Mormon's handbook on war and peace

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

From what I can gather, Arminianism has its roots in biblical interpretation, it originators expounding upon reclaimed teachings of early church fathers. Likewise, I see the attitude toward war as an application of the Beatitudes and Deuteronomy 20, wherein 16th century Europe it was reasonable to propose that an offensive attitude toward war was best avoided due to the risks of equally prepared enemies, and where a strong defense was instead preferred. In an age where the seemingly unlimited resources of New World was opening up for the taking, and no end to what could be explored and mined for resources,  wars of conquest for others' existing resources was unnecessary (at least until the explorations and claims started competing over the newly discovered resources).

Perhaps I should give an example of where I see Grotius' thinking employed in the Book of Mormon. The use of "stratagem" is part and parcel of the way Nephites do battle. Although the word "stratagem" is never really defined in the Book of Mormon, you can understand from the context that it means the purposeful use of deceit to gain a military advantage over the enemy. This is essentially the same definition given by Grotius when he commentates on the use of stratagem in war. In Alma 43:30 Mormon relates Moroni's justification for using stratagem in war. The thing that has always struck me as being odd about this passage is that Moroni/Mormon felt a need to justify using strategy. This would only be necessary if they were aware of or anticipated disagreement on this point. From my perspective I can't even imagine someone would think stratagem was NOT justifiable in war and so I've always wondered who exactly they were trying to convince.

As I read Grotius, this explanation in Alma 43:30 gradually made sense to me. Here's what Grotius says: "Wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents. But a doubt is sometimes entertained, whether stratagem may be lawfully used in war." He goes on to say that the answer to this question depends on "whether stratagem ought to be ranked as one of those evils, which are prohibited under the maxim of not doing evil, that good may ensue, or to be reckoned as one of those actions, which, though evil in themselves, may be so modified by particular occasions, as to lose their criminality in consideration of the good, to which they lead."

In other words, he is addressing the idea that since stratagem, by it's very nature involves deceit, it may be supposed by some to be immoral even in war. But he never identifies anyone who has made this argument, which tells me he knows of nobody who has made the argument, since in almost every case he gives numerous examples from history to support the assertions he makes. This tells me that he is defending a purely hypothetical argument created in his own mind.

Similarly, in the Book of Mormon, we hear of nobody who objects to the use of stratagem in war. So I return to my original question, which is why there is any need to justify the practice to the reader. The answer, as I see it, is that Mormon/Moroni are employing Grotian thinking by justifying a practice that nobody has objected to under the assumption that somebody theoretically could object based on a strict interpretation of the necessity of only performing righteous actions under the doctrine of the gospel.

But this is only the beginning of Grotian ideas regarding stratagem in the Book of Mormon. We also need to examine the justification given. Mormon/Moroni justify the action based on the fact that they are defending their land, liberty, and church. This is quite agreeable to our modern perception of what may make war justifiable. It also fits perfectly with Grotius' theory of natural rights. Here's what he has to say about what makes war and certain actions in war justifiable.

Quote

In the first place, as it has occasionally been observed, the means employed in the pursuit of any object must, in a great degree, derive the complexion of their moral character from the nature of the end to which they lead. It is evident therefore that we may justly avail ourselves of those means, provided they be lawful, which are necessary to the attainment of any right. Right in this place means what is strictly so called, signifying the moral power of action which any of us a member of society possesses. On which account, a person, if he has no other means of saving his life, is justified in using any forcible means of repelling an attack, tho he who makes it, as for instance, a soldier in battle, in doing so is guilty of no crime. For this is a right resulting not properly from the crime of another but from the privilege of self defense, which nature grants to every one.

But Grotius stops short of justifying every action in the name of defending natural rights. He makes it clear that a promise or oath made even to an enemy cannot be broken even though it would seem to fall into the category of deceit made in the name of stratagem.

Quote

What has been said of false speaking must be understood as applied to affirmative declarations, which can be prejudicial to no persons, but public enemies; it can by no means be taken to include promises. For promises confer upon the person, to whom they are made, a peculiar right to claim their full performance. And this is a rule, which must take place, even between public enemies: a rule to which existing hostilities are not allowed to form an exception. . . It will be necessary to repeat an observation made before, with respect to oaths, both of the affirmative and promissory kind, where it was maintained that they exclude all exceptions, all mental reservations towards the person, to whom they are made, being regarded not merely as a solemn transaction with that individual, but as a stedfast appeal to God. Such an appeal to the supreme being demands the performance of an oath, even if it gave the individual no right to the same.

So although deception is allowed in war as a general rule, the breaking of a promise or an oath is an exception. This ideal is strongly valued and practiced by the Nephites.

[CV75]

22 hours ago, JarMan said:

Perhaps I should give an example of where I see Grotius' thinking employed in the Book of Mormon. The use of "stratagem" is part and parcel of the way Nephites do battle. Although the word "stratagem" is never really defined in the Book of Mormon, you can understand from the context that it means the purposeful use of deceit to gain a military advantage over the enemy. This is essentially the same definition given by Grotius when he commentates on the use of stratagem in war. In Alma 43:30 Mormon relates Moroni's justification for using stratagem in war. The thing that has always struck me as being odd about this passage is that Moroni/Mormon felt a need to justify using strategy. This would only be necessary if they were aware of or anticipated disagreement on this point. From my perspective I can't even imagine someone would think stratagem was NOT justifiable in war and so I've always wondered who exactly they were trying to convince.

