Fighting on enemy grounds

[Vort]

One of the basic precepts of war, so well-known and obvious that even I know it, is that it is easier to fight a defensive battle than an offensive battle. Put another way, it's easier to fight on one's own ground than on enemy grounds.

Yet so often, we in the Church insist on taking on our religious critics and defending the Church on enemy grounds. For example, I see that MormonHub has a new article on black (African-American) LDS history. The article itself seems reasonable enough. I suppose this issue must be addressed, and it must be addressed in an accessible way that people understand. Yet the thrust of such articles always boils down to explaining and defending actions that people today think are "bad". We try to justify ourselves in past Church actions in terms of race, prejudice, bigotry, and evolving social mores. Yet these have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the underlying realities that must be addressed, things like divine will and personal agency. Nevertheless, we studiously avoid all mention of such things, and for good reason: We Don't Know What We're Talking About. That's a pretty safe strategy. But then we blow it by engaging on these other ancillary issues and trying to explain the actions of the kingdom of God according to a mortal, carnal, largely irrelevant paradigm.

Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.

I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!

This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality. We are forced to come up with explanations that sort of dance around the central issue. Maybe women will get the Priesthood in the next life! Maybe women are too righteous and don't NEED the Priesthood! Maybe women already hold the Priesthood! Maybe the Priesthood itself isn't "real", just a game God gave us to try to help us organize things!

Of course, there are better ways to approach this issue. The safest and most obvious route is to say, "God gave the Priesthood to men, and those men are to exercise in behalf of all." This approach does not respond to the question of "why" -- and for a good reason: "Why" questions are philosophical and mechanistic in nature. God reveals philosophical truths individually, when a person is ready and able to understand. And from what I can tell, God rarely or never reveals mechanistic questions, e.g. How does Christ atone for our sins?

Both by commandment and by simple love for others, we must engage with those outside the gospel, and do so using linguistic tokens they understand. Yet it is dangerous and foolish to attempt to establish gospel truths on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints. I am not sure where the balance is found, but until we recognize the disadvantages of fighting on enemy grounds, our effectiveness is sure to be limited.

[zil]

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!

If you want to use the Russian language to tell someone you have a car, the literal translation of what you say (into English) will be: "At me there is [a] car."  (There are no articles in Russian, so the "a" won't be said.)  Personally, I think that's quite revealing.  I am entirely certain that language influences thought and culture and that both of those influence language (round and round they go).

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

 

 

 

I think the best, and maybe the only answer, when trying to explain certain actions or decisions of the church is to simply say something like “Because God said so.” Unsatisfying as this may be to some, particularly to those who have no testimony, or whose testimony is weak, I think that in all cases, it is likely to be the most accurate and safest answer. I think that certain carnal or temporal answers can give insights into the benefits of a certain action or decision, but this is a long way from saying that such benefits are the reason for an action or decision. As Vort said, to try to explain things in temporal terms, in the language of the opposition, is to build our arguments “on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints,” Depending on how public viewpoints change, that can easily lead to the construction of arguments next week to support a position that last week we were using the opposite arguments to deny.

 

Of course,the  answer “because God said so” immediately raises the question of “Why did God say so.” This is a question I have raised in another thread entitled "4 possible reasons that might explain all of God's actions" in the LDS Gospel Discussion forum.

.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by askandanswer

[unixknight]

Defense may be easier than offense, but you can't win a war if you just dig in and wait to be attacked.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Defense may be easier than offense, but you can't win a war if you just dig in and wait to be attacked.

Huh.  Guess I need to go re-read the Book of Mormon.  I must have misunderstood something.

[unixknight]

Just now, zil said:

Huh.  Guess I need to go re-read the Book of Mormon.  I must have misunderstood something.

I'm confused.  When we won WWII, did we just defend against the Nazis, or did we send troops to Europe?

During the Civil War, did the Union win by sitting around in the North and letting the South keep attacking them there, or did they send armies, on the offensive, into the South?  And which side won?

