Apocalypse Later
Among believers in biblical prophecy a moral quandary can arise.
If the Bible is the word of God then its end time prophecies* must be fulfilled. The apocalyptic narrative for those Christians who look forward to the Second Coming involves war, pestilence and the End of the World. So, here’s the quandary: if the Rapture is, for believers, something to be welcomed, are those events that presage the Rapture, viz., war, pestilence and the End of the World, also to be welcomed? In this world view, you cannot have one without the other.
To be specific, are wars in the Middle East to be mourned over or treated with excitement? (Whilst no-one would admit to “excitement,” I have seen a certain wide-eyed something among a few Mormons, for example, when Bad Things happen in or around the Holy Land.)
What would be made of this report, then, that suggests that the world is less afflicted by war today than it ever has been? Is this a disappointment for the Christian who needs war to validate biblical prophecy and usher in the Millennial reign of Christ?
The Human Security Report, co-financed by five governments, including Canada and Britain, argues that “there has been a marked decrease in political violence since the end of the cold war. The number of armed conflicts has decreased by more than 40%, and the number of major conflicts (which it defines as resulting in 1,000 or more “battle-deaths”) has declined by 80%.”
This is due in large part to a “huge expansion in peacekeeping and conflict-prevention initiatives, principally but not only by the United Nations and its agencies.”
Two caveats:
1. The report notes a marked tendency today “for people to flee from major areas of conflict, seeking security either in neighbouring countries or even further afield.” Deaths may be minimized in this way, but still human misery continues on grand scale not suggested by “casualty figures” alone.
2. “The crude counting of casualties can be hugely misleading, especially when conflicts are happening in weak and impoverished societies.”
As a historian of the ancient world, I see no indication that our world is any more violent today than it has been in the past. Indeed, for the west at least, we’ve never had it so good. War has always afflicted the human race. What may make today more dangerous is our ability to destroy on a massive scale. But as someone who feels called to “renounce war and proclaim peace,” this report, if accurate, is good news.
So, are wars in the Middle East to be mourned over or treated with excitement?
Absolutely the former. Anything else cannot be countenanced by those who would be servants of the Prince of Peace.
————–
*It should be noted that for most scholars, biblical prophecy has nothing to do with the End of the World, but always has a contemporary (to the writers’) relevance. So, Revelation is not about some future event, but details is symbolic form the struggles of the early church against Rome. Believers have always exhibited a certain amount of chauvanism when it comes to apocalypse: it is always about our times. This has been the case for 2000 years, but we are still here.
Bravo, Ronan. This is an excellent piece that points at some very unsettling tendancies among us.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 11, 2005 @ 11:02 am
I love this post! Just yesterday, I saw a bumper sticker (in Berkeley, CA, no less!) that said, “War in Iraq = Jesus Returns.”
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 11:09 am
I should probably state my opinion about the “End of the World”!
Biblical issues aside, I think Mormons are compelled to believe in the Second Coming because of modern prophecy. But:
1. We should not have a fatalistic view of prophecy, that every detail has been mapped-out sans agency. That is not the Mormon way.
2. We always see through a glass darkly on these things.
3. The “signs of the times” are often so vague (war, pestilence) as to make them almost impossible to use with confidence. I can guarantee that the avian flu is not the first “horseman of the apocalypse” that has has been inferred. The Black Death anyone?
4. The best advice I have ever heard on this one is straight out of correlation: live justly, live a good life. For your eternal soul, all will be well. Certainly prepare for the worst, but hope for the best. Be like President Hinckley: an optimist.
5. War sucks.
Comment by Ronan — November 11, 2005 @ 11:09 am
By the way, I should point out that the bumper sticker I mentioned above was on a car that also had a George W. Bush 2004 sticker on it and a sticker that said, “What Part of ‘Thou Shalt Not’ Don’t You Understand?” So I infer that the war-in-Iraq message was intended as an endorsement of the war as an agent supposed to produce the end of the world.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 11:46 am
Interesting post, Ronan. As I have been thinking about it this morning, I have been pondering the phrase, “Never Again”. While it resonates with me quite deeply, it seems a futile hope in some ways as (1) of course genocide continues, even if the Western world chooses not to see it and (2) the scriptures do seem to say, that it will happen again and should. An interesting juxtaposition for those striving to be peacemakers.
Comment by kris — November 11, 2005 @ 12:26 pm
Your note from most scholars is just wrong. Modern revelation has confirmed that although there are some references to Rome, etc., the book of Revelation is largly about the events preceding the Second Coming of the Lord.
One of the key differences in the wars (not counting Armageddon) preceding the Second Coming will be their nature; they will be more like the wars of the Gaddianton robbers as described in the book of Alma.