As I read Grotius, this explanation in Alma 43:30 gradually made sense to me. Here's what Grotius says: "Wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents. But a doubt is sometimes entertained, whether stratagem may be lawfully used in war." He goes on to say that the answer to this question depends on "whether stratagem ought to be ranked as one of those evils, which are prohibited under the maxim of not doing evil, that good may ensue, or to be reckoned as one of those actions, which, though evil in themselves, may be so modified by particular occasions, as to lose their criminality in consideration of the good, to which they lead."

In other words, he is addressing the idea that since stratagem, by it's very nature involves deceit, it may be supposed by some to be immoral even in war. But he never identifies anyone who has made this argument, which tells me he knows of nobody who has made the argument, since in almost every case he gives numerous examples from history to support the assertions he makes. This tells me that he is defending a purely hypothetical argument created in his own mind.

Similarly, in the Book of Mormon, we hear of nobody who objects to the use of stratagem in war. So I return to my original question, which is why there is any need to justify the practice to the reader. The answer, as I see it, is that Mormon/Moroni are employing Grotian thinking by justifying a practice that nobody has objected to under the assumption that somebody theoretically could object based on a strict interpretation of the necessity of only performing righteous actions under the doctrine of the gospel.

But this is only the beginning of Grotian ideas regarding stratagem in the Book of Mormon. We also need to examine the justification given. Mormon/Moroni justify the action based on the fact that they are defending their land, liberty, and church. This is quite agreeable to our modern perception of what may make war justifiable. It also fits perfectly with Grotius' theory of natural rights. Here's what he has to say about what makes war and certain actions in war justifiable.

But Grotius stops short of justifying every action in the name of defending natural rights. He makes it clear that a promise or oath made even to an enemy cannot be broken even though it would seem to fall into the category of deceit made in the name of stratagem.

So although deception is allowed in war as a general rule, the breaking of a promise or an oath is an exception. This ideal is strongly valued and practiced by the Nephites.

Or maybe the Three Nephites shared Nephite genius with Grotius or his intellectual forebearers!

Where you see the employ or coopting of ideas, I see instead parallel ideas produced by great minds addressing similar problems. Whether through innate genius or divine inspiration, both men (and the captain of the Nephites, Moroni) are undoubtedly building upon predecessors’ ideas and experience, including a Christian ethic.

It is interesting to me that the principles governing church and state and the rules of war are not necessarily eternal principles but advanced knowledge according to the wisdom God sees fit his children should have according to their language and understanding (Alma 29:8, 2 Nephi 31:3), and the correct Christian doctrines are eternal, given according to the faith of the believer (Jarom 1:4, Moroni 10:7). In both cases they are given according to his timetable and for His purposes.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Or maybe the Three Nephites shared Nephite genius with Grotius or his intellectual forebearers!

Where you see the employ or coopting of ideas, I see instead parallel ideas produced by great minds addressing similar problems. Whether through innate genius or divine inspiration, both men (and the captain of the Nephites, Moroni) are undoubtedly building upon predecessors’ ideas and experience, including a Christian ethic.

It is interesting to me that the principles governing church and state and the rules of war are not necessarily eternal principles but advanced knowledge according to the wisdom God sees fit his children should have according to their language and understanding (Alma 29:8, 2 Nephi 31:3), and the correct Christian doctrines are eternal, given according to the faith of the believer (Jarom 1:4, Moroni 10:7). In both cases they are given according to his timetable and for His purposes.

God has been inspiring people for all of human history. But every society comes up with a different system. When you see two systems that are identical yet separated by an ocean and over a thousand years it can’t be a coincidence. 

Consider Helaman 12:15 where Mormon tells us that the earth goes around the sun. That’s only a news item if it’s 17th Century Europe. Otherwise it doesn’t belong in the story. 

Also consider that a major topic of debate among scholars In the 16th and 17th centuries was the origin of the Indians. Some felt they were the lost tribes. Some felt they arrived from the Old World by boat. Others thought they came from Asia following the confounding of languages at Babel. There were various other theories, as well, but you can see why I picked these. Everything in the Book of Mormon (including the language it was written in) testifies the time and place it was produced. It’s one of those things you just can’t unsee once you see it. 

[morgan.deane]

On 11/11/2017 at 4:25 PM, JarMan said:

Perhaps I should give an example of where I see Grotius' thinking employed in the Book of Mormon. The use of "stratagem" is part and parcel of the way Nephites do battle. Although the word "stratagem" is never really defined in the Book of Mormon, you can understand from the context that it means the purposeful use of deceit to gain a military advantage over the enemy. This is essentially the same definition given by Grotius when he commentates on the use of stratagem in war. In Alma 43:30 Mormon relates Moroni's justification for using stratagem in war. The thing that has always struck me as being odd about this passage is that Moroni/Mormon felt a need to justify using strategy. This would only be necessary if they were aware of or anticipated disagreement on this point. From my perspective I can't even imagine someone would think stratagem was NOT justifiable in war and so I've always wondered who exactly they were trying to convince.