In WWI, were the Central Powers defeated by sitting at home and letting them attack, or did the Allies go on the offensive?

When Napoleon went rampaging, did the alliance play defense or did they field armies to attack him?

In the Mexican War, did the U.S. Army capture Mexico City, or did the U.S. win by letting the Mexicans attack Washington?

In the Revolution, did Washington attack across the Delaware, or did he wait for the Hessians to come to him?

Did the Crusades halt the forced expansion of the Caliphates into Europe by fortifying Constantinople, or did they drive into Turkish territory and attack?

The Book of Mormon isn't a treatise on military strategy.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

[Just_A_Guy]

@Vort -

I don't disagree that at some point we fall back on our testimonies that a thing is thus because God has ordained that it must be so.

On the other hand-it's interesting to put this in terms of "language"; beccause as Mormons we pride ourselves on our efforts to teach the Gospel to every person in his own tongue.  If someone thinks like a secularist, then to what degree might we have an obligation to augment our own learning so that we can effectively engage with them on their own terms?

To the degree that we aren't perpetuating false assumptions, undermining modern revelation (whether prophetic or individual), presenting speculation as fact; I don't see the harm in apologetics that seek to reconcile Mormonism to the best of modern philosophy/science/social theory (or at least, use secular disciplines against secularism against itself in order to advance arguments that create a "window for belief").

Edited December 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 hours ago, unixknight said:

Defense may be easier than offense, but you can't win a war if you just dig in and wait to be attacked.

The Viet Cong did.

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@Vort -

I don't disagree that at some point we fall back on our testimonies that a thing is thus because God has ordained that it must be so.

On the other hand-it's interesting to put this in terms of "language"; beccause as Mormons we pride ourselves on our efforts to teach the Gospel to every person in his own tongue.

So to the degree that we aren't perpetuating false assumotions, undermining modern revelation (whether prophetic or individual), presenting speculation as fact; I don't see the harm in apologetics that seek to reconcile Mormonism to the best of modern philosophy/science/social theory (or at least, use secular disciplines against secularism against itself in order to advance arguments that create a "window for belief").

I suppose that I am arguing that taking the discussion to "their turf" means that we inevitably distort our doctrines. A funhouse mirror never improves your looks.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

I suppose that I am arguing that taking the discussion to "their turf" means that we inevitably distort our doctrines. A funhouse mirror never improves your looks.

I think you can easily be right, but I also thing there's a way to avoid it.  After all, Missionaries go out into that world with the Gospel, they don't (all) just sit around the visitor's centers and wait for people to come out of the world on their own.

But I'm thinking of "their turf" in maybe a more literal sense than you had in mind.  I agree that turning discussion into argument in the name of apologetics is a bad idea because there's nothing spiritual or uplifting about it... kind like the rest of the world.  The trick is to boldly go forward and just be who we are, and light the dark places.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

. A funhouse mirror never improves your looks.

Nothing will improve your looks. 

(playing! Seriously nothing but love for my man @Vort) 

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Nothing will improve your looks. 

Sadly, a funhouse mirror does.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Sadly, a funhouse mirror does.

Sorry, can't relate. I have to turn offers to be on the cover of GQ and Esquire all the time. 

[Vort]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Sorry, can't relate. I have to turn offers to be on the cover of GQ and Esquire all the time. 

As I wrote, a funhouse mirror never improves your looks. I didn't say it wouldn't improve mine.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

As I wrote, a funhouse mirror never improves your looks. I didn't say it wouldn't improve mine.

@Vort, may I please have a seat at your Comedy Central roast?!!

[Colirio]

I remember years ago having a full contact fight with a man much larger, heavier, and stronger than I was. He was my 4th fight of the night. It was his first of the night. 

 

I was already exhausted. He cheated by sucker punching me when we went to touch gloves right before the bell rang. 

 

Due to my exhaustion, I tried my best to stay on the defensive, trying to catch my breath. The problem was, he was full of energy and I was just plain worn out. He chased me all over and kept hitting me. Hard. 