For America, Orson Pratt described the kinds of wars we will have:
“But what about the American nation. That war that destroyed the lives of some fifteen or sixteen hundred thousand people [Civil War] was nothing, compared to that which will eventually devastate this country. The time is not very far distant in the future, when the Lord God will lay his hand heavily upon that nation. . . . What then will be the condition of that people, when this great and terrible war shall come? It will be very different from the war between the North and the South. Do you wish me to describe it? I will do so. It will be a war of neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, town against town, county against county, state against state, and they will go forth, destroying and being destroyed and manufacturing will, in a great measure, cease, for a time among the American nation. Why? Because in these terrible wars, they will not be privileged to manufacture, there will be too much bloodshed, too much mobocracy, too much going forth in bands and destroying and pillaging the land to suffer people to pursue any local vocation with any degree of safety. What will become of millions of the farmers upon the land? They will leave their farms and they will remain uncultivated, and they will flee before the ravaging armies from place to place; and thus will they go forth burning and pillaging the whole country; and that great and powerful nation, . . . will be wasted away, unless they repent. Now these predictions you may record. You may let them sink down into your hearts. And if the Lord your God shall permit you to live, you will see all my words fulfilled to the very letter. They are not my words, but the words of inspiration—the words of the everlasting God, who has sent forth his servants with this message to warn the nations of the earth. (9 March 1879, Joural of Discourses 20:151)
Also we have from the New Testament:
The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:53)
Comment by fot — November 11, 2005 @ 12:37 pm
fot,
I just wanted readers to be aware what the opinion of the majority of Bible scholars was. You are free to disagree with them, as they are with you. Obviously, the orthodox Mormon position on this is fairly clear. Thanks for reminding us.
Kris,
I wonder what part the “inevitability of war” attitude has played in the failure of Christians for 2000 years to secure a peaceful world.
Comment by Ronan — November 11, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
I think your comment “it is always about our times” is certainly true. As we look around we seem to try and fit what’s happening today into some fulfillment of prophecy. A question you didn’t ask that goes along with this subject is: “Should we be praying for the second coming?” and/or for it to come quickly?
Comment by Don — November 11, 2005 @ 1:37 pm
Ronan,
Perhaps my comment sounded harsh against you. It wasn’t intended to be. My appologies if that was the case.
Truly, the world has many contradicting positions on the book of Revelation. It is helpful to be aware of the various thoughts on the subject.
It is a wonderful blessing to have modern prophets who give us further light and knowledge than we now have!
Comment by fot — November 11, 2005 @ 1:44 pm
Mr. fot, first I wanted to let you know that your handle (now edited to fot) is spamillicious and unwelcome. This is not a medium for free advertising. Please choose a handle that is appropriate (also forgive the indiscreetness of this – you don’t leave a valid email address).
As to Orson’s quote – he lived in a time when there was great antipathy between Deseret and the US. Most the leaders of the Church believed that the US was apostate and ripe for destruction. Opinions obviously changed over the next 25 years.
You are, however, plenty of opinions of church leaders that are quite anticipatory of great carnage. CES materials even propagate some. Thankfully much is opinion.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 11, 2005 @ 2:05 pm
Ronan,
As you know I have posted a lot on related subjects. This notion of the end times brings up all sorts of discussions including foreknowledge and fixed future debate.
Since I am a firm believer in an open future and the concept that we are improvising the details of this earth-play as we god with God acting as director and keeping the overal story arc on track, I think you are right that we ought to be striving for a warless society.
I think we Mormons get into lots of trouble when we start buying non-revelatory notions like “the rapture” and the “tribulation” though. I have said before that the BoM probably gives us the best model for signs of the times prior to a literal visit from Christ. If we follow that general model we should in fact see a ceasing of major wars between nations prior to the Second Coming. In the pattern the major wars are to be replaced by terrorist wars (Gadiantons vs. Civilization). The last phase is that the terrorist threat is defeated, there is a short period of calm, then all hell breaks loose and there is near anarchy with the government basically collapsing. Then there are massive natural disasters where the more wicked part of the people die, then Christ appears.
I know it is a safe bet to say “people have expected it for 2000 years so don’t get your hopes up” but I think that we are already into the second phase of the pattern I described above (major wars replaced by terrorist wars).
As for suing for peace, I think even if one buys the pattern I mention as accurate, they could vigorously oppose sending Western troops to the Middle East. It seems very much the equivalent of Nephites sending troops into the mountains to attack the Gadiantons I think. That never worked for them either.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 2:18 pm
Geoff,
I hoped you’d comment, but I have to disagree: if you think terrorism is new, then think again! Ever heard of Guy Fawkes?
Comment by Ronan — November 11, 2005 @ 2:30 pm
I should add that I’m not sure Orson Pratt had much especial insight into the last days. Of course I do happen to agree that I think when the US fails, it’ll be because we’ve let ourselves become ruled by anarchy. As to how that might happen, for all its controversy the purported John Taylor vision that Wilford Woodruff recorded still sounds eerily prescient. A biological disease. Perhaps it is man-made (with lots of novels on that theme – the two best being The White Plague by Frank Herbert or The Stand by Stephen King) or natural (obviously something worse than bird flu, for all its danger)
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Ronan, even beyond that, modern guerilla war started with the British in Spain against Napoleon. The consequences were devastating for Spain (as I think parallels what happens in the Book of Mormon) But more significantly most modern guerilla wars, of which terrorism is but one example, have followed the British model. Al Queda isn’t doing something new, but what Mao, the Viet Kong, and many other have done. And what they did was set up by the British. And one could even say that the roots of British action were set up by the Indian wars and then the Revolutionary war in America.
As they say, nothing new under the sun.
Comment by Clark Goble — November 11, 2005 @ 2:46 pm
re the Orson Pratt quote: J. Stapley, I understand the spirit with which you responded to fot about that quote, but I would be careful in dismissing the Pratt quote as merely one of so many “opinions” of LDS leaders arising solely from antipathy between Deseret and the US. It seems a dangerous tendency to take sermons that seem harsh and say that they were just an opinion after all.
