The Most Overrated Mormon Scholars

        In the middle of eating lunch at the LDS National Security Conference the person sitting next to me was so sad they missed hearing Patrick Mason speak and without thinking I groaned. The conversation stopped and the table looked at me. I then awkwardly explained that I was rather unimpressed with his scholarship in a number of ways.

        Incidents like this happen on a regular basis as I receive quizzical and sometimes angry looks and questioning when I don’t share someone’s enthusiasm for a given scholar. In many cases that’s because the scholar in question is part of my overrated club. What follows is a list that doesn’t discount the meaningful scholarship of these individuals. The list is more about inflated or misplaced praise and uncritical hype. Yet those behaviors are so pervasive and shape our evaluation of ideas that I need to identify the most frequent recipients of hype.

Michael Quinn

        I attended the same conference as him (War and Peace in Our Times) towards the end of his life and the beginning of my career. The fawning praise he received was closer to worship. Even though he was discussing an issue for which he had no appreciable training or knowledge (military history and ethics), and wasn’t providing anything particularly noteworthy, a reverent hush came over the room when he provided an answer.

        Then the paper he presented had numerous glaring and unexamined implications as I detailed here. I describe how Quin uncritically accepted J. Reuben’s Clark isolationism to such a degree that Quinn failed to notice his subject’s hypocrisy, pro-Nazi stance, and how his views were overruled by other church leaders at the time. The last point is especially egregious since one of Quinn’s book invented disputes among church leadership when it suited his arguments, but seemed to ignore meaningful disputes in this case because of biased favoritism towards the isolationism of J. Reuben Clark.   

        Those are just the problems I found in my personal interaction with him. As summarized by Sarah Allen, he was also known for his tendency to personally attack those he disagreed with, and to play fast and loose with the connections he made between the factual record and its supposed meaning. So I imagine his article about J Reuben Clark probably had even more problems than my cursory review. (As far as I know, no one has interacted with his presentation more than I have.) 

        His popularity seems to result from the good fortune of being from a favored minority group, homosexuals, his writing about the same topic, and his work was thoroughly, and rightfully I believe, dismissed by the ~evil~ “FARMS” crowd. Because Mormon historians are the most biased of any group I’ve ever seen (while ironically calling their opponents biased), he was criticized by the "right" group of people, as a result, those criticisms never carried the weight they should.

Hugh Nibley

        I love Hugh Nibley and his work. His works helped spark my academic journey and often helped me on my mission. But Hugh Nibley was often too sloppy with his footnotes and saw too many vague connections to the point that he embodied the concept of “parallel mania.” Its a real criticism, but I should note that parallel mania is often used by his critics as a pat buzzword to ignore the real connections that he made. Nibley’s work is extremely outdated and there have been often decades worth of additional scholarship that contradicts his work. This is common in academia and not a problem if scholars properly engage and build upon previous scholarship.

        But his fans are often dilletantes instead of scholars. Like a right-wing inverse of the left-wing love for Quinn, too many people uncritically read a Hugh Nibley book and suddenly think they are experts. He is quoted chapter and verse, but there isn’t much thinking beyond seeing a parallel to Nibley’s words, and a quote.

        Chinese theorists had the same annoyance with people quoting Sunzi. They ended up writing about it, and if you change the subjects to Hugh Nibley, it is surprisingly accurate:

Even though the mouth recites the words of [Hugh Nibley], the mind has not thought about the mysterious subtleties of the discussion...[they] merely recite the empty words and are misled by the enemy...

The study of [any subject] must be from the lowest to the middle and then from the middle to the highest, so that [the learners] will gradually penetrate the depths of the teaching. If not, they will only be relying upon empty words. Merely remembering and reciting them is not enough to succeed.[1]

Patrick Mason

        Given my specialty in ethics and just war I encounter Mason a great deal. I’m sorry to say, I’m just not impressed. He has all the credentials, praise, institutional power, and seems to publish or present in every conference imaginable. But I find his scholarship lacking. His book, Proclaim Peace, ignored or minimized many important scholarly points regarding just war. He tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming the non violent ethic of Jesus from the New Testament is "absolute", while also acknowledging verses that clearly support just war. But the latter is clearly lip service forced on him because he spends so much time supporting the former. 

        In a Maxwell Institute funded piece he ignored King Benjamin’s speech, distorted his preaching and policies, and invented an offensive war to imply the Nephites were colonialist. After reading about Michael Quinn’s lapses in scholarship, I might even say the invention of an offensive war whole cloth from the scriptures sounds like what critics called Quinnspeak. At best, he just didn’t read the text carefully.

        After noticing his failure to read texts carefully, I started to wonder if he read some texts at all. I carefully started looking over some of his work, and I see a pattern where he relies on secondary sources when quoting church fathers.[2] For example, every footnote in “Zionic Non Violence” referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. Based on his footnotes, he doesn’t read the works of major just war theorists, he stumbles across an occasional quote in various pacifist books. Yet he feels imminently qualified to call them “insufficient” and he is celebrated as some kind of guru on peace making.  

        Privately many people tell me that he gives vibes that he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He asked a smarmy gotcha question to me during a conference I attended that was poor form. The peace studies program at BYU-Hawaii held a peace conference about his book, which I’m sure didn’t help his self-admitted arrogant smugness, and he and his peace studies friends in the audience actually snickered when discussing arguments from people like me. 

        I found that behavior rather unseemly, especially for someone who claims his attitude will bring a Zion like peace. It’s especially hypocritical considering the attacks levelled against FARMS for the same behavior. Anti Mormons included an incident at a conference as one of the “top” events of 2011. #3 on that list described how the ~evil~ Maxwell Institute “scholars” (the scare quotes added by the author) were seen “sniggering” before they lobbed a series of “aggressive and mean spirited” questions in their “verbal assault” on Mike Reed. But when I’m “verbally assaulted” by Mason’s smarmy gotcha questions and heckled by a hostile audience, they remain celebrated peacemakers.

        I liked his book about 19^th century lynchings and his advice designed to help struggling members. But his academic work on peace has numerous methodological gaps and is celebrated far beyond its actual merit. Even more importantly, his unseemly behavior ranging from his poor research into Church fathers, to gotcha questions and sniggering run contrary to the unearned praise he gets for supposedly building bridges and a peaceful Zion.