 

I eventually went on the offensive and learned a valuable lesson from that fight. When exhausted, it's easier to be on the offensive. It  used less energy to simply keep punching and kicking than it did to keep bobbing, weaving, and absorbing his heavy hits. It also made it possible for me to dictate the pace of the fight by being on the offense. 

 

He told me a few years later that he had been training hard since that fight to become as good a fighter as he thought I was. I had gained his respect. I suspect that he cheated initially because he was hoping to wear me down. I suspect he didn't think he could win otherwise. 

 

I also suspect that many apologists feel worn down. They are tired of absorbing heavy hits and feel like it's easier to go on the offensive. I also suspect that many of our detractors don't feel like they can win except by cheating. I would suppose that our apologists hope to gain some respect from our detractors. 

 

As for the Book of Mormon military strategy, it's obvious that the Nephites had strict commandments that as long as they were not guilty of the first offense, nor the second, they were to protect their families, even unto bloodshed. The Nephites were defeated by prideful rebellion, not because of poor military strategy. They left the fortifications of their faith and left themselves vulnerable to attack. 

 

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.

I appreciate not getting all worked up and figuring we need to approach the world as if we're marching out to war.  That said;

D&C 71:
5 Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also; 
6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power. 
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. 
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord. 
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; 
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time. 
11 Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.

1 Peter 3:15:  "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

1 Thessalonians 5:21:  "Prove all things; hold fast to which is good."

"Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."
Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist," in Light on C. S. Lewis , ed. Jocelyn Gibb (New York: Harcourt and Brace, 1965), 26.

 

There are good ways and bad, effective and less effective, ways to accomplish all that.  Once you lose charity/love, you basically lose. 

Edited December 4, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Ironhold]

As I've mentioned before, I first got on the internet back in 2000. 

Back then, *everything* was enemy territory. The minute you were identified as being LDS, people would come out of the woodwork to challenge you. You had to be on your toes and know your stuff in order to keep things going, especially when you could easily be dealing with as many as a dozen people at once. 

In that sense, I don't see "enemy territory" as most people here seem to be. There are no true front lines or safe "rear" areas, but full-on guerrilla combat everywhere you go. 

[Ironhold]

Example of what I mean by "going guerrilla" - 

 

Take a look at the book I have in the preview image...

The video itself is an update to a challenge I did in my column: read two books at or above your current reading level over the course of a year. 

I just finished the book in the preview, and so...

[Jamie123]

On ‎03‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:39 PM, Vort said:

This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality.

This reminds me of a book on Roman history I once started reading. (I found it in my grandfather's library; when my grandfather died, my grandmother quickly had a second-hand bookseller come over and clear all the shelves, which greatly distressed my father when he found out about it...but that's another story. It merely serves to explain why I can't give you a reference for this.)

Anyway, the author started with the difficulty of trying to understand the Roman Empire with a modern mindset. He uses the analogy of trying to write the Lord's Prayer on a penny. (This was apparently something he whiled away his schooldays trying to do. Don't ask me why. And It wouldn't actually have been as difficult as you might think, since he was talking about an old British penny which was considerably larger than an American penny, or even a modern British one.) He said that he found this incredibly difficult until he had adjusted his perspective to the scale of the penny, after which it became quite easy. It was the same with history: you couldn't expect to understand the ancient Romans until you had adjusted your own mental perspective to theirs.

I think probably the same thing applies to the Bible. I don't think I'm alone in finding the Old Testament probably the most horrible book ever written. I'm talking here about the real and unexpurgated Old Testament: not the with-all-the-nasty-bits-taken-out version they teach in most Sunday schools. It does (I suppose) appeal to that part of my psyche that enjoys Macbeth or Edgar Allen Poe, but it's hard to reconcile with the New Testament (itself the product of a different age from ours - when respectable people still owned slaves and sent gladiators to die in the arena for public entertainment - but I think more easily digested whole). Where for example was God's love to the people of Jericho - including the new born children - after the walls came down? (If you don't know I'm not surprised: Joshua 6:21 is one of those "nasty-bits-left-out".)