As I read Grotius, this explanation in Alma 43:30 gradually made sense to me. Here's what Grotius says: "Wars, for the attainment of their objects, it cannot be denied, must employ force and terror as their most proper agents. But a doubt is sometimes entertained, whether stratagem may be lawfully used in war." He goes on to say that the answer to this question depends on "whether stratagem ought to be ranked as one of those evils, which are prohibited under the maxim of not doing evil, that good may ensue, or to be reckoned as one of those actions, which, though evil in themselves, may be so modified by particular occasions, as to lose their criminality in consideration of the good, to which they lead."

In other words, he is addressing the idea that since stratagem, by it's very nature involves deceit, it may be supposed by some to be immoral even in war. But he never identifies anyone who has made this argument, which tells me he knows of nobody who has made the argument, since in almost every case he gives numerous examples from history to support the assertions he makes. This tells me that he is defending a purely hypothetical argument created in his own mind.

Similarly, in the Book of Mormon, we hear of nobody who objects to the use of stratagem in war. So I return to my original question, which is why there is any need to justify the practice to the reader. The answer, as I see it, is that Mormon/Moroni are employing Grotian thinking by justifying a practice that nobody has objected to under the assumption that somebody theoretically could object based on a strict interpretation of the necessity of only performing righteous actions under the doctrine of the gospel.

But this is only the beginning of Grotian ideas regarding stratagem in the Book of Mormon. We also need to examine the justification given. Mormon/Moroni justify the action based on the fact that they are defending their land, liberty, and church. This is quite agreeable to our modern perception of what may make war justifiable. It also fits perfectly with Grotius' theory of natural rights. Here's what he has to say about what makes war and certain actions in war justifiable.

But Grotius stops short of justifying every action in the name of defending natural rights. He makes it clear that a promise or oath made even to an enemy cannot be broken even though it would seem to fall into the category of deceit made in the name of stratagem.

So although deception is allowed in war as a general rule, the breaking of a promise or an oath is an exception. This ideal is strongly valued and practiced by the Nephites.

I'm glad you included some details about what you mean.  When you say something like: "but from what I can tell so far, the morality of every military aspect of the Book of Mormon is addressed in this book, called 'The Rights of War and Peace'" and then leave it at that without any detail you kind of leave me hanging.

Though I'm not convinced by your example. I agree that Moroni was trying to justify strategems which suggests that he thought some people might object.  Instead of trying to find a congruence from a random philosopher we might consider other options. A good introductory book is Combat and Culture by John Lynn, which shows how there is often a conflict between the stated rules and norms of warfare and evolution in warfare. Just off the top of my head you can point to the Catholic church's ban on cross bows, Tikal and other city states suddenly changing the rules to conquer their neighbors, the debates over the extent of the Aztec flower wars, extirpative war on the American frontier, and in the Book of Mormon a new aggressive form of warfare from Moroni. For example, you might notice the language in the Amlicite civil war that the Nephites "did await" their enemies. But by the time of Moroni he was setting ambushes, removing Lamanite settlers, and threatening genocidal war. From the time of captain Moroni to the end of the BoM the bloodiness of their wars only increased to include ritual torture, rape, and cannabalism.  

The point is that there every culture has a debate surrounding acceptable tactics in war, and much like in the musical Fiddler on the Roof, there is always tension between accepted TRADITION, and something new.  So instead of pointing to a philosopher and making a tenuous connection, (I noticed you used the word "essentially" which does not mean "exactly".) I would say Grotius is just one of many writers throughout history that commented on just war.  The West did develop rules concerning just warfare, and codified war to an extent not seen in other ages, but from a knowledge of history I can say Moroni had reasons to justify his behavior and its quite common. I've been sick all weekend and its really late, so I'll leave it at that and perhaps expound later. 

[JarMan]

48 minutes ago, morgan.deane said:

I'm glad you included some details about what you mean.  When you say something like: "but from what I can tell so far, the morality of every military aspect of the Book of Mormon is addressed in this book, called 'The Rights of War and Peace'" and then leave it at that without any detail you kind of leave me hanging.

Though I'm not convinced by your example. I agree that Moroni was trying to justify strategems which suggests that he thought some people might object.  Instead of trying to find a congruence from a random philosopher we might consider other options. A good introductory book is Combat and Culture by John Lynn, which shows how there is often a conflict between the stated rules and norms of warfare and evolution in warfare. Just off the top of my head you can point to the Catholic church's ban on cross bows, Tikal and other city states suddenly changing the rules to conquer their neighbors, the debates over the extent of the Aztec flower wars, extirpative war on the American frontier, and in the Book of Mormon a new aggressive form of warfare from Moroni. For example, you might notice the language in the Amlicite civil war that the Nephites "did await" their enemies. But by the time of Moroni he was setting ambushes, removing Lamanite settlers, and threatening genocidal war. From the time of captain Moroni to the end of the BoM the bloodiness of their wars only increased to include ritual torture, rape, and cannabalism.  