Conclusion 

        Many of these scholars are household names. But a close look at their scholarship suggests perhaps they shouldn’t be. The biggest flaw is that we often uncritically accept the arguments of a celebrity scholar, when we should be thoughtful and critical readers of any argument and engage their thoughts and arguments. In short, we substitute their reputation for our thought. The result is that we spend more time praising than thinking. I hope this post will help check that tendency. And maybe if you hear something from me during lunch at a conference, you'll understand. Thanks.

I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

*****

---

[1] Questions and Replies Between Tang Taizong and Li Weikong in The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, Ralph Sawyer trans., (Westview Press, 1993), 338, 360. 

[2] Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War, fn1 reads: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77. See also: fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason, "Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 2020.

LDS Stance on War

[I had the pleasure of appearing on the Interpreter Radio Broadcast several weeks ago. I was on 1340 AM in the Salt Lake Area discussing the LDS stance on War.  I will try to provide the link so you can listen to it.  Meanwhile, these are my prepared notes for the broadcast. As you can tell, they don't have perfect format, but I think you'll find this fairly comprehensive.] 

Early church history was a combination of spiritual rhetoric and practical application.  Section 32 prophesied the American Civil War which would start a series of wars culminating in the Second Coming. Section 98 calls for Latter Day Saints to renounce war and proclaim peace. 

They practical aspects include Zion’s camp and the Mormon War in 1837, both of which featured use of the militia. Nauvoo Legion was rather prominent, Joseph Smith a Lt. General.  Though in that age being part of a militia was part of being a respectable leading citizen and wasn’t necessarily a sign of militarism.  The relations with Native Americans in Utah territory shifted from religious to practical and often violent. (Zion as a Refuge, Mark McGee, Mormon Perspectives on War).  They were called selectively pacifistic by historians like Micheal Quinn, geographic position combined with theology allowed them to remain somewhat aloof from secular military conflicts.

Civil War seen as a judgement of God upon the US, especially the action in Missouri which was particularly brutal. They raised a cavalry regiment to help protect the mail (and gain the lucrative contract associated with it.)

Key turning point was the Spanish American War in 1898.  Brigham Young Jr. said there are other ways to show patriotism than throwing away sons for foreign wars. Church leaders such as George Q. Cannon and Wilford Woodruff emphasized the need to avoid a fracture with the US. They were the baby (newest) state and had a long fight with the federal government. Long term, this showed the integration of the church into good patriotic citizens. They raised several more units than the government asked.  Bloggers like Gina Colvin don’t like this but the church often matched positions with American foreign policy.

In 1941 Clark wrote a rejected draft of a first presidency letter that rejected war, it was not the "Masters Way but the jungle laws of the beast.” (Quinn, Pacifist Prophet, in Mormon Perspectives on War.) In 1942 the first president issued a statement regarding war. Latter Day Saints should have peace in their hearts, they are subject to their countries and should serve patriotically. If they kill in the course of war it would not make them murderers.  The church, probably under the urging of the “pacifist apostle” J Reuben Clark later clarified that conscientious objectors were allowed to defer. 

Since that time the church has generally held the position that they should renounce war and proclaim peace, they should love their enemies and pray for peace, but under scriptures such as those describing Captain Moroni they are allowed to fight for liberty and family. President Hinckley exemplified this approach during the Iraq War using the same examples. Follow the Prince of Peace, but identify with Moroni’s Title of Liberty and other just items as validation for war.

There are significant minority voices in the church though. J Reuben Clark fought for the protection of conscientious objectors, strongly denounced war, and even called America’s firebombing of Dresden and use of atomic weapons as the “crowning savagery of war.” Ironically, in all 82 boxes of his personal records there is not one condemnation of Nazi war crimes except his criticism of the Nuremburg Trials. Many Latter Day Saints of the time were appalled at his conduct. They called his words the most seditious they had ever heard, and called him The Butchers’ Apostle.  His opinions were largely subsumed by official First President statements above and he is largely a cause celeb among anti war members but has not affected doctrine to any significant degree. Russell Nelson also sounded clear anti war messages.  He made news during the height of the build up to the Iraq War for his statements that seemed to condemn it. The church quickly contextualized his statements in the context of the renouncing war but supporting Just Causes displayed by Hinckley and the 1942 statement. 

[Thanks for reading. I work as a freelance author, if you found value in this work please consider donating using one of the paypal buttons below.] 

My Book is a Bestseller, Now Help the Second One!

My book was just named a best seller for the month of January!!!!  Matthew Roper at the Maxwell Institute says my research always contains “fresh ideas … worth reading.”  The reviewer on Amazon (David Spencer, a National Security Affairs specialist on insurgency) called it "well written, thought provoking, and required reading." Michael Collins called it, "insightful and enlightening." Award winning author David West called it a "brilliant tutorial for those who aren't quite at that 'Hugh Nibley understudy' level." 

If you hadn't had a chance, make sure and get your copy today! Or, if you've already enjoyed it, buy a couple for your friends and share this on your page!  

I'm working on a follow up tentatively titled, Evil Gangs and Starving Widows: A Revisionist History of the Book of Mormon. I asked a short time for reviewers on my second book. If you requested a copy of the manuscript please read it and get back to me shortly. If you are reading this for the first time and still want to help, please send me a message or leave a comment and I can send you a copy. I've gone through it several times and even added a new first chapter. I'm really excited and think this book will be even better than the first! But,I need to do some fine tuning first which is why I'm asking for reviewers.  


I have several other projects in the works as well. One is called Mater is a Mormon: A Parent's Guide to LDS Principles in Film and I'm waiting to hear back from publishers concerning my partial manuscript. I'm also in discussion with a literary agent to publish a book on decisive battles in Chinese history. Thanks for reading.  

[If you find value in this post and my work please considering subscribing or making a one time donation below. Thank you.] 

You Don't Know Shiz About Warfare in the Book of Mormon

This is a short round up of reviews for my first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon. The title of this post is borrowed from the first review by award winning author David West. He gives a brief overview of the book and even says I'm a Nibley understudy.

The second is by Micheal Collins. Collin's adds that the book "ultimately [ties] the Book of Mormon account into modern concerns for and experiences with political terrorism in ways that are insightful and enlightening."

National Security Affairs officer David Spencer offers the third review. He summarizes the chapters and says that the book is "work is well-written and thought provoking, required reading for those interested in warfare in the Book of Mormon as warfare, rather than just spiritual analogy."  This was not a quid pro quo, we are simply colleagues in the same very small field, but you should be seeing my endorsement on his new book shortly, Captain Moroni's Command: Dynamics of Warfare in the Book of Mormon.