Perhaps it was a straightforward prophecy, as Pratt claimed it was, and not just an opinion from an opinionated man. In that prophecy, he stated They will leave their farms and they will remain uncultivated, and they will flee before the ravaging armies from place to place; and thus will they go forth burning and pillaging the whole country; and that great and powerful nation, . . . will be wasted away, unless they repent. Who is to say that this prophecy was not looming over the head of the United States at the time (to the extent that Pratt even said that those listening to him would see if happen, unless the US repents) and that in some way, unknown to us, the US as a body or community “repented” such that it did not merit the collective punishment that Pratt described–at that time. Whether the prophecy still looms over the US is probably up for debate, since presumably none of those listening to Pratt at the time is still around.
I do not, however, see anything amis in a prophet of God issuing a warning that a society as a whole is facing impending collective punishment for the cumulative effect of a mass turning away from the commandments of God. What is a more interesting question is whether the level of collective righteousness is a guage by which we should try to measure the standing of our society in the eyes of God. This does not imply that everyone must be Latter-day Saints but merely that they are living righteously and morally, measured, nevertheless, by objective standards set forth by God.
Comment by john fowles — November 11, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
John Fowles. You make a good point. The contingent nature of the prophecy does indeed change things abit. What it does, however, (I believe) is limit it in time. I imagine the US still has a fair amount of repenting to do (I do, at least), but does applying the localized prophecy beyond its locality stretch the prophet too thin? I don’t know. We use the D&C beyond its locality, so maybe not.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 11, 2005 @ 3:21 pm
Ronan,
I never said terrorism is new — I said quite the opposite actually. My point was more about general macro-patterns with world politics as makers for predicting the Second Coming (or is it just US, or can they even be separated now?) The idea is that the pattern before Christ visited the Americas in the Book of Mormon went from massive inter-nation wars and struggles, which slowly went away and transitioned into an ongoing and bloody conflict with terrorists. We are seeing a very similar pattern on a world stage over the last century with massive wars dominating much of the 20th century and then transitioning into terrorist wars in the last several decades (especially when viewed from a US perspective).
Of course if another massive world war breaks out my pattern will prove to be completely wrong, but I don’t envision that happening.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
Orson Pratt was not a prophet, therefore what he said was his opinion. Inspired, but not prophecy.
My friend is excited about this war. She and her husband feel it furthers the gospel and speaks of the last days.
I’d rather do it some other way. But if this mortal life could be over soon, I’d be in favor.
Comment by annegb — November 11, 2005 @ 3:37 pm
There was an ad in our local newspaper placed by a few local church leaders. They were imploring the public to join them as they prayed for the return of Jesus Christ to the Earth. And if we all joined together with faith, this would happen. Be careful what you wish for.
Comment by Tim J. — November 11, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
annegb, Orson Pratt was ordained an Apostle in 1835 and continued in that ministry in 1879. We sustain the apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators. Thus, I’m not as confident as you in the assertion that Orson Pratt was not an apostle and that therefore his prophecy was not a prophecy after all.
John the Revelator was an Apostle, yet we (or that is, most of us) do not question his prophecies (even if we, as mentioned above, can only see their meaning as though through a glass darkly) as being actual prophecies rather than mere opinion.
Comment by john fowles — November 11, 2005 @ 4:00 pm
Sorry, annegb, I just reread what I wrote. I realize you did not say that Orson Pratt was not an apostle but that he was not a prophet. What I meant to say was that I am not as confident as you in saying that he was not a prophet given the fact that apostles are sustained by the body of the church in their calling as prophets, seers, and revelators.
Comment by john fowles — November 11, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
Geoff, one major problem is the near-impossibility of distinguishing between “terrorist wars” and other wars. When anti-colonial guerillas in the 19th and 20th centuries throughout the third world attacked civilian symbols of imperial power, was that terrorism? When anti-colonial forces in the US attacked locals who supported the English empire, sometimes murdering them and sometimes driving them out of the region, was that terrorism? When the Allies firebombed Dresden in WWII, was that terrorism? How about Hiroshima? Or is it only terrorism when the bomb is set off by people who don’t belong to an army? But Al Qaeda considers itself an army. So maybe terrorism is when killing is done by people who aren’t in the army of a modern nation-state. Then all wars before about 1500 were terrorism by definition, and most wars since have been, as well.
We can’t even resolve this by taking the view that an action is terrorism if most people think it is. After all, whether you consider an action to be terrorism or not often depends on whether your side was the victim. A lot of Venezuelans, for example, believe that the USA is the main terrorist regime on Earth. In the end, terrorism is a kind of value-judgement word. So it’s hard for me to agree with you that there has been a shift in the direction of terrorist wars — because I’m not sure how to tell the difference!
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
Re: Orson Pratt
But wasn’t there widespread belief (even in the leadership) that the Second Coming was very close at hand, ie. 1890? Pratt’s comments might make more sense in that context.
Perhaps the U.S. did repent, but how do you square that with the U.S. (subsequent to Pratt’s speech) making the Church cry ‘uncle’?
Comment by Jared — November 11, 2005 @ 4:24 pm
Geoff, one major problem is the near-impossibility of distinguishing between “terrorist wars†and other wars.
This may be true from some perspectives, but from the proverbial 40,000 ft. perspective it seems pretty easy to me. One type of war pits sovereign nations against each other. The other type pits hidden armies that that live under the radar within any number of countries against sovereign nations.