The point is that there every culture has a debate surrounding acceptable tactics in war, and much like in the musical Fiddler on the Roof, there is always tension between accepted TRADITION, and something new.  So instead of pointing to a philosopher and making a tenuous connection, (I noticed you used the word "essentially" which does not mean "exactly".) I would say Grotius is just one of many writers throughout history that commented on just war.  The West did develop rules concerning just warfare, and codified war to an extent not seen in other ages, but from a knowledge of history I can say Moroni had reasons to justify his behavior and its quite common. I've been sick all weekend and its really late, so I'll leave it at that and perhaps expound later. 

I'll give another example to bolster my case. In justifying the use of stratagem, Grotius gives some exceptions. The breaking of oaths and promises is one that I already mentioned, and while I haven't done a systematic review of the role of oaths in warfare in the Book of Mormon, my memory tells me that oaths were often used and respected in the Nephite/Lamanite system. But this isn't the exact example I wanted to use. In expounding on this idea of oaths, Grotius says the following:

Quote

Moreover, the will is bound not only by treaties and pacts, but also by agreements tacitly indicated. For example, any person who has placed himself under the protection of another in such a way as to be in the possession and under the power of that protector, makes himself for the time being a part, as it were, of the latter, and by his silence promises clearly enough that he will devise nothing prejudicial to the welfare and sovereign status of the said protector. Thus we abhor traitors and suborned assassins and--far more intensely--poisoners. This abhorrence is accompanied, too, by the sentiment that wrongdoing lies in the giving of commands no less than in their execution, so that precisely the same guilt is incurred by the buyers and by the sellers of evil deeds.

In this paragraph Grotius commentates on the following actions (the relevance of which I will show hereafter): 1) betraying a protector, 2) acting as a traitor, 3) hiring assassins, particularly poisoners, 4) the moral equivalence between performing an evil deed and doing the evil deed oneself.

This brings us to Alma 47. Amalickiah wants to become king of the Lamanites so that he can have an army to fight his Nephite brethren. He ingratiates himself with the king, and is given command of part of the army. Then through stratagem (though not the kind Grotius or Mormon approve of) Amalickiah suborns an assassin to kill Lehonti with poison, and then suborns another assassin--the traitorous servant of the king--to kill the king. So in a single Book of Mormon chapter we see several direct, obvious, and pointed parallels to a single paragraph from Grotius.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I'll give another example to bolster my case. In justifying the use of stratagem, Grotius gives some exceptions. The breaking of oaths and promises is one that I already mentioned, and while I haven't done a systematic review of the role of oaths in warfare in the Book of Mormon, my memory tells me that oaths were often used and respected in the Nephite/Lamanite system. But this isn't the exact example I wanted to use. In expounding on this idea of oaths, Grotius says the following:

In this paragraph Grotius commentates on the following actions (the relevance of which I will show hereafter): 1) betraying a protector, 2) acting as a traitor, 3) hiring assassins, particularly poisoners, 4) the moral equivalence between performing an evil deed and doing the evil deed oneself.

This brings us to Alma 47. Amalickiah wants to become king of the Lamanites so that he can have an army to fight his Nephite brethren. He ingratiates himself with the king, and is given command of part of the army. Then through stratagem (though not the kind Grotius or Mormon approve of) Amalickiah suborns an assassin to kill Lehonti with poison, and then suborns another assassin--the traitorous servant of the king--to kill the king. So in a single Book of Mormon chapter we see several direct, obvious, and pointed parallels to a single paragraph from Grotius.

Have you looked for examples of such behaviour and condemnations in other cultures?

Poison is often seen as reprehensible from what I have read.  And the rest...an ally being deceitful to take over a throne, not an unusual idea. 

[CV75]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

God has been inspiring people for all of human history. But every society comes up with a different system. When you see two systems that are identical yet separated by an ocean and over a thousand years it can’t be a coincidence. 

Consider Helaman 12:15 where Mormon tells us that the earth goes around the sun. That’s only a news item if it’s 17th Century Europe. Otherwise it doesn’t belong in the story. 

Also consider that a major topic of debate among scholars In the 16th and 17th centuries was the origin of the Indians. Some felt they were the lost tribes. Some felt they arrived from the Old World by boat. Others thought they came from Asia following the confounding of languages at Babel. There were various other theories, as well, but you can see why I picked these. Everything in the Book of Mormon (including the language it was written in) testifies the time and place it was produced. It’s one of those things you just can’t unsee once you see it. 

Now I’ve made these and similar other observations about the Book of Mormon myself since reading it as a teenager almost 50 years ago, and appreciated how some might think 19^th century authors incorporated these ideas in fulfilling a multi-generational scheme to create a scripture that testifies of Christ, but the more I study human history the more I see that the Book of Mormon prophets bring up themes that were also had amongst other cultures having a similar intellectual fund as theirs. And I also consider that the science and prophecy of Adam were preserved through the flood through Noah, and even that which was lost was restored from time to time through the prophets.

So, I’m not sure that every society does come up with a different system (take the universality of the patriarchal system growing from primitive societies in disparate places across the globe, for example), and finding only two in common may mean we just haven’t found more. Copernicus attributed Heliocentrism to the Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in 300 BC, and who knows who else mad the same observation earlier -- individual ancients were just as observant and as smart as we are; they only lacked only mass communication. I don’t dee how anyone could theorize how the American Indians arrived in the Americas prior to knowing about them and keeping a faithful record, hence these theories coming up in the late middle ages, the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. But the Nephites knew where they came from, and some have guessed right!