If you haven't got a chance yet this is a great time to pick up a copy and see what everybody is excited about!  If you are short on money but really want one feel free to send me a message! If you have a blog or another platform for review you may also contact me for a copy. Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy my book!

Now Available- Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon

Cross posted from Arsenal of Vencie

 

Morgan Deane, a military historian and former Marine sustains the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as an ancient document and shows how text contains a strong and distinctive voice on military matters that should be taken seriously by modern readers and even policy makers and generals.  Through a Hugh Nibley like command of ancient societies from Mesoamerica, China, and Rome, as well as a grasp of military theory from Clausewitz to Sun-Tzu he expands upon the Jaredite civil war, the face of battle, logistics, ethno-religious conflict, the political dimensions of conflict and insurgency, and strategy.  He specifically valorizes Captain Moroni against a rise in attacks against his character, presents a Nephite and Latter Day Saint just war theory, and shows how The Book of Mormon defends the use pre-emptive war. In a world filled with strife and conflict, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents will help the reader understand the context and society in which the Nephites lived…and died, and provide critical tools to evaluate modern military issues ranging from how to understand the threat posed by terrorists to assessing the wisdom of military action. 

About the Author:

Morgan Deane earned degrees in history from Southern Virginia and Norwich University. He served in the Marine Corps as an infantry riflemen, squad leader and intelligence analyst. He is the author of “Forming the Formless: Sun-Tzu and the Military Logic of Ender Wiggins,” and “Offensive Warfare in The Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine.” He has authored numerous articles for the Encyclopedias of Military Philosophy and Russia at War, and contributed to text books on American and World History. Currently he teaches history at Brigham Young University-Idaho, American Military University, and elsewhere; and he is a PhD student at Kings College London. He and his daughter Lorraine live in Las Vegas, Nevada.  

Research Roundup

I had quite an exciting couple of weeks while on vacation, so I thought I would give you the update on what is going on. 

PhD Program

That's right! The first morning of my vacation I got into the MPhil/PhD research program in War Studies at King's College London. The school is in London but it is also a "blended learning" program which will allow me to continue to teach and live here in Las Vegas. I will travel there at certain points and complete the research and writing of my thesis on my own.[1] The British PhD is different in that I won't complete any coursework or work as a teaching assistant, I simply have to complete the research and writing.


This presents several challenges since the hiring committees here in America might not be as willing to hire somebody without the teaching experience and broad fields of study. But I think that my years of teaching experience, and the many different classes I've taught will mitigate that fear. My study in London on a Chinese topic will provide the ability to organize study abroad programs on several continents.  My friend with a graduate degree from a British school also says that the overseas degree is "sexy" and still desired, so I think I'll be okay despite the differences in the course of study to gain the degree.


And I also have to worry about funding for the program. There is little internal funding available to cover tuition, though there is some for conference travel and research. I have also found several programs that will assist in money for travel and research. Through some or all of the following such as obtaining funding from my employers, the VA (or GI Bill), the Nibley Fellowship, Fullbright Fellowship, additional student loans, or personal funding I should be able to pay for it. If you know of any sources that may be of use please let me know. Of course I have come this far by trusting in God- I never thought I would gain entry into one of the top graduate programs in the world- and I'm confident that a solution will present itself.


I will be studying the military history of the Jiangxi Soviet. Founded in 1927 and abandoned by 1934 in the Long March, this area witnessed the early leadership of Mao Zedong and Zhu De in their Communist insurgency against the Nationalist government. It will determine the degree to which Mao deserves his status as a brilliant strategist. Since the two leaders were often conflated into one person called Zhu Mao, I seek to study both the strategic and tactical planning as well as the execution of Soviet military operations to better determine the merits of their respective leadership. Finally, since the doctrine of People’s War affects the local population I seek to examine the impact of Soviet military operations on the people of the Jianxi Soviet.[2] Of course, insurgency is also a "sexy" topic in military history and with the public, the rising status of China makes this timely as well.  Scholars have also said that this period is "more or less wide open."  Moreover, I was stunned to find out that many of the sources I need are translated into English. So even though I've been studying Chinese for years, I don't have to rely on it as much as I thought.

Ender's Game

The day I got back from vacation my article on Sunzi and the military logic of Ender Wiggin was published and a copy was sitting on my doorstep.[3] I wrote the article towards the end of 2011 and did edits during the middle of 2012, so it is good to see it out there in time for the movie.  Even though I have "arrived" in a sense, it is still humbling to see my name in print.

Russia at War and Military Philosophers 

While on vacation I received an email from ABC-CLIO press that asked me to update my address and which gave me the publication dates for the two encyclopedias.  I wrote three articles for the various books: The first on the Chinese military philosopher Qi Jiquang from the late 16th century.  The next two were on the Chinese Soviet Border Conflict of 1969, and the Ussuri River Skirmish.  Again, it is humbling to be involved in a quality publication. And since these are reference volumes bought by schools, in a sense I can say I "wrote the book" on subject. 

Warfare 2.0

This volume is a collection of essays on the Book of Mormon from various military historians and interested individuals I have come across.  It is slightly smaller than I envisioned but I am very excited to hear back from the Interpreter.  Again, I am humbled by so many great people that contribute to the project and look forward to seeing the final form it takes.

Ancient Warfare and Modern Lessons

This is my personal effort on warfare in the Book of Mormon. Since the email agreeing to publish my manuscript, I still haven't heard anything back from the editor at Kofford Books. But as you can see above, the publication process often takes a long time so I'm waiting patiently for them to get to my manuscript. Ironically, it looks like I will have two of the chapters in that book published elsewhere by the time it hits bookshelves.[4]

Thanks for reading.  As I talked about the insurgent medium, publishing in more established venues takes much longer and requires much more work. As a result I don't always publish as much here but I appreciate your reading support a great deal.



 ****Notes****
1. The PhD dissertation in England is called a thesis.  This will most likely be conducted at the Hoover Library located at Stanford. They have an excellent collection on East Asia there and a huge collection of microfilmed records that I need.
2. I can send a copy of my research prospectus upon request. It is about 5 pages that summarizes the question, existing books, and sources I will use.  Reading it gets me excited for my research. 
3. The only review so far complained that my essay is like a Chinese buffet, which I found annoying. 
4.  It is ironic because several presses rejected the book and one reviewer slammed my book in harsh terms. Yet I've managed to publish large parts of it including the controversial defense of preemptive war.