The Gadiantons had armies too after all. They just secretly lived and moved among the Nephites as long as they could. Eventually they formed more formal armies and in the end, the only way the combined Nephite-Lamanite nations beat them was to hole up long enough to bring them out of hiding and wipe them out. The first 7 chapters of 3 Nephi (plus most of Helaman) makes for very interesting reading on this subject I think.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 4:46 pm
Okay, what’s a “sovereign nation”? A standard position among historians and sociologists is that there was no such thing as a sovereign nation until the last 400 years or so (see, for example, this classic book on the subject). The basic problem is that nations, as such, didn’t really exist through most of history. In fact, the idea of the nation is closely linked with the emergence of literacy and industrialization. So most wars in history would be terrorist wars, according to a definition that requires both parties to be sovereign nations.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 5:15 pm
RT, do you really draw a comparison between Muslim suicide bombers who indiscriminately target civilians and the rebels in the American war of Independence? I’ll have to bone up on my history, but I don’t remember a rebel campaign waged against civilians in restaurants, wedding parties, and town marketplaces. It is true, as you say, that some loyalist “civilians” might have been attacked, but I would suggest that it was not a murderous terror tactic but rather because every loyalist was considered an actual or potential conscript of the crown. I suppose I would have to see evidence that loyalist families were simply randomly targeted and murdered for the terror of it alone.
Comment by john fowles — November 11, 2005 @ 5:19 pm
But wasn’t there widespread belief (even in the leadership) that the Second Coming was very close at hand, ie. 1890
Indeed. I read that Wilford Woodruff supposedly misunderstood what D&C 130:14-17 meant. So when 1890 rolled around (when JS would have been 85), he started to think the end was nigh. Hence the manifesto (which is addressed to absolutely nobody — “to whom it may concern”) in 1890 and post-manifesto plural marriages. I think the idea was “hey, since the end is coming this year, it doesn’t matter if we continue plural marriage or not.” I could be wrong, as I learned this from an unapproved, “tainted,” and spurious source (DMQ).
Ronan — I concur: war is wrong, always has been, and always will be. Ugly, ugly stuff. I’m so mad at the US gov’t right now I could scream. Pointless fighting. I’ll stop the rant right there.
Related to this, I remember a verse in the Pauline corpus which states “should we sin that grace may abound?” When reading your post, I got the same feeling inside. We shouldn’t rejoice in war so that God can intervene. I think the Maccabean Revolution taught us that lesson, at least as it’s portrayed in the Apocrypha.
Comment by David J — November 11, 2005 @ 5:21 pm
Does anybody out there know if the religion of these terrorists has a suicide doctrine (akin to the Judeo-Christian tradition)? It would seem that it doesn’t, since they’re always running around blowing themselves up for Allah.
Comment by David J — November 11, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
John, I think most forces fighting against militarily superior opponents tend to take advantage of whatever tactics are available to them. The fact that there was no mass media limited the extent to which some tactics we would recognize as terrorist acts today were available, but others such as leaving the bodies of enemies on permanent public display at the edge of town were certainly available. My point here isn’t to suggest any kind of moral equivalence among different groups; that has to do with motives as much as tactics, after all. To the extent that militant Islam seeks to effectively destroy freedom worldwide, I don’t see any degree of equivalence between it and anti-colonial guerilla wars including that of the US against England.
But the real point here is that things basically like terrorism have been really prevalent forever, and aren’t increasing today. Let’s consider other examples. The Black Death entered Europe when a city beseiged by Mongols had the bodies of plague victims catapulted into it. That not only killed a bunch of people in one city, but actually initiated an outbreak that killed millions. Terrorism? Or just another day at war?
Wars among New England indigenous groups often involved hit-and-run tactics, in which an attacking group would pop up, shoot a bunch of people in a city, and then vanish. Is that terrorism?
Over all, my point is just that I don’t see any evidence in favor of Geoff’s claim that we’re transitioning into a period of terrorist war. We’ve always been in a period of terrorist war. Tactics of terrorism evolve over time, in response to social innovation and technological change — but the same is true of every other human activity. But I have a hard time seeing terrorism as on the rise in any way in comparison with the past. Not even in comparison with the Cold War period. Vietnam, anyone?
That said, my guess is that Geoff’s perception is wide-spread. Hence, it would be useful to understand it more. Geoff, help me out — what’s the basis for your perception that we’re experiencing a transition toward terrorist war and away from some other kind of war?
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
RT,
The point is that the BoM put a huge amount of energy into spotlighting the 150ish years leading up to the visit of Christ. That is where we learn most about their wars and politics. It makes sense to me to assume that was not by accident and that God was helping us (His church in the last days) see the intended script leading up to His second coming. So while we can quibble about what a sovereign nation is, the BoM makes the distinctions pretty clear in that record. Try this comparison:
A. In Alma though 3 Nephi a nation called Lamanites had major wars with another nation called Nephites. The Nephites mostly won. Then they began to be allies and trading partners. At that point a secret group of terrorists called Gadianton robbers became the primary enemy to both allied groups.
B. In the last century we have seen two world wars where nations joined together to fight nations. After those massive wars the US and its allies were in a “cold war” with USSR and its allies. That war has largely ended now too. Like the Nephites, the US and its allies mostly won. In the last decade or so the newly-friendly super-power nations of the world have found themselves at war with Gadianton-like secret groups of terrorists. Currently that war with the terrorists seems to be growing rather than shrinking.
