waterman said that members of the church should give the Book of Mormon a “second look.” I’ve read the book dozens of times
and thought about it for many years; unfortunately, Waterman’s fallacious and
superficial analysis that often missed my actual arguments doesn’t indicate the
same focus.
[2] I
would also notice how many scriptures are cited by me. In two short paragraphs
I cite six and quote two. That is an
example of in depth analysis. Compare it to Waterman's critique.
No comments:
Post a Comment