Book Blurb and Author Bio

My book is still in the pipeline for publication. I am extremely grateful to be published by a respected press, but it is certainly frustrating going by their time table.  So I decided to write a draft of my book blurb.  This is something similar to what will go on the back or jacket of the book.  I also included a modified version of my updated bio. 

Ancient Warfare and Modern Lessons in The Book of Mormon:

Morgan Deane, a military historian and former Marine sustains the authenticity of the text as an ancient document and shows how The Book of Mormon contains a strong and distinctive voice on military matters that should be taken seriously by modern readers and even policy makers and generals.  Through a Hugh Nibley like command of ancient societies from Mesoamerica, China, and Ancient Rome, as well as a grasp of military theory from Clausewitz to Sun-Tzu he expands on the Jaredite Civil War, the face of battle, logistics, ethno-religious conflict, and strategy.  He specifically valorizes Captain Moroni against a rise of attacks degrading his character, presents an argument for a Nephite and Mormon just war, and shows how The Book of Mormon defends the use of pre-emptive war. This is a critical volume that will help the reader understand the context and society in which the Nephites lived…and died, but also crucial in providing critical tools to evaluate modern military matters ranging from the threat of terrorism to the wisdom of military intervention. 

About the Author:

Morgan Deane has a B.A. from Southern Virginia University and an M.A. in History from Norwich University. He has presented or published papers on Napoleonic warfare, East Asian history, Book of Mormon warfare, and the American Civil War. In 2009 he separated from the military after serving 9 years as an infantry riflemen, squad leader and intelligence analyst. His research interests include the above topics, the application of military theory, and pre-modern warfare in general.

He is the author of “Forming the Formless: Sun-Tzu and the military logic of Ender Wiggins,” and “Offensive Warfare in The Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine.” He has authored numerous articles for the Encyclopedias of Military Philosophy and Russia at War. Currently he teaches history at Brigham Young University-Idaho and anticipates starting a Mphil/PhD program in War Studies at Kings College London this fall.

He and his daughter Lorraine live in Las Vegas, Nevada and he currently serves as a youth sunday school teacher.

Offensive Warfare and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine

You can watch my presentation here:

Session 2 - Morgan Deane, "The Lord Forbid: Offensive Warfare in the Book of Mormon" from LDS WarPeace on Vimeo.

Conference Preview

The Conference in Claremont is coming quickly. You can find the program here. Here is what I am looking forward to:

1. Having the chance to be the only one to present a remotely pro war point of view based on The Book of Mormon. I don't have abstracts from the other papers but their titles suggest a non violent reading of the book. I'm not quite sure where Madsen and the others create a pacifist point of view but I look forward to seeing their arguments. It will create an endless amount of posts for me here I'm sure. I also don't have the C.V.s of those involved but I think I am the only qualified military history there. (Of course they are qualified in other ways which is why it's called a "perspectives" conference.)

2. Meeting several other veterans. I seem to be the only enlisted member there but there is a veteran General Authority, a Major, and and two chaplains. Its been an amazing two years since I left and I still miss it.

3. Listening to many of the presentations such as: "Gaza in The Book of Mormon", "Zion as a Refuge from the Wars of Nations: Cultural Resource or Impediment?", "Pacifist Counselor in the First Presidency: J. Reuben Clark, 1933–61","'The Work of Death': Hugh Nibley and War", and pretty much everything about The Book of Mormon.

I plan on taking copious notes as long as I'm there since I still have a trip to Disney Land and a return trip with my daughter to consider. I am afraid this may turn into one big hippie love fest but I still look forward to the presenting, raising my profile, and discussing military matters.

Help!

I seemed to have reached a plateau in my writing. I come up with good ideas, I'm good at research, can write good term papers, but can't seem to break through into publishing. So I'm asking for any and all interested reviewers! You not only get to see topics previewed on this site more in depth, but you will also have the satisfaction of helping an up and coming scholar. The following is a list of papers I need reviewed.

The Narrow Strip of Wilderness in the Modern Age:
This is a for a conference on Mormon perspectives on war. While it is just a presentation and has lower standards than a publication this is still important. It is my academic "debut" for many Mormon circles. That may sound ironic since I've been blogging and writing for two years now, but its presentations and publications that really help you make a mark in the field. Plus, its possible that editors from Mormon publications will be there so, naturally, I want to make a good impression.

This paper examines military theory from Clausewitz and then looks at its practice in the American Civil War. I then examine the theory that underlined Nephite actions and then tried to examine Nephite military practice. Finally I applied this to the modern age and offered tentative lessons concerning American foreign policy and particularly the Bush Doctrine.

Bleached Bones Covered the Field:
This is a special paper for me. I started this the day before my personal life fell apart. So just completing it was badge of honor for me. But aside from its' personal importance the paper has a great deal to offer the field of Book of Mormon studies.

This is the only paper of which I know that approaches a study of the book from the East. Hugh Nibley has discussed this topic mostly in passing. John Sorenson has produced a bibliography which included pages of contact between Asia and the New World. And DNA often points to an Asiatic connection. So this paper examines the Jaredite civil war in Ether chapters 13-15 with the Chinese "War of the Eight Princes".

In addition to the unique avenue of approach this is one of the few English language studies of the Chinese civil war. Plus, Chinese military history is also relatively neglected. So this paper offers a truly unique approach to understanding The Book of Mormon. I simply need some help tightening the prose and arguments to get this published.

Notes on a Curious Verse:
This is a paper I wrote while on break from graduate school. As I've said before, I must be the only person that gets more work done during the holidays. This examines Alma 56:28 and its implications for Nephite military strategy, culture, and logistics. Again, this is one of the few papers that takes a "war and society" approach to military history in The Book of Mormon, but also only the second piece to examine military theory in it. (Hugh Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis is the other one).

No Sin By Strategem:
This was the first paper I wrote during graduate school and probably needs the most work. It examines the military career of Captain Moroni using the "principles of war".

So there you have it. I have many fun and important papers with which I would love to receive help. Let me know and thanks in advance!

Guest Writer: Roger on Hill Cumorah Order of Battle

Sorry for my delay in posts. Last week I had my car break down right before a conference on Napoleonic warfare, and I still had to continue building the courses I am under contract for. So needless to say I have been a little busy. But I value my readers, those that do so often, those who just stop by, those that don't comment, and those that do.

I also have some good developments to announce as well. I have been contacted by several people asking for my opinion on various items. I have a new card game called "character match" that I need to look at. One reader and frequent commenter has mentioned a historical fiction novel that he plans to send me for review. The result will probably be a multi part series here and hopefully make it on the cover! And I received an email from Roger Magneson which is the subject of this post.