On a macro level the similar patterns seem pretty plain to see to me.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
BTW — I also posted on this general subject last Spring. See here.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 5:59 pm
Al Qaeda seems as Lamanitish to me as it does Gadianton-like. Al Qaeda is based on a system of religious belief and identity, and draws on ethnic rivalries. It doesn’t seem to be primarily about getting its foot-soldiers wealthy. It certainly practices secrecy, but then again so do armies. Furthermore, the Gadiantons aren’t described as terrorists in the Book of Mormon. For the most part, they are called robbers, and I don’t see a lot of textual evidence that the robbers used anything like the modern tactics of Al Qaeda, say, or Hamas. I don’t think the Book of Alma is random, but I also don’t think that it provides as clean of a typology for thinking about modern events as you seem to claim that it does.
Please understand that I’m not trying to quibble here. This is about the meaning of the distinction which drives your entire claim about the last days approaching, so I don’t think that worrying about whether that distinction makes sense is a trivial issue.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 6:38 pm
The Lamanites were a nation with borders. They are not like Al Qaeda. The Gadiantons were very much like Al Qaeda, living secretly among the people but protecting each other in their secret works of murder. The primary motivation of the leaders of the Gadiantons was to get gain and power, but there was a religious undertone to their rhetoric too with talk of their rights being violated etc. Look at this:
There are clearly religious issues employed there. Verse seven seems to be a proselyting verse… “Convert to our ideology”. Verse nine focuses on the justness and rightness of the Gadianton ideology/religion and focuses on the ancient nature of it as well. All very Al Qaeda like.
Further, I believe the motivations of the top leaders of Al Qaeda are as much about power and gain as the Gadiantons.
I will say that Al Qaeda is only one example of the secret combinations that threaten the nations today. There are plenty of people among all nations that band together and protect each other while they lie and murder to get gain and power. It has always been so in the world.
My point is not that this is new, but rather that our world today — especially from the US perspective — uncannily matches our revealed record of the overall patterns of Nephites leading up to Christ’s visit to them.
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
Geoff, I dispute your claim that the Lamanites were a nation with borders. Our modern notion of “borders” is anachronistic before the Treaty of Westphalia. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon itself displays an immense lack of nations. Instead, there’s a crazy-quilt of tribes, family groups, local kings, feudal systems, groups belonging simultaneously to Nephite and Lamanite identity groups, etc. Furthermore, given Bin Laden’s evidently extensive networks of relationships of power and influence among heads of different states, there’s a parallel to be drawn between the kind of feudal “head king” that the Lamanites sometimes had and Bin Laden.
I’ll grant you your right to speculate about the motives of Al Qaeda’s leadership. I think that you’re probably right, although, given the absense of compelling evidence about those guys’ psychology, we should both acknowledge that you might not be.
Finally, I would echo the point made by others in this thread: Christians have always thought that current events “uncannily match” the pattern leading up to Christ’s return. Imagine how well the very events you discuss would seem to have fit with the U.S. Civil War, for example. This doesn’t seem especially problematic to me; it’s great that we can make the scriptures speak to us. But the idea that the present uniquely matches the Nephite narrative arc may be in part a projection of current perceptions back onto the text.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 11, 2005 @ 8:35 pm
#23 – Yes, the current generation always consideres the Lord’s Second Coming close at hand–for that is what the Savior said even to His apostles in the new Testament.
As for Orson Pratt, don’t be too quick to dismiss the prophesy. If you want something more modern, from an actual Prophet, look no further than everyone’s favorite book to hate, “The Miracle of Forgiveness” by President Spenser W. Kimball.
Here’s a quote:
Will we ever turn wholly to God? Fear envelops the world which could be at ease and peace. In God is protection, peace, safety. He has said, “I will fight your battles.” But his commitment is on condition of our faithfulness. He promised to the children of Israel:
* I will give you rain in due season.
* The land shall yield her increase and trees their fruit.
* Granaries and barns will bulge in seed-time and harvest.
* Ye shall eat your bread in abundance.
* Ye shall dwell in your land safely and none shall make you afraid.
* Neither shall the cord go through your land.
* And five of you shall chase an hundred and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight.
In view of the promises God has given respecting America, who can doubt that he would be willing to do the same for us as for ancient Israel? Conversely, should we not expect the same punishments if we fail to serve him? To ancient Israel these were listed.
* The land will be barren (perhaps radioactive or dry from drought).
* The trees will be without fruit and the fields without verdure.
* There will be rationing and a scarcity of food, and sore hunger.
* No traffic will jam your desolate highways.
* Famine will stalk rudely through your doors and the ogre of cannibalism will rob you of your children and your remaining virtues will disintegrate.
* There will be pestilence uncontrollable.
* Your dead bodies will be piled upon the materialistic things you sought so hard to accumulate and save.
* I will give no protection against enemies.
* They that hate you shall reign over you.
* There will be faintness of heart, “and the sound of a shaken leaf” shall chase you into flight, and you will flee when none pursue.
* Your power your supremacy your pride in superiority will be broken.
* Your heaven shall be as iron and your earth as brass. Heaven will not hear your pleadings nor earth bring forth its harvest.
* Your strength will be spent in vain as you plow and plant and cultivate.
* Your cities will be shambles; your churches in ruins.
* Your enemies will be astonished at the barrenness, sterility, desolation of the land they had been told was so choice, so beautiful, so fruitful. Then shall the land enjoy her Sabbaths under compulsion.
* You shall have no power to stand before your enemies.
* Your people will be scattered among the nations as slaves and bondsmen.
* You will pay tribute and bondage, and fetters shall bind you.
What a bleak prediction! Yet “these are the statutes and judgments and laws, which the Lord made between him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.” (Lev. 26:46.) The Israelites failed to heed the warning. They ignored the prophets. They suffered the fulfillment of every dire prophecy.
