I’ve been writing a new future journal article on preemptive
war and said that at the very least Moroni should be excused and rescued from
the petty political debates of Latter Day Saints that rely upon a very selective
and shallow reading of the scriptures that doesn’t properly examine the context
of Moroni’s actions. His actions are far more nuanced than the uninspiring
proof texting he receives on so many dogmatic blogs and facebook posts.
Dr. Wayne Walker discussed why Utah
Mormons Can Support Trump. The post is one of many that uses rather shallow
analysis and reading from the Book of
Mormon and I thought it would be a good test case to compare what a
substantive analysis looks like compared to one that is shoving the scriptures
into a supporting a political candidate. [All
quotes based on his article unless otherwise noted.]
“In Book of Mormon
days, some of the Nephite military leaders were chosen because of their size
and muscular power in battle.”
Several Book of Mormon leaders were based on
size, but so were dissenters such as Coriantumr, who was a “large and mighty
man” (Helaman 1:15). Other leaders possessed “austere and bloodthirsty”
qualities (Mosiah 9:2). Mormon was chosen for his size, but the people choosing
were apostate Nephites ripe for destruction.[1] His qualification as prophet was based on his
“sober” mind that was “quick to observe” (Mormon 1:2, 15). Not to mention his lineage as a “pure
descendant” likely helped his claim to leadership (3 Nephi 5:20). The custom of
the Nephites was actually to choose a leader that had the spirit of prophecy (3
Nephi 3:21). In short then, being large of statue was an equivocal standard among
others such as lineage that dissenters and apostates liked as much as the righteous,
and the latter group had a custom of choosing prophets as military leaders.
In reading Moroni’s epistle to Ammoron a reader
can notice the former’s strength. He had strong words, compelling ideas, and he
must have had a rhetorical effect on the reader. But even though Moroni showed
powerful words there were limits to the effect. The intent of the letter was to
negotiate an exchange of prisoners. Moroni was so bad that even though he
wanted something from Ammoron he called him a child of hell and threatened
genocide (Alma 54: 7, 12.) Then Moroni refused to exchange prisoners and had to
instead embark on a daring and risky night mission (Alma 55:2, 16). The mission was successful, but seemed to be
needlessly complicated and risky because of Moroni’s counterproductive, “strong”,
negotiating.
In summary, Trump isn’t physically strong and doesn’t
possess rhetorical strength beyond shouting bumper stickers. Even if he did, it is a very limited strategy that
will not produce the needed results.
Instead, it sounds dangerously close as though the author is justifying a
strong man, or some kind of dictator
like figure that can ram through whatever solutions he sees fit. Given the gridlock we see, that is tempting,
but a very dangerous road.
“In this regard, the elite of American politics today are playing the
same role as the king-men in the Book of Mormon.”
The author doesn’t present any evidence of this. He lists
some names, a few of which I have read for over ten years, and I don’t see any
evidence of their being king men. In fact, Trump’s nomination would point to
the exact opposite. Like Laman and
Lemuel who were within close contact of Nephi for years but never managed to
even try and kill him,[2]
the Republican elites must be the worst conspiracy ever, as they obviously didn’t
like Trump but nominated him anyway. To quote my old college professor, so many
people dislike Trump there is no need for a conspiracy, all they people have to
do is vote to get rid of him! Moreover,
its quite ridiculous for a man that lives in a giant gold plated tower whose
dry cleaning bill is larger than many of his supporters yearly income is not a
part of the elite. This is a very
shallow interpretation that seems to imply the author wants to execute those
with whom he disagrees. He even started this section by saying:
“Those dissenters who
became angry enemies who would not make the covenant were immediately put to
death by Captain Moroni. Why? Those individuals were seen as a real threat to
the Nephite government and the country’s freedom”
This sounds nice in theory. We like freedom and we want to
fight for it. But who gets to decide who is a threat? For example, those residents and hunters
living near a remote Oregon compound might have felt threatened by an armed
militia seizing a compound, even if they called themselves “free man.” The
Greeks claimed to be fighting for freedom, but the helots of Sparta and slaves
of Athens might have considered the Persian invaders as the ones fighting for (their) freedom. According to the author’s logic, the armed militia
led by the Bundy’s was a threat that should have been executed. Indeed, Moroni executed the king men to strengthen the
central government (Alma 51:20-22). The rebels in this case were Amalikciah and
his followers.
We can take the use of government power even further. The people of Ammon gave a “large portion”
(Alma 43:14) of their substance to the Nephites, so it is not unrealistic to
suggest that other groups of people also had a “large portion” taken from them,
and that they were less than thrilled with the confiscatory measures of the
government. The government would naturally find rival elites with surplus goods
and conspicuous consumption of them (Alma 30:27) very attractive ways to fund
the war effort. Alma 46:4 said that many
of these dissidents were the lower judges who professed nobility. From the point of view of the Nephite rulers
then, they have a chance to strengthen their own position as elites in society
by harming their internal rivals while at the same time funding a war against their
external enemies (Alma 46:4). Keep in mind that many of these nobles were
imprisoned and killed during the great war. Their lands would have been
confiscated by officials and then redistributed as a reward for support or to
further strengthen the elites holding power. To summarize, if we accept the
idea that Nephite elites might have acted in their own self-interest, and might
have caused their own problems, the text suggests that they strengthened their
own position, rewarded followers, harmed their rivals, and defeated external
enemies, and did all of this in the name of the common people, their wives,
their families and their liberty!![3]
There is a certain irony in raising a standard of freedom, but then forcing
people at sword point to support that freedom (Alma 51:20).