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now I’ve made these and similar other observations about the Book of Mormon myself since reading it as a teenager almost 50 years ago, and appreciated how some might think 19^th century authors incorporated these ideas in fulfilling a multi-generational scheme to create a scripture that testifies of Christ, but the more I study human history the more I see that the Book of Mormon prophets bring up themes that were also had amongst other cultures having a similar intellectual fund as theirs. And I also consider that the science and prophecy of Adam were preserved through the flood through Noah, and even that which was lost was restored from time to time through the prophets.

So, I’m not sure that every society does come up with a different system (take the universality of the patriarchal system growing from primitive societies in disparate places across the globe, for example), and finding only two in common may mean we just haven’t found more. Copernicus attributed Heliocentrism to the Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos in 300 BC, and who knows who else mad the same observation earlier -- individual ancients were just as observant and as smart as we are; they only lacked only mass communication. I don’t dee how anyone could theorize how the American Indians arrived in the Americas prior to knowing about them and keeping a faithful record, hence these theories coming up in the late middle ages, the Renaissance and the Age of Discovery. But the Nephites knew where they came from, and some have guessed right!

I don't disagree from a general perspective that moral societies will come up with similar answers to questions. But, if at some point the similarities start to look like dependencies, then I think you have to consider whether or not that is the case. In order to determine dependence I think you need to consider both specificity and multiplicity. Then as a baseline for comparison you can look at any two societies and see what similarities exist between them. What I see with the Grotius/Mormon comparison is specificity and multiplicity far beyond what I see between other non-dependent systems of which I am aware. 

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Have you looked for examples of such behaviour and condemnations in other cultures?

Poison is often seen as reprehensible from what I have read.  And the rest...an ally being deceitful to take over a throne, not an unusual idea. 

It's not particularly surprising to find any one of the items mentioned in my Grotius quotation in a particular culture. The surprise comes when you see a cluster of several ideas that are the exact ideas you see clustered in another work. If I was writing a fictional story and wanted to demonstrate the truth of Grotius' idea from the single paragraph I quoted earlier, I couldn't come up with a better narrative than Alma 47. It's almost as if Alma 47 was written for the express purpose of bringing to life the ideas Grotius sets forth in the abstract.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I don't disagree from a general perspective that moral societies will come up with similar answers to questions. But, if at some point the similarities start to look like dependencies, then I think you have to consider whether or not that is the case. In order to determine dependence I think you need to consider both specificity and multiplicity. Then as a baseline for comparison you can look at any two societies and see what similarities exist between them. What I see with the Grotius/Mormon comparison is specificity and multiplicity far beyond what I see between other non-dependent systems of which I am aware. 

Because de Groots writings precede the Book of Mormon, I think it would also need to be established that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly been published before de Groot produced his works. I also think it would need to be established that the dependency is causal (i.e. it is illogical to have the Book of Mormon without previous writings on the principles contained therein); resource- or logistically constrained (it is possible that the Book or Mormon depended on de Groot’s writings, but certain logical and other constraints prevent it per Elder Callister’s talk); or, discretionary (the authors of the Book or Mormon chose to include some of de Groot’s writings in it).

[JarMan]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Because de Groots writings precede the Book of Mormon, I think it would also need to be established that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly been published before de Groot produced his works. I also think it would need to be established that the dependency is causal (i.e. it is illogical to have the Book of Mormon without previous writings on the principles contained therein); resource- or logistically constrained (it is possible that the Book or Mormon depended on de Groot’s writings, but certain logical and other constraints prevent it per Elder Callister’s talk); or, discretionary (the authors of the Book or Mormon chose to include some of de Groot’s writings in it).

I don't think the Book of Mormon could possibly have been produced before 1611 because of its dependence on the KJB. Grotius lived from 1583-1645. He was a child prodigy who entered the University of Leiden at the age of 11 and published his first book at 16. His best known treatise on the laws of war and peace was written in 1625, but he actually had an earlier work from 1604 largely covering the same subject matter. Only one chapter of this 1604 work was published in his lifetime. I am studying both of these and trying to determine if there is anything unique in the 1625 work (meaning it didn't appear in 1604) that is reflected in the Book of Mormon. This would allow me to move the lower bound (which I've tentatively set at 1611) for when the Book of Mormon was produced to 1625.

As for causality, I think it's possible a case could be developed based on the specific doctrinal issues, particularly the soteriology we see  in the Book of Mormon, that those issues came directly from Arminianism and that those particular ideas were not present in Christianity before about 1600. For example, the Book of Mormon addresses the debate between free will and predestination, which is one of the primary debates the Arminians were having with the Calvinists during Grotius' lifetime. The ideas espoused by the Arminians in this debate are a "prevenient" grace (what the Book of Mormon calls the "light of Christ"), free will to except his saving grace ("free to chose"), Christ's grace being offered to all ("universal atonement"), followed by a requirement to persevere ("endure to the end").  As far as I can tell this system of soteriology is unique to Arminianism and arose from the broader debate they were having with the Calvinists in the early 1600's which arose from a broader debate among protestants in the 1500's which arose from a broader debate in the Catholic church as instigated by Luther and others. But this Arminian soteriology  is also the same doctrine set forth in the Book of Mormon. Because of the unique history that led to the development of this soteriology, I can't imagine that the Nephites would have independently come up with the same system.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I don't think the Book of Mormon could possibly have been produced before 1611 because of its dependence on the KJB. Grotius lived from 1583-1645. He was a child prodigy who entered the University of Leiden at the age of 11 and published his first book at 16. His best known treatise on the laws of war and peace was written in 1625, but he actually had an earlier work from 1604 largely covering the same subject matter. Only one chapter of this 1604 work was published in his lifetime. I am studying both of these and trying to determine if there is anything unique in the 1625 work (meaning it didn't appear in 1604) that is reflected in the Book of Mormon. This would allow me to move the lower bound (which I've tentatively set at 1611) for when the Book of Mormon was produced to 1625.