Do we twentieth-century people have reason to think that we can be immune from the same tragic consequences of sin and debauchery if we ignore the same divine laws?
The outlook is bleak, but the impending tragedy can be averted. Nations, like individuals, must “repent or suffer.” There is only one cure for the earth’s sick condition. That infallible cure is simply righteousness, obedience, godliness, honor, integrity. Nothing else will suffice.
Comment by FOT — November 11, 2005 @ 9:14 pm
RT,
Nations or tribes… ether way works for me. It really makes no difference in the comparison. The pattern works still. They knew who was “them” and who was “us”. And they had major wars between “them” and “us”. Then the Them and Us distinction became very difficult to distinguish when secret combinations and secret murderers became the (hidden) enemy to the non-warring and free-trading groups. The comparisons to today work pretty well I think.
Bin Laden’s evidently extensive networks of relationships of power and influence among heads of different states, there’s a parallel to be drawn between the kind of feudal “head king†that the Lamanites sometimes had and Bin Laden.
I think you are way off here. Lamoni might have only been king over a small tribe (or large — we don’t know) but he was publicly the leader and recognized as the official monarch of the group. Bin Laden is nothing like that. Rather, the way you describe Bin Laden’s influence does sound just like the Gadianton influence from the BoM:
Comment by Geoff J — November 11, 2005 @ 11:10 pm
I tend to agree with RT in that it is hard to make sense of “terrorism” prior to the modern era. (Let’s say roughly the 20th century and beyond) The problem is that through most history targeting civilians was common as was nearly outright genocide. (You can still see elements of this in more primitive cultures such as the Rwanda genocide or what’s going on in Darfor today) I also think our modern sense of borders is a tad anarchronistic. There were spheres of influence that sometimes had borders. But those borders were often fluid. And in the near-east during the Islamic empire era the very concept seems hard to fit in.
Likewise the tactics of guerilla fighters seem pretty typical everywhere throughout most history. And yes, weak guerilla forces often do target civilians who help their enemies. The Viet Kong did that frequently for instance. And often forces would try to exterminate their potential enemies.
What’s shocking about the Book of Mormon isn’t that the events are unusual but that they are all so usual. The difference is, that they were elements not typically considered in the era of Joseph Smith in which war had taken on a fairly normative rule based nature due to the European powers – despite the guerilla tactics in the Indian Wars, some of the English-French wars, and of course the Revolutionary War and War of 1812. (i.e. elements were there, but not to the extent presented in the Book of Mormon)
I think the idea that the Gadiantons were akin to ancient bandit guilds makes a lot of sense, btw. And it makes sense of the thief/bandit distinction of the ancient world. I also think the role of bandits who were outside of the power structure of kings fits the discussion in the Book of Mormon. Often the bandits were simultaneously tied to political intrigue. The famous Assassin guild in the ancient world being the most obvious example.
You ought to get Dan Peterson talking on this. His hobby is studying guerilla war movements and he says lots of interesting stuff on it. Probably not all the parallels are valid. But it really is interesting looking at the Book of Mormon in light of that time honored tradition.
As to the Hel 7:4 reference, it sure sounds like an overtaking of a local government by bandits. Thus the “no justice unto the children of men.” They weren’t acting the way rulers were supposed to do. It’s an old tale. You can even find it in movies like The Magnificent Seven or The Seven Samurai. (The latter is more interesting since it takes place during a period of chaos and relative anarchy in Japan that I think offers some interesting parallels to the Book of Mormon)
Comment by Clark Goble — November 12, 2005 @ 3:27 am
This is all hilarious stuff. Opining about how close the end is and whether or not a terrorist “war” is a real war that might fortell the “end times”. It reminds me of the hubub at the time of the first gulf war when geniuses like you folks, were prognosticating about whether or not this would lead to armageddon. Remember when old Cleon Skausen said it would all come to an end in 1993?
And that reminds me of when Joseph Fielding Smith used to say, pre-Apollo, that no one would ever go to the moon. And he was a genuine prophet. Great Stuff!
Keep on waiting for Jesus. But be patient. It may be another two thousand years, or maybe even longer.
Comment by Duff — November 13, 2005 @ 6:32 am
Duff,
So we have been debating whether you are just a troll or not. I’m starting to think you are. My advice to you is to cool it with the “you geniuses” quips and trying to make JFS and offender for an opinion that proved incorrect. I for one have an itchy troll-banning finger.
Clark,
Apparently I see the world in patterns — moreso than most others I think. Some patterns that look obvious to me are clearly dubious to lots of others. These details about borders, definitions of nations, etc are largely beside the point when looking at the larger patterns. I also think that “terrorism” need not be equated with secret combinations. Terrorism is just a tool that secret combinations use to further their agendas — but it is also a tool used by others.
