chapter 1 discussions: the story of…
mormongandhi 4:51 pm on October 29, 2009
THE AMBIVALENCE OF THE SACRED
Based on the reading in the first study chapter, are there any issues that you would like to raise? I think the whole issue of Nephi killing Laban is a heavy one, and interestingly the presentation of a very complex dilemma of human violence and the question on how this particular passage of scripture is used in the LDS church today.
One comment I have made earlier on this is that the High Priest Kaifas used the same logic and the same words to argue for the crucifixion of Jesus – and perhaps in that lies the ambivalence of the sacred towards violence. In both cases, the life of a person is sacrificed in order to save a nation or nations “from dwindling in disbelief”. Without the brass-plates, would we have the book of mormon today? Without the killing of Jesus and his resurrection, would we have christianity today? Without the assassination of Martin Luther King what would have happened? What might have happened?
The religious authorities in power in a particular time and place might be disfavorable to a certain interpretation of their religious traditions and make attempts to silence those voices – because those voices rebel against normal conventions. I wonder what logic was used when Joseph Smith was killed. Who was thinking that it was better for one man to die than…, who knows what people were thinking at the time? Was it better for Laban to die? What about Nephi’s reaction to the orders of the Spirit? His gut reaction was exactly contrary to what the Spirit was teaching…
______________________________________________________
Maria Cruz on November 3, 2009
I read: “While the extremist sees physical violence against his enemies as a sacred duty”, the peacemaker strives to sublimate violence, resisting efforts to legitimate it on religious grounds.”
Question: If ’sublimate’ means ‘to make acceptable’, then how is that person really a peacemaker?
______________________________________________________
mormongandhi 5:03 pm on November 3, 2009
Hei Maria and welcome to PFF!
I see it more from a psychology point of view as such: sublimate can mean “to divert the energy associated with an unacceptable impulse or drive (i.e. violence) into a personally and socially acceptable activity (i.e. nonviolence)”. The examples used on the extremist side is that using physical violence against your enemies is interpreted as a sacred duty, while the peacemaker strives to divert the energy that derives from an unjust or violent situation into a nonviolent and sometimes creative response – and that violence itself must not be justified through a religious interpretation of his or her sacred duty.
J. Madson 8:37 am on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
FOUNDATIONAL MURDER
You may want to consider reading Rene Girard. It was his work that was partially responsible for helping Eugene England to read Nephi and Laban in the manner he did. If Rene Girard were to interpret the passage he would likely define 1 Nephi 4 as a foundational murder. This murder founds the Nephite civilization whose King takes both the name of Nephi and the sword of Laban as its emblem.
mormongandhi 3:53 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
Thank you for that comment. Yes, it is correct. Rene Girard did provide the framework for Eugene’s article. I hadn’t come across the ‘foundational murder’ definition though. Really helpful and insightful. But could you say a bit more about the concept of foundational murder?
Would one say for example that Christ dying on the cross was a sort of foundational murder for Christianity and the assassination of Joseph Smith, Jr. a foundational murder for Mormonism? Do you have other examples where this is the case? Is there a way we may look at these murders – which appear sometimes necessary (sealing a testament with one’s blood or that of another) – in a more nonviolent way?
J. Madson 8:46 am on December 11, 2009 Permalink |
Sorry, I didnt see your comment until today. I would say that Christ’s death is definitely not a foundational murder in the traditional meaning but rather a revelation of 1) God’s nature and the nature of his kingdom and 2) that all scapegoating whether it be killing Laban, killing in war, or any form of violence against another is never justified but simply murder.
foundational murders as Girard describes them resemble the foundation of Rome through Romulus’ murder of his brother Remus, Cain’s foundation of a city after murdering Abel, and countless archaic myths and tales that follow this same scenario (Girard discusses these in length in his books). In all of these cases, whether it be Laban, Remus, or say Oedipus in Oedipus Rex, the individual is considered guilty of some crime. The murder is justified. This is where Nephi of course ties in. He gives us all of his justifications for why Laban should be killed. He treated us poorly, took our money, etc. This is of course after he has already become affixed on the sword and admired it. He then concludes as you rightly point out with the same logic used to murder Christ.
What the NT does, according to Girard, is reveal that the scapegoat, whether it be Laban or in this case Jesus, is innocent. That regardless of the rationale or reasons for his murder, it cannot be justified before God. What Jesus does by non-violently submitting to the cross is both reveal the non-violent nature of God, and reveal to the political, religious, and other authorities that their means and methods of ruling are simply murder.
I personally have a very different take on Jesus’ death and dont think it was necessary but rather inevitable. I think God would have preferred if Jesus wasn’t crucified. Jesus certainly had the option of taking up the sword and rule through might. But it is the very nature of a non-violent deity in my view that if he was to come among us he would be killed. This is of course what happened with Jesus.
This post I made earlier this year explains better some of my thoughts on the matter
http://themormonworker.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/good-friday/
mormongandhi 4:15 pm on December 11, 2009 Permalink |
Fascinating…
I really like your take on this: “But it is the very nature of a non-violent deity in my view that if he was to come among us he would be killed. This is of course what happened with Jesus”. Refreshing perspective especially today, as I read the newspapers and there was all this hype about the prufundity of Obama’s speech ‘on the necessity of using instruments of war to secure peace’. It was an intelligent speech, but if we were now to take a faith-based approach to war, like you say, nonviolence is both divine and attainable (be ye perfect) – violence is human nature (the natural man is the enemy of God – or at least his antithesis).
J. Madson 8:28 pm on December 11, 2009 Permalink |
Funny you mention Obama. I wrote about Obama’s speech on themormonworker.wordpress.com blog. his speech amounted to saying peace doesnt really work.