Roger graduated from West Point Academy, which already made me jealous, and he recently got his MLS from Emporia State. He recently wrote an article highlighting three principles of war within the book of Mormon. The one I wanted to highlight in this post comes from his provacative interpretation of the casualty figures given for the final Nephite battle at Cumorah. I won't steal his thunder by bloviating about the topic, but I did want to highlight that a common criticism of the Book of Mormon concerns its highly unrealistic numbers. I rebuffed that critique in The problem with Numbers
where I also recognized the need for additional research and analysis. Without further ado here is Roger's argument:

Units of the United States Army have names that have come down through history and through several countries. Terms such as squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, etc. are known to most people even if they are uncertain about how many soldiers comprise each. The size of units in the United States Army is determined by acts of Congress. During the American Civil War, for example, an infantry regiment consisted of 10 companies of roughly 100 men each. One thing is certain, however: at any given moment, not every position in a unit is filled. Consider the First Minnesota Infantry Regiment at the Battle of Gettysburg. Since we know this is an infantry regiment, we know that it is comprised of approximately 1,000 men. However, on 2 July 1863, at Gettysburg, the First Minnesota had been reduced by casualties to 262 men. On that day, 215 more were killed or wounded.David ben Jesse was made a captain over a thousand by Saul the King (1 Samuel 18:13) and of course modern Israel in its trek to the Great Basin had captains of tens, fifties, and hundreds similar to ancient Israel (D&C 136:3).

Not only were the numbers descriptive of the size of the unit, but as Dr. Hugh Nibley points out the number was also the name of the unit. In discussing Nephi’s reference to Laban’s fifty instead of tens of thousands (1 Nephi 4:1), Dr. Nibley states: the military forces are always so surprisingly small and a garrison of thirty to eighty men is thought adequate even for big cities. It is strikingly vindicated in a letter of Nebuchadnezzar, Lehi’s contemporary, wherein the great king orders: “As to the fifties who were under your command, those gone to the rear, or fugitives return to their ranks.”

Commenting on this Offord says, “In these days it is interesting to note the indication here, that in the Babylonian army a platoon contained fifty men”; also we might add, that it was called a “fifty”—hence, “Laban with his fifty.” Of course companies of fifty are mentioned in the Bible, along with tens and hundreds, etc., but not as garrisons of great cities and not as the standard military unit of this time (Nibley, 1988, p. 127.)


Now consider Cumorah, the final battle of the Lehite nations. Beginning in A.D. 375, the Nephites, not the army, but the entire Nephite nation was being driven before the Lamanite armies (Mormon 4:22). In A.D. 384, Mormon in a letter to the Lamanite king asks if he, Mormon, can gather the Nephite nation to battle at Cumorah, which is granted by the Lamanite king (Mormon 6:2-3). Within a year all the people are gathered in except a few who flee to the south country and a few who defect to the Lamanites (Mormon 6:15). At the end of the first day’s fighting, Mormon gives a list by name of 13 commanders and their ten thousand who had fallen, Mormon and Moroni being the exceptions, and then states there were 10 more commanders with their ten thousands who had fallen (Mormon 6:11-15) for a total of approximately 230,000 dead. Note that the name of the unit is ten thousand. Taking a cue from the regiments of the American Civil War, Nephite units might have been called, for example, the First Zarahemla Ten Thousand, the Second Zarahemla Ten Thousand, the First Bountiful Ten Thousand, and so forth.

The problem is this: the Nephite people had been conducting a running and losing battle with the Lamanites for 10 years, and while there may have been at one time 23 units called “ten thousand” in the Nephite army, when the Nephites gathered to Cumorah they were gathering everyone, including women and children (Mormon 6:7). It is highly unlikely that the 23 “ten thousands” were anywhere near full strength in terms of fighting men. Could the difference have been made up of women and children? The record is silent on this point, but knowing the desperate nature and the finality of the fight at Cumorah, it is highly probable that the women and children would fight in the ranks in preference to being captured by the Lamanites. However, even with women and children in the ranks I could not believe the ten thousands were at full strength. In my experience in the military I have never seen a military unit at full strength. Considering that the Nephites had just completed a running war of ten years, I would guess the Nephite ten thousands were anywhere from mere token units, as the First Minnesota, to at most 50% strength.


I appreciate Roger sending me his research, and I'm honored that so many believe I have something meaningful to offer in the field of Mormon studies. I will continue my attempts to deliver. In that vein I recommend my post called Myriads of Soldiers that discusses the number of a unit equalling its name.

I should also point out that this is the kind collaborative effort that I wish to stimulate in my attempts at a warfare symposium. Thank you for your patience. As always, I invite comments and look forward to seeing them.

The Troops of a Father and Son

I have been attending my residency at Norwich University for the past week in preparation for getting my M.A. on Friday. Today I had a little bit of free time so I found an interesting piece of text from the writings of Wu-Tzu. In the section on "Controlling the Army" we read:

Marquis Wu asked: "What measures will ensure the soldiers will be victorious?"

Wu Ch'i replied: "Control is foremost...What is meant by control is that when stationary [in camp] they observe the forms of propriety [Li] and when in action they are awesome. When they advance they cannot be withstood; when they withdraw they cannot be pursued. Their advancing and withdrawing are measured; the left and right flanks respond to the signal flags. Even if broken off from the main order they preserve their formations; even it scattered they will reform lines. They will hold together in peace; they will hold together in danger. Their number can be assembled together, but cannot be forced apart. They can be employed, but they cannot be exhausted. No matter where you can dispatch them, no one under Heaven will be able to withstand them. They are called 'the troops of a father and son.'"

In the footnote Ralph Sawyer writes: "The troops and their commander (and ruler) are characterized by a relationship similar to the idealized one between father and son: it is characterized by benevolence, righteousness, beneficence, good faith, and love from the parent with the reciprocal virtues of trust, love, respect, and obedience from the son."

I should also mention that the word Li in Chinese history refers to the proper observance of religious rituals and righteous behavior according to the Confucian tradition.

Thus the 'troops of a father and son' are righteous soldiers that have mutual love and respect between commanders and soldiers. These soldiers perform difficult maneuvers and respond well to difficult situations.

We read of a similar kind of soldier in the Book of Mormon. In Helaman 53 we read that the people of Ammon:

20...were all young men, and they were exceedingly valiant for courage, and also for strength and activity; but behold, this was not all—they were men who were true at all times in whatsoever thing they were entrusted.
21 Yea, they were men of truth and soberness, for they had been taught to keep the commandments of God and to walk uprightly before him.