Comment by Geoff J — November 13, 2005 @ 1:10 pm
Geoff, I think that it’s worth remembering that the overall point is really defined by the details. Definitions of borders, nations, terrorism, etc., are clearly relevant to the claim that there’s been a rise in terrorism (defined as wars not among nations) and a corresponding decline in wars among nations. If the key terms turn out to be slippery or only relevant in recent periods, then the historical claim that we’re in some sense paralleling Nephite history becomes difficult to sustain. That’s why these problematic terms are so central to this conversation.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 14, 2005 @ 1:00 am
That’s fine RT, but it seems that every time I use words like “borders, nations, terrorism, etc.” you harp on them and miss my point in doing so. My point is largely that I see parallels in the Nephite history beginning in the reign of Mosiah to US history beginning roughly around the turn of the 20th century. The parallels seem fairly obvious to me with wars between a fairly well defined “us” against a fairly well defined “them” dominating the first part (and I should mention that it was allied tribes that made up the groups called “Nephites” and “Lamanites” — much like the allied nations of the two world wars). Those large wars eventually shifted into a peace and trading partnerships between the former warring nations. They next shifted into a period when new wars erupted between the newly allied nations against “secret combination” groups that hide and live within the nations and primarily use terrorist-like war tactics to get power (and gain). These parallels especially work when viewing the last 100ish years through the US lens.
Is your contention that those parallels do not exist? (I am not asking you to believe they ought to serve as prophetic markers, even if I suspect they might serve as such, by the way.)
Comment by Geoff J — November 14, 2005 @ 1:23 am
Forgive me for not having the time, or the patience really, to write in the long, lovely sentences you all favor. I’m sure you would like to , and will, delete all the inconvenient things I have to say. Gentlemen such as yourselves are rarely comfortable hearing anything other than views which substantiate your own. Typical.
No courage in those strong convictions?
Comment by Duff — November 14, 2005 @ 5:56 am
Your attempts at coming off as a martyr fail miserably, Duff. It’s another classic troll technique. You’ll notice you haven’t been banned yet, though. We have given you the benefit of the doubt so far.
As for the “inconvenient” things you said — there are lots of non-trolls on this thread that disagree with my views. Not all of them do so in “long, lovely sentences” and they are just fine. They are capable of making civil and reasonable arguments against the views of others without threadjacking or throwing out unwarranted personal attacks or attacks on former LDS leaders.
Please follow their example in the future. [end threadjack]
Comment by Geoff J — November 14, 2005 @ 10:10 am
Geoff, my worry here is that the Book of Mormon doesn’t necessarily include the patterns that you see there. For instance, the book doesn’t unambiguously see the Lamanites as a unified group. In fact, “Lamanite” sometimes seems to be used by the narrators in much the same way that “Indian” has always been used: to refer to quite a internally diverse group of people that doesn’t necessarily see itself as unified. There seem to be different groups of Lamanites who don’t necessarily have a lot to do with each other, and the internal structure is such that some armies can be made up almost entirely of subgroups (Zoramites, for example).
It’s also worth remembering that the Lamanite wars phase of the narrative also involves a lot of secret combinations in which specific groups (of monarchists, for the most part) infiltrate both the Nephites and the Lamanites and use tactics of assassination, etc., to meet their aims. As far as I can tell, assassination is the primary “terrorist” tactic of the Gadiantons, as well. So the proposed difference in tactics is in need of further explanation and development, I suppose. To a substantial degree, of course, the Gadiantons live outside of the established tribes and wage traditional warfare — throwing the proposed pattern into further doubt.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 14, 2005 @ 10:33 am
Folks, let’s not feed the trolls.
Duff, if your only aim in posting is to tease the people who dare believe in God, perhaps an other blog might be a better choice to read?
Comment by Clark Goble — November 14, 2005 @ 12:36 pm
For instance, the book doesn’t unambiguously see the Lamanites as a unified group.
This is a similarity as well. Nephites and Lamanites are very analogous to groups like Allies and Axis or later Democracies and Communists. Those groups were anything but perfectly unified as well.
It’s also worth remembering that the Lamanite wars phase of the narrative also involves a lot of secret combinations
There is a difference between the intrigues and treachery that is connected with war and “secret combinations”. The Book of Mormon recognizes this difference. For instance, there is no record of the king-men administering those ancient oaths to one another that Gadianton and his followers utilized. The very fact that so many in Al Queda are willing and even happy to die suggests to me that its members have partaken in covenants with each other of that nature. I do concede that secret combinations certainly must exist in different degrees of commitment though — both then and now.
So that leaves me still seeing the patterns I have mentioned. (Though I don’t mind your testing them like this…)
Comment by Geoff J — November 14, 2005 @ 9:10 pm
It’s like dealing with spoiled children.
Let me leave you kids with this. As educated, intelligent men, instead of discussing whether or not Gadianton was a terrorist in the same vein as Osama, you should be discussing the inconvenient elephant in the room which is why there is no evidence that Gadianton existed at all. You are discussing the minutia of the Book of Mormon when you should be crying your eyes out that after decades of frantically searching, there hasn’t been even one clear piece of evidence that these huge civilizations ever existed. Why is so called “book of mormon archeology” the laughing stock of the archeological world? Must be very difficult to have such burning testimonies that what you believe is true, when having to rationalize so much evidence to the contrary. I wouldn’t want to hear from people like me, either. Ta Ta
Comment by Duff — November 15, 2005 @ 6:04 am
Geoff, I don’t think willingness to die for one’s cause is compelling evidence of “secret combinations.” If so, Mormonism would also count.
If “Democracies and Communists” count as unified groups for you, then why not “Liberal-Western Societies and Islamists”?
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 15, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
Duff, it’s actually very nearly totally irrelevant to this conversation whether there ever was a person named Gadianton or not. Either way, we have a text called the Book of Mormon which provides us with a narrative about Gadianton. Whether that narrative falls in the genre of history, the genre of epic fiction, or what, it’s still an intellectually comprehensible task to ask whether or in what ways the events in that narrative parallel recent history. If you cared to join our community — rather than merely ridiculing it from the outside — you would find that some members of the community share your position on the archaeological (one might add anthropological, linguistic, genetic, geographical, 19th-century-historical, etc.) evidence on the Book of Mormon. The difference is that the set of people in our community with these positions have decided that there is still spiritual value for them in the Mormon tradition. It’s worth noting as well that these individuals have enough of a sense of manners that they don’t run around mocking the deepest beliefs of those who hold more traditionally Mormon positions.
