Morgan Deane's Climbing a Tree to Find a Fish: Insurgency in the Book of Mormon

[Calm]

Let me just say I think this may be my favorite title of all FM conference presentations ever.  And thus even though Morgan posted it himself in another thread (iirc, been a bit preoccupied with life for a few days), it deserves its own thread as well:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

[Calm]

Quote

The bandits in The Book of Mormon capture the imagination of readers. Starting to kill political leaders from the shadows, they spread throughout the land using unknown code words until they defy entire armies and obliterate nations. The majority of literature on the topic focuses on their secrecy. When I was in high school, my CES instructor compared them to the Mafia. Some bloggers compare them to Marxists figures,[1] or link them to various conspiracy theories.[2] And their practice of war has been compared to other secular insurgencies.[3] Another scholar has linked them to a cult of war in classic Mesoamerican history.[4] Kelly Ward and John Welch have noticed the Hebrew legal distinction between “thieves” and “robbers” that The Book of Mormon demonstrates.[5] These are thought-provoking studies with a great deal of merit. Yet I think we can dive even deeper into the text. [slide 2] The various historical uses of the term “robber” applied to The Book of Mormon suggest that the Gadianton Robbers contributed to and resulted from the weakening control of the central government over its territories, resulted from as a backlash to the unintended side effects of Nephite policies, and arose because of a powerful ideological message of the robbers. These causes also serve to highlight the loaded nature of the term robber, and the ethnic and class distinctions within Nephite society....

 

[mfbukowski]

Robbin' hoods!

[Traela]

He seems to assume that the armor mentioned in the Book of Mormon is metal plate.  Is there anything in the text to back that up?

 

[morgan.deane]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Let me just say I think this may be my favorite title of all FM conference presentations ever.  And thus even though Morgan posted it himself in another thread (iirc, been a bit preoccupied with life for a few days), it deserves its own thread as well:

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2016-fairmormon-conference/climbing-tree-find-fish

Thanks. I didn't explicitly talk about any hot button issues so its been disappointing to see how much drama people want to jump into and how much research they'll ignore.  But what they missed from Hardy's talk was a description of a new and deeper methodology for studying the BoM, which is what I believe I did. Thanks for the shout out!! I had so much more material, but I actually cut a ton of it. I'm glad you enjoyed what I kept.  

[morgan.deane]

44 minutes ago, Traela said:

He seems to assume that the armor mentioned in the Book of Mormon is metal plate.  Is there anything in the text to back that up?

 

 I feel a bit sheepish because my new book is about reassessing assumptions, but that was one that I wish I would have looked at as well. Though the copy to which Calm linked to does have some important caveats I think you missed.  Just a short distance under the heading Causes Part II: There is no exact knowledge of how much metal the Nephites armor used, nor do we know how much ancient Mesoamericans used metal armor. But whatever material and process they used...

Also, this isn't available yet (which is fine with me, I prefer the reading over viewing and I hate seeing myself stutter) but in the question and answer portion of the presentation and in my book from which I drew this material,  I pointed out that whatever the Nephites added to their armor system, it was heavy enough to protect them in battle, frighten the enemy, make them adopt the armor, and was a crucial part of the Nephite victory.  The benefits were so large that their must have been at least a few drawbacks that prevented this armor from being adopted sooner in Nephite history.  Otherwise it would have been done sooner. So I argue that the changes in Nephite society to produce this armor were as big as the effect it had in battle.  

In fact, the inspiration for this line of reasoning came from Batman Begins. The Morgan Freeman character showed Bruce Wayne some armor, after describing how awesome it was he said the government didn't want to spend 300,000 dollars per infantry soldier for their body armor. That got me thinking about the awesome armor (of whatever material and weight) that Moroni introduced and then I looked in Helaman for how that might have been a negative. I could only produce a couple paragraphs in my presentation at FAIR, and I made a mistake in relying on the assumption that it was metal, but I think the larger points remains valid.  In connection to what I said to Calm, I kind of wish people would pettifog my presentation a bit less and look at the methodology I used to reconstruct Gadianton ideology, and the nuanced examination of Nephite mistakes or unintended consequences that likely fueled the rise of robbers as well as what I thought were some really good applications at the end.  

Grant Hardy has been talked about a great deal. What I think got lost was his excellent description of what he wants to see in BoM studies. I copied it here because it was so close to the methodology I used in trying to look at nuances and complexities within the text I almost wanted to shout amen:

 I believe the Book of Mormon is a gift from God, and that the testimony of ancient Nephite prophets is crucial for our day, but I feel like we’ve hardly scratched the surface of this sacred text, especially when compared with the scholarly attention given to the Bible or the Qur’an over the centuries. Our apologetics have got to offer more than just “Look at these ancient parallels” or “Joseph Smith couldn’t have written it.” We should be plumbing the depths of this strange, perplexing, inspiring new scripture for whatever it might tell us. In fact, I think we should follow the example of how Jews study the Torah...

Whereas the apologetic impulse in speaking to critics is to point out complexities, questionable sources, and extenuating circumstances, when we’re talking with insiders who share our worldview and commitments, the temptation is partisan over-simplification. Sometimes it seems like our primary mode of apologetics is forensic; that is, it’s taken from the world of debate and the courtroom. (I’m speaking cautiously here, realizing that attorneys have been some of the most avid supporters and participants in LDS apologetics.) Typically, we present the strongest case possible for our side, piling up arguments and refusing to cede any ground to the opposition. This approach has carried us a long way, but it can also lead to habits of thought that are less helpful in the long run. These include cherry-picking, eisegesis, distorting the positions of others, disparaging expertise, and stretching evidence to support pre-ordained conclusions—the sorts of things that wouldn’t make it past academic peer review. We get away with them in conversations with fellow Mormons because we know there won’t be much pushback.

The danger is that in advancing one-sided arguments, what might seem like good lawyering to the faithful may look more like fudging, or even dishonesty, to outsiders or to the wavering. It also means that we tend not to be very self-critical; that is, we don’t evaluate the relative strengths or weaknesses of the evidences we put forward. As long as it reaches the desired conclusions, it’s all good. But what we may lose, over time, is trust. By all means, when talking to our fellow saints we should accentuate the positive, but it would be useful to introduce more balance into our discussions. The Gospel Topics essays are notable in this regard, as is FairMormon. They make a case for faith, but they also acknowledge genuine difficulties. However, what they offer in candidness can be offset by their brevity. Quick back and forth exchanges don’t foster broader, more nuanced perspectives. [End quote]

Anyways, this post is long enough. Thanks for reading and commenting!! I love talking about the BoM.  

   

[churchistrue]

Thanks, Morgan.  I enjoy your insights into the text.  

[Calm]

Morgan, if you wrote a blog about where you would like to see the conversation go now,emphasizing the methodology, It could easily be put up and a note directing people at the end of your presentation added.

[morgan.deane]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Morgan, if you wrote a blog about where you would like to see the conversation go now,emphasizing the methodology, It could easily be put up and a note directing people at the end of your presentation added.

Thanks! Not sure if I'll do it, but I'll keep it in mind.