In Alma 56 Helaman continues the story:

10 And I did join my two thousand sons, (for they are worthy to be called sons) to the army of Antipus, in which strength Antipus did rejoice exceedingly; for behold, his army had been reduced by the Lamanites because their forces had slain a vast number of our men...

This small army of father and sons becomes tactical bait for the Lamanites but cannot be caught by their larger army after a multi day chase in Alma 56: 30-42. Cut off from the main army but no longer being chased they debate their next course of action. Their commander recounts the soldier's reply:

43 And now, whether [the enemy army is] overtaken by [the main army] we knew not, but I said unto my men: Behold, we know not but they have halted for the purpose that we should come against them, that they might catch us in their snare;
44 Therefore what say ye, my sons, will ye go against them to battle?
45 And now I say unto you, my beloved brother Moroni, that never had I seen so great courage, nay, not amongst all the Nephites.
46 For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone; therefore let us go, lest they should overpower the army of Antipus.
47 Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them.
48 And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it.
49 And it came to pass that I did return with my two thousand against these Lamanites who had pursued us. And now behold, the armies of Antipus had overtaken them, and a terrible battle had commenced.


So they courageously enter battle and now we read of their performance:

52 And it came to pass that the Lamanites took courage, and began to pursue them; and thus were the Lamanites pursuing them with great vigor when Helaman came upon their rear with his two thousand, and began to slay them exceedingly, insomuch that the whole army of the Lamanites halted and turned upon Helaman.
53 Now when the people of Antipus saw that the Lamanites had turned them about, they gathered together their men and came again upon the rear of the Lamanites.
54 And now it came to pass that we, the people of Nephi, the people of Antipus, and I with my two thousand, did surround the Lamanites, and did slay them; yea, insomuch that they were compelled to deliver up their weapons of war and also themselves as prisoners of war.

After the battle Helaman wrote:

56 But behold, to my great joy, there had not one soul of them fallen to the earth; yea, and they had fought as if with the strength of God; yea, never were men known to have fought with such miraculous strength; and with such mighty power did they fall upon the Lamanites, that they did frighten them; and for this cause did the Lamanites deliver themselves up as prisoners of war.

So far we see that these "Sons of Helaman" are righteous men filled with truth, soberness and courage. When they decided to battle they rehearsed the words of their mothers and liberty of their fathers. This deference to familial teachings and the counsel of elders is considered a powerful form of proper conduct [Li] in Ancient China. They loved their father commander and he loved them in return. And they entered battle with vigor (or awesomeness) when it was not required of them. In Alma 57 we read an account of their conduct during a Lamanite counterattack:

19 But behold, my little band of two thousand and sixty fought most desperately; yea, they were firm before the Lamanites, and did administer death unto all those who opposed them.
20 And as the remainder of our army were about to give way before the Lamanites, behold, those two thousand and sixty were firm and undaunted.
21 Yea, and they did obey and observe to perform every word of command with exactness; yea, and even according to their faith it was done unto them; and I did remember the words which they said unto me that their mothers had taught them.

Just as in the first battle, the "Sons of Helaman" perform better than the regular soldiers. They kept their proper form (in relation to their families and religion) in peace, they remained in formation (or their proper form) while in battle. They were threatened with annihilation but held firm. They obeyed and observed every order of their commander, performing "[measured] advanc[es] and withdraw[s]". They were employed but never 'exhausted in battle', chased but never caught. They were "awesome" when joining battle. They respected their commander so much they called him father. They were led and respected as sons. In short, they exemplified the traits desired by Wu-Tzu for 'the troops of a father and son'.

This post was not designed to prove a definite connection between the Book of Mormon and Asian culture. In the post titled "But Ricky", I used a Hugh Nibley quote to describe how we should expect all sorts of nonsense if we compared a work of fiction to ancient records. But instead we find that an accepted ancient record provides a strong and surprising match for a record that also claims to be ancient. This is now my 50th post, with each one I am more inclined to take away the "claim" from my previous sentence. This is one more example of a match that the critics must explain to me in order to dissuade this historian from concluding the Book of Mormon is an authentic record.

19th Century American Military Theory and the Book of Mormon

I received a question from Broz who blogs over at www.ldsdoctrine.blogspot.com, and since I wanted to move away from the bitter polemics that are often involved in apologetics I thought this would be a good transition post. It builds upon my previous posts which examine ancient military theory and tactics within the BoM by presenting common American Military thought at the time of its publication. It also references a paper concerning the principles of war, that I hope to link to when its finally posted. [I also added the reference to Weigley and corrected spelling and grammar in a couple places]


Thanks for your interest in my blog. Your question [concerning military theory and practice in 1830-1860 America] got me thinking for awhile. In order to answer it I will describe American military thought in the 19th century and the major theoreticians that influenced their behavior. And then I will compare it to events in the BoM.

After Napoleon two major theoreticians dominated military thought with the supposed lessons of warfare from the conflicts. Jomini and Clausewitz. Both writers started their works in the late 1820s and 1830s. Clausewitz was not even translated into English until after the civil war (I think), but he definitely was not translated, or even done writing by 1830. The writings of Jomini were more prevalent, but even then he was not taught extensively at West Point. West Point taught very few classes on military theory and leadership in that time, it was mainly a glorified engineering school (that's what Lee graduated in for example). It was not until the late 19th century that they added command and general staff schools on the model of German successes and they started using Clausewitz.

High Nibley has discussed the elements of Clausewitzean theory in the BoM. You can find it here: http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=727

I have also discussed Captain Moroni's leadership using the same author here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2009/01/clausewitz-on-captain-moronis-genius.html

In both cases the BoM definitely exhibits military thought and strategy far beyond what Joseph Smith had available to him. I also have done research that is accepted for publication (BCC E Journal) that describes principles of war taught to current army officers within the BoM. Again this is far beyond what J.S. displayed in his life and writings and even beyond common knowledge of military officers in that day. The principles of war were not explicated until the 1920s by a British army officer named J.F.C. Fuller.(Clausewitz gave some too but Fuller's are much better known) They are now drilled into U.S. Army officers to help them analyze information.

Within the BoM there is some Jominian thought. This was a post Napoleonic writer that was popular in America before the Civil War. The practice of Moroni having separate parts of his army pinch an enemy army between them does sound similar to his Jomini's main principle. (max the most amount of strength at a specific point) But the many ruses and stratagems employed by Moroni are common among ancient armies. A Roman writer named Frontinus wrote about many of these at about 75 BC, about the same time as Moroni.