I've heard people justify this in many ways: I even heard one preacher on YouTube bleating on about how "All children go to heaven if they die, so wasn't it far better for them to die then and be saved than to grow up with Pagan reprobate people?" This makes it more palatable to the modern mindset, but think of the implications: instead of sending missionaries out to convert the pagan, why not send them to slaughter all their children? (James White makes this very point in one of his videos: I don't agree with much of what James White says, but now and then he knocks the nail on the head.)

So how do we apply the lessons of the Old Testament today? Changing modern day perspectives to fit those of an earlier are is what Al Qaeda and Islamic State have done. Knocking down the Twin Towers in the name of God would not have been out of place beside Sampson knocking down the Philistine temple. (Yes I know these groups are Muslim, not Judeo-Christian, but I think the point still applies. Christians have committed many atrocities too: consider the Siege of Acre, The Inquisition, Servetus' burning outside Geneva, Mountain Meadows...etc...etc.)

So as for the events of the Old Testament, I think it's probably best not to defend them "on foreign ground" (as Vort puts it), especially having imported our own modern perspectives and sensibilities. Nor to bring the attitudes and sensibilities of the past into the present on the "that-s-how-God-thinks" principle. Far better to apply them as analogies to our problems today: God helped Joshua because Joshua trusted in His promises. If I trust God's promises to me, then perhaps... 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Jamie123
Punctuation

[Guest]

On 12/3/2016 at 4:26 PM, unixknight said:

I'm confused.  When we won WWII, did we just defend against the Nazis, or did we send troops to Europe?

We also had the greatest industrial engine in the world with the most innovative minds in the world.

During the Civil War, did the Union win by sitting around in the North and letting the South keep attacking them there, or did they send armies, on the offensive, into the South?  And which side won?

Neither side won that war.

In WWI, were the Central Powers defeated by sitting at home and letting them attack, or did the Allies go on the offensive?

That war didn't really end.  And again, no one really won.

When Napoleon went rampaging, did the alliance play defense or did they field armies to attack him?

Napoleon lost because of mistakes born of pride, not because the enemy attacks were that brilliant.

In the Mexican War, did the U.S. Army capture Mexico City, or did the U.S. win by letting the Mexicans attack Washington?

Yup we captured Mexico City.

In the Revolution, did Washington attack across the Delaware, or did he wait for the Hessians to come to him?

Most of the war was a defensive one.  And it was quite successful.  We only went on the offensive out of desperation. And, yes, it was also quite effective.

Did the Crusades halt the forced expansion of the Caliphates into Europe by fortifying Constantinople, or did they drive into Turkish territory and attack?

Are you seriously using the Crusades as an example of a good war stategy?

The Book of Mormon isn't a treatise on military strategy.  So I'm not sure what your point is.

You could say that about history books, but see all the above examples?

Few wars are won by defense alone.  But Vort's point was not about that.  It may have been poorly worded metaphor.  But his explanation clarifies.

Many times when we are attacked ideologically, our knee jerk reaction is to defend on their terms (turf) with their assumptions, their conditions.  We never win a physical battle that way.  We must win with our point of view and our values and our conditions.  Otherwise, there is no real victory.

I believe this philosophy can be applied with in both offense and defense.  Try to out-Rommel, Rommel.  Unless you're Patton, good luck.  You out-Rommel, Rommel by sending in air force and use entire wings of A-10s and F-111s.

 

Edited December 6, 2016 by Guest

[unixknight]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

We also had the greatest industrial engine in the world with the most innovative minds in the world.

Yes we did.  Did we primarily use it to attack or to defend?

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Neither side won that war.

The Union's objectives were to preserve the Union, free the slaves and force the South to surrender.  All of those objectives were achieved.  Sounds like a win to me.

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That war didn't really end.  And again, no one really won.

The Treaty of Versailles (part of the Paris Peace Conference) says otherwise.