As for causality, I think it's possible a case could be developed based on the specific doctrinal issues, particularly the soteriology we see  in the Book of Mormon, that those issues came directly from Arminianism and that those particular ideas were not present in Christianity before about 1600. For example, the Book of Mormon addresses the debate between free will and predestination, which is one of the primary debates the Arminians were having with the Calvinists during Grotius' lifetime. The ideas espoused by the Arminians in this debate are a "prevenient" grace (what the Book of Mormon calls the "light of Christ"), free will to except his saving grace ("free to chose"), Christ's grace being offered to all ("universal atonement"), followed by a requirement to persevere ("endure to the end").  As far as I can tell this system of soteriology is unique to Arminianism and arose from the broader debate they were having with the Calvinists in the early 1600's which arose from a broader debate among protestants in the 1500's which arose from a broader debate in the Catholic church as instigated by Luther and others. But this Arminian soteriology  is also the same doctrine set forth in the Book of Mormon. Because of the unique history that led to the development of this soteriology, I can't imagine that the Nephites would have independently come up with the same system.

In an alternative timeline and history, the plates could have been transported to coastal USA or even Europe and buried by Moroni, then presented to a European or colonial prophet named Joseph in the late 16th century, 150 years after the publication of the Guttenberg Bible. That they came about as they did is happenstance, and does not affect the soteriology--the Gentiles would still settle the Americas and bring their religion with them as Nephi sequenced the events in relation to the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Both the Armenian and Book of Mormon soteriology conforms to the earliest Christian teachings (Christ and Adam and the patriarchs, respectively). The former seems to be the product of the light of Christ acting upon bright, faithful minds and the latter the product of revelation to the Book of Mormon prophets and their understanding from the brass plates.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Both the Armenian and Book of Mormon soteriology conforms to the earliest Christian teachings (Christ and Adam and the patriarchs, respectively). 

This an argument from faith. I can see no evidence the Armenian/Book of Mormon soteriology was taught by anybody until a few years after 1600.

Using the argument that the Book of Mormon is similar to Arminianism because they both come from the same divine source is a complicated road to travel. By following this logic, modern Mormonism should have the same theology as the Book of Mormon. The problem is that it does not. In the Book of Mormon we don't (unambiguously) find the three degrees of glory, temple ordinances, the current understanding of the Godhead or the pre-mortal life among other things. If we can't expect Modern Mormonism to be the same religion as the Book of Mormon religion even though we insist on the same divine source, why would we expect that any other religious system would be the same as the Book of Mormon?

[CV75]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

This an argument from faith. I can see no evidence the Armenian/Book of Mormon soteriology was taught by anybody until a few years after 1600.

Using the argument that the Book of Mormon is similar to Arminianism because they both come from the same divine source is a complicated road to travel. By following this logic, modern Mormonism should have the same theology as the Book of Mormon. The problem is that it does not. In the Book of Mormon we don't (unambiguously) find the three degrees of glory, temple ordinances, the current understanding of the Godhead or the pre-mortal life among other things. If we can't expect Modern Mormonism to be the same religion as the Book of Mormon religion even though we insist on the same divine source, why would we expect that any other religious system would be the same as the Book of Mormon?

Not necessarily. The same divine source can reveal different yet congruent things as time goes on (Isaiah 28:9, 10), as well as similar things several centuries apart. In addition, modern Mormonism does have the same theology as the Book of Mormon as far as revealing the Lord’s will for his people through His servants: “And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him.”(Mosiah 6:6); “a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed…” (Mosiah 8:17); “…unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed” (Alma 26:22). Thus we have examples and the promise of continuing revelation in the Book of Mormon, and also the prophecies that such will continue with the “choice seer” of the restoration.

And this is not necessarily solely an argument from faith. There are several commonalities between early Christian teachings and what was brought out in the Reformation. What is interesting to me is the challenge you have in establishing the finer point that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly been published before de Groot produced his works. We have our timeline and history to work with, and we can trace and propose the steps in the process timeline, but the Book of Mormon didn’t have to come about that way; thre are other consistent routes it could have taken consistent with prophecy, allowing someone other than Joseph Smith and living in the 17^th century or earlier could have brought it forth before de Groot’s time and activities (as long as his name was Joseph!).