With military theory you can use accepted principles and push them backwards, such as post Napoleonic writers. But you can also use contemporary writers to place BoM events within its expected time frames. In short: the BoM displays many correct military principles codified by writers Joseph Smith did not have access to. It is also corroborated by military writers that were contemporaries of BoM events, such as Frontinus and Caesar. Again, Smith did not have access to these either. (Unless we can believe that he read untranslated German military theory in the moonlight after working as a farmer all day and other nonsense)

So I hope that answers your question. Let me know if it does not. For further reading you can see "American Strategy from the Beginning to World War I" by Russell Weigley in The Makers of Modern Strategy.

Research Update: Missed Opportunities in published Gadianton studies

I haven't posted in awhile so I thought I would let my readers know what I have been working on. Mostly I have been looking for a job that utilizes my Masters Degree. With the job market what it is and only having an MA its been somewhat difficult to find a job that utilizes my skill set.

In between job searching I have been working on a current research project involving the Gadianton robbers as Guerrilla Warriors. Daniel Peterson wrote about the subject here. Since I have read much of the same material as him, and military thought is my specialty I thought everybody could gain from seeing what I had to say on the subject. So I read his article, another one from BYU Studies by Ray Hillam, and I am reading The Selected Works of Mao Tse-Tung (which are quite long- I would hate to see his unabridged works), the writing of Clausewitz on the subject, an article from "Makers of Modern Strategy" (the seminal introductory book on military thought), and the writings of Lenin and Trotsky. I am not done researching but I have found a few important points that Peterson missed. As always, these are preliminary research notes that connote a need for further research and refinement and I invite constructive comments.

-Words matter in a revolutionary war. That's why the title "Gadianton Robbers" is so important. The rulers and record keepers of the Nephites thought they were illegitimate contenders for ruling so they labelled them as robbers and not a manner of "ites". (See this post)
-Peterson missed a chance to explicate the origin of Gadianton. Hugh Nibley made a strong case that Gadianton was a Jaredite name and probably a Jaredite descendant. (Lehi in the Desert, pg.245) This could mean that Gadianton was a supporter of a Nephite ruler that more closely matched his political persuasion. That may be why Paanchi lost (see Helaman 1), and adds a political dimension to something that Peterson simply described more as a guerrilla warfare. John Shy in Makers of Modern Strategy described how guerrilla warfare is a tactic used to obtain a larger, mainly political purpose.
-Mao's three phase model of insurgency is under utilized. The political preparation of the people for the revolution is under emphasized. The increasingly wickedness of Nephite society is an editorial indication that they were turning away from the Nephite political and religious rulers. Only an "insurgency" (using Hillam's words)by Nephi allowed them to regain the government.
-The second phase is to obtain local control over a limited area in preparation for a complete seizure of government. Peterson and Hillam mention this, but they fail to see the implications of a shift in Gadianton bases. Urban support is important, but as Lenin and Mao can tell you, a small island of urban support in a sea of rural hostility will not sustain the revolution. The shifting of the Gadianton Robbers from the urban to rural environments could signify their shifting base of support. Instead of a small vanguard of urban and probably landless elites such as lawyers, priests, and high judges (3 Nephi 6:23), they found their support in local rulers (the lower judges and perhaps semi autonomous local rulers mentioned in Alma 51), and the increasingly landless soldiers. Many modern writers such as Mao, Ho Chi Mingh, and Che Guevara disagreed as to the where the support of the insurgency should come from, a vanguard of urban elites or the sea of support among the rural population. This is a vital question that appears to have affected the strategy of the Gadianton robbers as well.
-At one point they gain "sole control" of the government (which is the goal of conventional third phase operations), but are then fully discredited and seemingly destroyed. Again, Mao discusses how the three phases are flexible. An insurgency may feel strong enough to obtain control of the government but then quickly loose control and revert back to stage one. Peterson and Hillam briefly mention this point if at all. And they fail to account for the political and social dimension of the Gadiantion insurgency. Peterson and Hillam both focus on strategy, while I love a good strategic read, I feel that focus misses on ideas that can inform us as to how the Nephites lived and conducted their politics.
-Peterson mentions the importation of labor. But I've already done research concerning the sociological implications of this practice. These verses denote an importation of labor (perhaps for arms industry), and imply a possible difference in social status as a cause of "runaway brides". Having words matter mean that these defections, of wives and citizens, were identified as being "captured" by "robbers" instead of defecting to an insurgency led by some disaffected elites from within Nephite society.
-The letter from Giddianhi is a vital primary source. As historians we are blessed to have a long letter from the "man" himself as to his motivations, tactics, and ideas. Above all, the leader of the Gadianton robbers is educated. He can read, and write a letter to the official Nephite leaders. He mentions his "rights and privileges" which are the same words that Paanchi used to start the Gadianton band some 50 years earlier. It took Mao 25 years to take power, and Ho Chi Mingh over 30 (1940 to 1975) to have a unified independent state. Thus we should not separate these events too much.
-Having a detailed study of insurgency operations and revolutionary warfare is a strong witness for the authenticity of the BoM. Except for a handful of pages from Clausewitz that had not been translated into English yet, there were no extant writings concerning the theory of revolutionary warfare in 1830. Yet the BoM contains enough detail to extensively document the Gadianton insurgency and compare it to writings that we have now.

Nibley is still smarter than you

I ran across an interesting post the other day.

The author described how the writings of Hugh Nibley have been used and abused by "Nibleyphiles". The author makes a good point describing how a scholar becomes an artifact of his age and often becomes displaced by newer research. I agree with this point, since I hope that in 30 years my research will be engaged and then supplanted. He or she also has some obligatory nice things to say about his research.

But many more points disturb me. He or she insults those who read his research as having a "fetish". And the author seems to bring up this post in response to some argument they had with somebody who quoted Nibley. The author supposedly wants to "move on" past Nibley, but what was the original point that inspired this post, did the author engage it, or just wave their hand? This is quite a problem, because in the field of warfare in the Book of Mormon, Nibley still has research which historians need to engage. Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis of war in the Book of Mormon has not been critiqued or overturned by newer research. My research into military thought within the Book of Mormon has borrowed from his methodology here and here. Likewise, his battle analysis of the war chapters in Alma has only one other rival (Sorenson) and remains the gold standard for strategic study. His research into the ideology behind the Title of Liberty is still insightful this many years later. And his research behind Jaredite warfare remains relevant to Asian studies I have done in posts such as this.