“Moreover, Trump clearly won the vast
majority of voters in the Republican primary.
The Book of Mormon is clear that there is something powerful about the
voice of the majority.”
I would dispute the fact that Trump had the vast majority of
votes. The author may be referring to the fact that Trump accumulated more
votes than any other candidate in history, but since the population is higher
than ever before that is a useless statistic. This nomination process went on
longer than any other in modern history because he had such comparatively little
support among Republicans to the point that there was discussion of a
convention fight.
Having a majority rule doesn’t mean the rest of the people
must abandon their freedom. Again, I
cite the irony of Moroni forcing people to support freedom. You can call it
free, but the government obviously exercised compulsive power over its
subjects. I would ask the author if he
is so willing to concede to the majority if Hillary wins. The foundations of American democracy, the
freedom to vote for what you think is right, and the responsibility to avoid
trampling the rights of minorities are enshrined in the Constitution, explained
by Madison in the Federalist papers, and not waived because of a shallow
reading from the BoM.
“Unless those
“dissenters” repent, the wrong candidate”
Its not a sin to support Hillary Clinton. I personally think
she is a deeply flawed candidate, but I recognize the freedom of others to make
decisions that I think are foolish. If the author were to really follow the Book of Mormon he would indefinitely
detain political prisoners before executing them (Alma 51:19; Alma 62:4).
“Today, as in Book of
Mormon days, building walls to keep the undocumented and often criminal enemy
out is seen as effective”
Building walls was a military tactic used during a war. The
Nephites actually did very little to control immigration in the way the author
is suggesting. Helaman 3:3, 6:6 and 3 Nephi 7:13 all refer to unchecked
immigration, and I could show more examples where Nephites and Lamanites
crossed borders without walls. One man, Samuel the Lamanite, used the walls to
preach, not to impede his movement. The
analogy is wholly inappropriate.
“How much independent
policy thinking will someone like that be able to bring to the office? Not
much. So in other words, Evan is another politician imbued with spirit and
money of the elitists, the modern day “king-men.””
Another shallow comparison used to denigrate. As I discussed
at the recent FAIR
conference: [The discussion of robbers in history led] to the use of words
that were far more emotional than accurate. We see the potency of words today
as well. Policy makers debated over whether to call anti-American forces in
Iraq “insurgents” or “terrorists.” (In truth it was a complex mixture of
both.) Many Americans felt a great deal of frustration when the sectarian
conflict in Iraq was labeled the demoralizing term “civil war.” It explains why
the surge led by General Petraeus was labeled an escalation by some critics who
were trying to invoke the ghoul of Vietnam. A blockade during the Cuban Missile
crisis would have been an act of war, but a quarantine of the island prescribed
the same action without the accompanying baggage. In the prelude to the Bosnia
deployment, each side for and against it, avoided the term “genocide” to evade
the treaty obligations associated with it.
Most people who accused the Bundys of terrorism do so
utterly unware of the long history of using words as weapons. I certainly
disagree with their actions, but I was even more bothered by the casual use of
emotional charged words based upon political inclinations more than clinical
definitions…I hope we can use terms that are clinically precise and avoid
needless bomb throwing when discussing sensitive issues, like actual bomb
throwing.
Speaking of being clinically precise, I believe McMullin is
one of the only serious candidates in this race. For example, I’ve written
about his reasonable and excellent China policy for the Salt
Lake Tribune.[4] I
don’t see much from the author connecting him to being elitist, except for name dropping people
on the same ideological spectrum as him.
As I said before the last time I was accused of being a country
club elitist, the only country club I’ve ever entered was that time I was a
dish washer in college.
“It is time for Glenn Beck, Mitt Romney and the Deseret News
editors to swallow their pride”
It would actually be easier
for many people to vote for Trump. Never Trump people are called all sorts of
names, including king men elitists in this post. But the members of the Never
Trump have to follow their conscience, and they can’t vote for a man with
serious moral flaws. Calling people
elite might work for those with lots of anger towards elites and would rather
think with their hearts, but it doesn’t mean you’ve thoroughly analyzed and
assessed a person’s position.
Conclusion
A strong stigma can be created based on a narrow interpretation
of a couple of verses, and an almost demonic dislike for a position bred from a
dogmatic devotion to political planks more than a substantive and nuanced
interpretation of the scriptures. Given
the lives at stake it’s important the Latter Day Saints have all the tools for
judging political candidates. That comes from intensive study and a nuanced interpretation of verses that challenge and broaden our understanding.
[Thank you for reading. I work as a freelance writer. If you find value in this work please consider donating using the small pay pal buttons below.)
**********
[1]
h/t Mark Wright on facebook.
[2]
See Grant Hardy’s argument about them in Understanding
the Book of Mormon.
[3]
From my new book, “Evil Gangs and Starving Widows: Reassessing the Book of
Mormon” forthcoming. For a review of my methodology please see the bottom half
of this post; http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2016/10/put-on-your-korihor-caps-why.html
[4] I
meant to do a post announcing this, so surprise! It feels good to get
published, and it was extra good to publish something that was deleted on
another site by an overzealous moderator.
No comments:
Post a Comment