[JarMan]

On 11/14/2017 at 5:32 AM, CV75 said:

Not necessarily. The same divine source can reveal different yet congruent things as time goes on (Isaiah 28:9, 10), as well as similar things several centuries apart. In addition, modern Mormonism does have the same theology as the Book of Mormon as far as revealing the Lord’s will for his people through His servants: “And it came to pass that king Mosiah did walk in the ways of the Lord, and did observe his judgments and his statutes, and did keep his commandments in all things whatsoever he commanded him.”(Mosiah 6:6); “a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed…” (Mosiah 8:17); “…unto such it is given to know the mysteries of God; yea, unto such it shall be given to reveal things which never have been revealed” (Alma 26:22). Thus we have examples and the promise of continuing revelation in the Book of Mormon, and also the prophecies that such will continue with the “choice seer” of the restoration.

And this is not necessarily solely an argument from faith. There are several commonalities between early Christian teachings and what was brought out in the Reformation. What is interesting to me is the challenge you have in establishing the finer point that the Book of Mormon could not have possibly been published before de Groot produced his works. We have our timeline and history to work with, and we can trace and propose the steps in the process timeline, but the Book of Mormon didn’t have to come about that way; thre are other consistent routes it could have taken consistent with prophecy, allowing someone other than Joseph Smith and living in the 17^th century or earlier could have brought it forth before de Groot’s time and activities (as long as his name was Joseph!).

I think we already have our Joseph regardless of what may have happened in the 17th Century. 

I’ve been thinking about your idea that people in different places and times can be inspired to the same conclusions. I agree to an extent but ideas, however inspired they may be, always occur in a greater context.

Part of the Book of Mormon narrative in Alma and elsewhere is focused on people protecting their rights. This is a philosophy that is really foreign to the Old Testament. It’s a philosophy that derived from ancient antiquity. The Nephites didn’t have the knowledge of the ancient Greeks to inform them…they had the brass plates. So it’s anachronistic for them to be fighting for their liberties as described in the Book of Mormon since the idea of natural rights wasn’t part of their culture. It’s an idea we take for granted, but consider the Islamic world, for example, as a culture that accepts a portion of the OT but has not embraced the New Testament or Greek philosophy. There is no way we could claim Captain Moroni’s ideology, for example, was Islamic. However, he would have fit perfectly into 16th or 17th Century Europe as the scholars at that time were rediscovering classical antiquity and melding those ideas with the wisdom gained from the Old and New Testaments and the early church fathers. It’s a synthesis of these different traditions that led to the enlightenment and to what we might call Jeffersonian liberalism. And I believe we can place Book of Mormon political/religious philosophy on that historical timeline fairly precisely. I would say within a period of maybe forty years, say between 1620 and 1660. 

[Rajah Manchou]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

And I believe we can place Book of Mormon political/religious philosophy on that historical timeline fairly precisely. I would say within a period of maybe forty years, say between 1620 and 1660. 

It was an interesting time, and I feel your comment is not so far-fetched as most might imagine. We have a group of people writing back and forth to each other about translations of fragments of the Book of Enoch. One of these, Athanasius Kircher, was at the same time translating a text written by Nephi, the "hieroglyphic writing" mentioned below:



Grotius, Kircher, Casaubon, and Perseic may not have directly authored/translated the Book of Mormon, but the knowledge they shared challenges the idea that the Book of Mormon could only be a 19th century text. 
 

[CV75]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

I think we already have our Joseph regardless of what may have happened in the 17th Century. 

I’ve been thinking about your idea that people in different places and times can be inspired to the same conclusions. I agree to an extent but ideas, however inspired they may be, always occur in a greater context.

Part of the Book of Mormon narrative in Alma and elsewhere is focused on people protecting their rights. This is a philosophy that is really foreign to the Old Testament. It’s a philosophy that derived from ancient antiquity. The Nephites didn’t have the knowledge of the ancient Greeks to inform them…they had the brass plates. So it’s anachronistic for them to be fighting for their liberties as described in the Book of Mormon since the idea of natural rights wasn’t part of their culture. It’s an idea we take for granted, but consider the Islamic world, for example, as a culture that accepts a portion of the OT but has not embraced the New Testament or Greek philosophy. There is no way we could claim Captain Moroni’s ideology, for example, was Islamic. However, he would have fit perfectly into 16th or 17th Century Europe as the scholars at that time were rediscovering classical antiquity and melding those ideas with the wisdom gained from the Old and New Testaments and the early church fathers. It’s a synthesis of these different traditions that led to the enlightenment and to what we might call Jeffersonian liberalism. And I believe we can place Book of Mormon political/religious philosophy on that historical timeline fairly precisely. I would say within a period of maybe forty years, say between 1620 and 1660. 

We might not have him had we had another.

Inspiration does occur within a greater context, but is not always derived from that context.

Marcus Aurelius wrote about liberty in the second century AD. Liberty was a characteristic of the Persian Empire in the 6^th century BC and is brought up in the Old and New Testaments. Wars to protect liberty went on throughout the Greek Archaic (8^th century BC) and Classical periods (5^th century BC). I don’t see why the Lehites and Jaredites would be any different from the other comparative peoples and cultures of their day in appreciating the need to fight for their freedoms (or flee, or even endure captivity for a time; we see all of these strategies in the Book of Mormon).  And having prophets among them, they sought the proper course for their situations (a martial version analogous to "whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing"). This is why I said that most of such true principles are not eternal truths like the Gospel is, but are nonetheless inspired of God.