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Napoleon lost because of mistakes born of pride, not because the enemy attacks were that brilliant.

See the emphasis?  How does that refute my point?   No matter how arrogant Napoleon was he wasn't going to lose the war unless somebody brought the fight to him.

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Are you seriously using the Crusades as an example of a good war stategy?

 

The First Crusade was wildly successful.  It relieved the immediate pressure on the Byzantine Empire, it captured Jerusalem, and moved the war into the Outremer rather than Europe itself.  I used it as an example of an aggressive military campaign that achieved success.  Subsequent Crusades were less successful due to poor organization and strategy, but they did keep Islamic expansion by the sword out of Europe.  I call that a win.

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You could say that about history books, but see all the above examples?

I see 'em.  Not sure what your point is

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Few wars are won by defense alone.  But Vort's point was not about that.  It may have been poorly worded metaphor.  But his explanation clarifies.

Many times when we are attacked ideologically, our knee jerk reaction is to defend on their terms (turf) with their assumptions, their conditions.  We never win a physical battle that way.  We must win with our point of view and our values and our conditions.  Otherwise, there is no real victory.

I agree completely, but what I'm saying is that we have to get out there and get the message into places where it might not otherwise be heard.  There's a reason missionaries go out and pro-actively contact people rather than exclusively hang back at the Visitor's Center and wait for people to come to them.

Nobody would argue that a war can won by attack alone, and I know nobody's saying that it can be won by defense alone, but if it's a war, then we need to be aggressive.  I don't mean bullying or being pushy.  I mean being bold and confident.

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I believe this philosophy can be applied with in both offense and defense.  Try to out-Rommel, Rommel.  Unless you're Patton, good luck.  You out-Rommel, Rommel by sending in air force and use entire wings of A-10s and F-111s.

The 'A' in A-10 stands for "Attack," my friend.  (just being silly here, not using that as an argument. )  You're right about out-Rommeling Rommel.  Using air assets... good call.  What you don't do is hole up in a fortress and wait for Patton to come to you and surrender.

Edited December 6, 2016 by unixknight

[Guest]

@unixknight

I do not disagree with you.  I just don't believe you understood Vort's actual point.  You're still taking it as a literal war with offense and defense.  That really wasn't (I believe) what he was talking about.  It is about what terms the battle shall be raged.

Example:

I was in a political presentation on Obamacare.  One point the presenter provided was that there were provisions in Obamacare that gutted the pharmaceutical development industry.  He stated that was unfortunate because the entire world depends on America to develop over 90% of all new prescription drugs.  A liberal member of the audience said:

Quote

Isn't that only true because Big Pharma makes such obscene profits?

The response from many who wanted to refute him was basically, "Well that's only true because..."  this is what Vort was talking about.

The correct answer is: Who are you to say what is obscene or not?

When Romney was running for office liberals chastised him for being "too rich".  His response was basically, "yeah, but..."

The correct response is: I'm absolutely rich.  And let me tell you how I got here, what I've done with it, and why you would benefit from that fact.  First, I've employed X number of people.  I've saved Y number of major companies from bankruptcy which meant 10s of 1000s of jobs in the private sector - both blue collar and white collar...  Tell me why that would be a weakness?

Now, I don't mean to talk for Vort.  But that is what I was getting from his post.

Edited December 6, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

Carborendum seems to have understood my point correctly. Thanks for the clarification, Carb.

[unixknight]

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

@unixknight

I do not disagree with you.  I just don't believe you understood Vort's actual point.  You're still taking it as a literal war with offense and defense.  That really wasn't (I believe) what he was talking about.  It is about what terms the battle shall be raged.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree 100% with what you (and Vort) are saying.  In my defense, the post of mine you quoted was  response to someone else who I felt had missed my point.  I did acknowledge earlier to Vort that I was probably taking him more literally than was intended.

But yeah again I do agree.  To start a rebuttal with "yeah but" is to implicitly validate the accusation just made, and now the person is coming across like they know it's bad but are gonna try and justify it.  Not a winning tactic to be sure.