I don’t appreciate hecklers in general. But if you’re going to heckle, please at least make sure that your comments are germane to the discussion at hand. Comments about the historicity of the Book of Mormon are out of place in the current discussion.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 15, 2005 @ 1:40 pm
I don’t think willingness to die for one’s cause is compelling evidence of “secret combinations.â€
I didn’t say it was. I simply said it distinguished secret combinations from the the type of greed and power motivated group that the king-men were.
If “Democracies and Communists†count as unified groups for you, then why not “Liberal-Western Societies and Islamists�
Because democracies and communists were led by publicly acknowledged governments as are the goverments of Islamic countries of the Middle East. The Islamic extremists that are at war with the US and the West in general have no (official or public) sanctioning by any world government today, even if they have members of their secret combinations pulling governmental strings behid the scenes (just like the Gadiantons did.)
The pattern in the BoM is that wars between public groups of allies melded into a war with secret and covert groups living among the people and hiding from the official governments (until they managed to build enough to support to come out in open war and threaten the destruction of the established governments in 3 Nephi)
Comment by Geoff J — November 15, 2005 @ 2:04 pm
Geoff, now you’re referring back to the idea of legitimate governments as a core distinguishing feature, even though as we’ve previously mentioned this idea doesn’t really predate the rise of the modern state in early modern Europe. But even at that I think your argument is difficult to work through. After all, Al Qaeda did have essentially official and public sanction from the government of Afghanistan. Related groups seem to have had similar support from Iran.
Furthermore, there’s really no evidence whatsoever that Al Qaeda has meaningfully infiltrated the US government — the signature secret act other than assassination that the Gadiantons used. (Note also that Al Qaeda doesn’t seem to be too big on assassination as a tactic.)
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — November 15, 2005 @ 2:48 pm
[legitamate government] doesn’t really predate the rise of the modern state in early modern Europe.
We are using different definition then. I see acknowledged tribal leadership as “legitimate government”.
After all, Al Qaeda did have essentially official and public sanction from the government of Afghanistan.
Exactly. So the US and it allies invaded Afghanistan and Al Qaeda sank into the woodwork. Just like the Gadiantons did. A perfect example of the matching patterns I am referring to.
there’s really no evidence whatsoever that Al Qaeda has meaningfully infiltrated the US government
This is a good point and the record shows that the Nephite government was riddled by secret combinations. However it does not say that all those in secret combinations were united as a single whole the entire time. Al Qaeda does match the Gadianton model, but that does not preclude many other home-grown secret combinations here in the US. (I know this starts sounding like the consiracy theoies talked about over at the 9-11 thread but the BoM does warn against conspiracies of sorts…) Anyway, I don’t think Al Qaeda is infiltrated in the US govt. in any way but I don’t think it needs to be for the basic patterns to still match. The BoM says that the Nephites and Lamanites had problems with secret combinations and “Gadianton robbers”. I doubt that was a coordinated effort.
Comment by Geoff J — November 15, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Do we twentieth-century people have reason to think that we can be immune from the same tragic consequences of sin and debauchery if we ignore the same divine laws?
The outlook is bleak, but the impending tragedy can be averted. Nations, like individuals, must “repent or suffer.†There is only one cure for the earth’s sick condition. That infallible cure is simply righteousness, obedience, godliness, honor, integrity. Nothing else will suffice.
I hope that ‘godliness’ includes compassion, because I don’t see it included in this “simple cure”. I find it most ironic that the pestilences, war, and famine to take place in the last days are things that might be more man-made than anything else (emphasis on Man). As Christians and/or Mormons we seem to be more concerned about protecting ourselves from tragedy by avoiding sin, than we are about our collective choices that may in the literal sense bring about more tragedy.
The apologetic stance of war as a catalyst for democracy/Christianity to me feels like a snow job. It has never sat well with me. The fact that it’s fine to mention Iraqi missionary rumors in sunday school, but not okay to discuss past and present Apostles’ renouncement of war as anything but figurative, gives a good indication of what the general membership feels about the war in Iraq. I’m disgusted, and I know others are too.
Am I wrong to think that democracy and/or Christianity are simply not good enough excuses for pre-emptive war? While I believe in both (perhaps moreso in the former, depending on the form of Christianity in question), I simply do not see war as an all but necessary precursor.
And what of the calamities of the Last Days? Could it be, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy? Wars and rumors of wars? Pestilences and famines? These are arguably both inevitable AND preventable. Is our ‘simple cure’ part of the illness?
Comment by Bert Hoopes — November 21, 2005 @ 1:16 am
The fulfillment of Christianity’s promise is a good enough excuse for a pre-emptive war, but those darned Taliban people sure didn’t have a good excuse to start a war with the US over their silly religioius principles. We have Jesus on our side so its all right if we go to war to fulfill our Christian prophesies, (well, I think that stuff in Revelations is good Christian stuff), They only have false prophets, those silly ragheads, and we’ve got those great arguments about wars being necessary as precursors to the second coming. A “necessary precursor” is nothing to sneeze about.
Comment by Duff — December 4, 2005 @ 4:42 am