[JarMan]

12 hours ago, CV75 said:

We might not have him had we had another.

Inspiration does occur within a greater context, but is not always derived from that context.

 

Marcus Aurelius wrote about liberty in the second century AD. Liberty was a characteristic of the Persian Empire in the 6^th century BC and is brought up in the Old and New Testaments. Wars to protect liberty went on throughout the Greek Archaic (8^th century BC) and Classical periods (5^th century BC). I don’t see why the Lehites and Jaredites would be any different from the other comparative peoples and cultures of their day in appreciating the need to fight for their freedoms (or flee, or even endure captivity for a time; we see all of these strategies in the Book of Mormon).  And having prophets among them, they sought the proper course for their situations (a martial version analogous to "whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing"). This is why I said that most of such true principles are not eternal truths like the Gospel is, but are nonetheless inspired of God.

 

The preservation of individual liberties as a justification for waging war is pretty unique in world history. The general justification for waging war in the Old Testament, for example, seems to be to punish wickedness. The war against the Canaanites was also to reclaim long lost lands. Both of these reasons for waging war are rejected in the Book of Mormon. Even defensive wars in the ancient world were not conceptualized as a defense of individual liberty since the concept of humans having individual, natural rights didn’t exist in the way we understand it.

Additionally, the Nephite ethic is to tolerate or make peace with non-believers, not to kill them as the ancient Israelites were commanded. Nephite theory on war and peace and religious tolerance seems quite reasonable to us . . which is precisely why it is so out of place. There is a historical window of time and place where the Nephite ethic makes perfect sense. That window is not 1820’s America, though. It’s 17th Century Europe among the Dutch reformers. 

[JarMan]

20 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

It was an interesting time, and I feel your comment is not so far-fetched as most might imagine. We have a group of people writing back and forth to each other about translations of fragments of the Book of Enoch. One of these, Athanasius Kircher, was at the same time translating a text written by Nephi, the "hieroglyphic writing" mentioned below:



Grotius, Kircher, Casaubon, and Perseic may not have directly authored/translated the Book of Mormon, but the knowledge they shared challenges the idea that the Book of Mormon could only be a 19th century text. 
 

Interesting. I had never heard of Kircher or the others before. Kircher’s connection to Egyptology and Hebrew, among many other things, makes him the more interesting in the context of this discussion. 

The Book of Enoch tie reminds me of the “plain and precious” discussion regarding scripture removed from the Bible by the great and abominable church. From a reformation-era perspective the Catholic Church would obviously correspond to the G&A church. And the Book of Enoch was considered canonical by many in the church until about the fourth century from what I gather. The Book of Enoch could therefore be an example of one of those things that were removed. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by JarMan

[CV75]

8 hours ago, JarMan said:

The preservation of individual liberties as a justification for waging war is pretty unique in world history.

Not according to the examples i gave!

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not according to the examples i gave!

My hypothesis is that the Nephite philosophy of war and peace and individual rights would not have developed as we see it in the Book of Mormon but for the influence of post-600 BC Greek philosophy. As far as I know, those ideas have not independently arisen at any other time in history and the western ideas that we are familiar with can be traced directly back to them. We would expect Nephite thinking to resemble the ancient Israelite tradition. . . not Renaissance/Enlightment ideals. 

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, JarMan said:

My hypothesis is that the Nephite philosophy of war and peace and individual rights would not have developed as we see it in the Book of Mormon but for the influence of post-600 BC Greek philosophy. As far as I know, those ideas have not independently arisen at any other time in history and the western ideas that we are familiar with can be traced directly back to them. We would expect Nephite thinking to resemble the ancient Israelite tradition. . . not Renaissance/Enlightment ideals. 

That is a great hypothesis and I wish you well in your testing it. But Samuel (900 BC) resisted the notion of selecting a king over Israel precisely because it would infringe on their liberty (1 Samuel 8), and this after leading the oppressed Israelites against, and defeating, the Philistines (1 Samuel 7).

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

That is a great hypothesis and I wish you well in your testing it. But Samuel (900 BC) resisted the notion of selecting a king over Israel precisely because it would infringe on their liberty (1 Samuel 8), and this after leading the oppressed Israelites against, and defeating, the Philistines (1 Samuel 7).

The reason given in 1 Samuel 7 for fighting the Philistines is to recover captured cities. It is done for the benefit of Israel as a people. In other words, it’s purely a public purpose. The justification for war isn’t to protect or preserve the personal rights of individual citizens. There is no indication the Israelites thought in those terms. 

Contrast that with Alma 43. The Nephites had personal liberties they wanted to protect: their property, families, and freedom of religion, as well as other unspecified rights and privileges. 

(Freedom of religion was established among the Nephites but would have been a foreign concept to the Israelites who were always commanded to either remain separate from or else destroy those who worshipped other Gods.)

Both the Israelites and Nephites wanted to preserve their lives and avoid being in bondage, as all people naturally desire the same. But the justications for their actions and basic assumptions are worlds apart. We are so indoctrinated in our western view of individual rights we have a hard time imagining a different world view and we tend to project our own values on other cultures when it isn’t warranted.