In short, Nibley's research into warfare cannot be dismissed with a wave of TT's hand. Nibley's research continues to inspire and engage people even today. (I am simply discussing military history implications since that is my speciality) Its rather arrogant to act as though you were a British Nanny in pip pipping others into what you think are appropriate areas. Its also unprofessional to write a post that is ostensibly praising somebody (Nibley) in order to slam other people (Nibleyphiles)for being insufficiently academic. (This includes the comments that the post inspired) Plus it reminds this reader of a clique in the bloggernacle and their intolerance towards those that dare think differently or use non Kosher scholars. I do agree that some people simply load their gun with Nibley facts unaware of current research, but TT's post comes off as simply an arrogant dismissal.

And until somebody can show me work that engages and supplants Nibley's Clausewitzean analysis, battle study, and other warfare research, then Hugh Nibley is still smarter than you.

Enlightening Conversation

Here is a brief dialogue I have had with somebody who does not believe in the Book of Mormon. I thought much of his criticisms were rather basic. Many have been answered elsewhere(such as steel swords in the Book of Mormon, or the supposed lack of archaeological evidence) and others were based on shallow reading (the "millions" of dead commentin Ether 15:2). But I wanted to post it here because I did make some good points that I feel are quite original. These concern the possibility of technological borrowing from Jaredite to Nephite cultures, and a weapon cache (or mineral deposit) that made the lands north very important to Nephite society and caused the Lamanites to alter their strategic decisions based on it. I also wanted to point out the fact that I have already addressed many of these "problems" on my blog before. (I have also corrected some spelling errors on my part)

April 11th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
I have to disagree with your analysis posted here. I have studied the warfare in the Book of Mormon extensively. I find that warfare in the Book of Mormon is one of its greatest strengths and invite you to research the matter a little further, either on my blog or in the book “Warfare in the Book of Mormon” which addresses many of your problems.
I would also like to know what verse in the Book of Mormon mentions “great mounds” of weapons. Thank you for your time.


April 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Hi Mr. Deane. Thank you for your comment. I did indeed visit your site and appreciate your studies in military matters. I myself write regularly for Military Officer and Today’s Officer magazines and so am interested in military subjects myself. I have not read the book you recommended.

Let me address the two main issues you raised. First of all is the matter of warfare in the Book of Mormon. I repeat that there is not a single non-LDS scholar who would agree that there is any archaeological evidence for the warfare described in the Book of Mormon — and on the scale described in the Book of Mormon. If there is such a scholar I would be most grateful to read what he or she has to say.

I used the phrase “great mounds of weapons” (which you accurately noted is not a phrase from the Book of Mormon, and I did not put it in quotes in my post.) Joseph Smith believed the mounds or drummonds of North America were the result of BofM warfare, as this quote shows:

We encamped on the bank of the [Illinois] river until Tuesday the 3rd during our travels we visited several of the mounds which had been thrown up by the ancient inhabitants of this county, Nephites, Lamanites, &c., and this morning I went up on a high mound, near the river, accompanied by the brethren. . . . The brethren procured a shovel and hoe, and removing the earth to the depth of about one foot discovered skeleton of a man, almost entire, and between his ribs was a Lamanitish arrow, which evidently produced his death, Elder Brigham Young retained the arrow . . . The contemplation of the scenery before us produced peculiar sensations in our bosoms; and the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the spirit of the Almighty I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us, was a white Lamanite, a large thick set man, and a man of God. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Omandagus, who was known from the hill Cumorah, or Eastern sea, to the Rocky Mountains. His name was Zelph. . . . one of his thigh bones was broken, by a stone flung from a sling, while in battle, by the arrow found among his ribs, during the last great struggle of the Lamanites and Nephites. (Times and Seasons, Vol. 6, No. 1, p. 1076.)

Why do I say there were great mounds of weapons? “He saw that there had been slain by the sword nearly two millions of his people… two millions of mighty men, and also their wives and their children” (Ether 15:2). In preparation for the next battle, “they were for the space of four years gathering together the people… with their wives and children - both men, women and children being armed with weapons of war… they did march forth one against another to battle” (15:14-15). After about six days of battle, there remained only “fifty and two of the people of Coriantumr, and sixty and nine of the people of Shiz” (15:23). So what happened to all their weapons? Of millions? Are we to believe that the warlike Lamanites wouldn’t have reused them? (In which case Columbus and others would have seen evidence of this.) The only alternative, which Joseph Smith apparently believed, was that they would have been buried — or just disappeared altogether. That certainly isn’t true of Old Testament weapons.

April 11th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Those are some good points. I would refer you to my post entitled “Ad Hominem in Mormon Studies”. Mormon scholars can make good points if they are indeed scholars. For instance, I have now been published multiple times by a variety of credible secular publishers. Its rather insulting to think that analysis and writing which is good enough for the Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies is suddenly not good enough if it I turn my attention to The Book of Mormon.

In reference to the “mounds of weapons” I would point you to textual analysis that points to rather dubious foundations for the Joseph Smith quote. (There is a good article by Kenneth Godfrey in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies for one) The “millions” you refer to in 15:2 links to the prophecy of Ether in 13:20-21. Between 13:20 and 15: 2 there are 12 references to battle over 10 years that range over “all the land”. (Ether 13: 25, 28, 29, 30, 31; 14:3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16,17, and 27 ) Thus there are enough battles and references to destruction of women and children that millions could be accurate. “millions” may be a literary device, but that still does not disqualify the books historicity. Herodotus said that the Persian army numbered in “millions”. This number was obviously false, but we still consider him a real historian. (See an article by Brant Gardner called “If I told you once” or my blog post called “The problem with numbers”) Externally, anthropologist John Sorenson has outlined the parallels between Nephite history and Mesoamerican history. I am moving and have my books packed up, but his “Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon” places Jaredite history with the collapse and depopulation of the Olmec culture.

As far as the use of weapons goes, the book of Mosiah mentions a search party that found rusted and unusable weapons in Jaredite lands. So many weapons could have been unusable after a short time. But there are some scholars (like Hugh Nibley) that say there was a slight continuation of Jaredite culture, thus it would be an unstated and obvious assumption that the weaponry would be largely similar, since many aspects and military leaders were. (Helaman 1:15 has an army led by Coriantumr for example) There is a good article by William Hamblin that discusses swords throughout the Book of Mormon. In his article he hints that there was a technological loss between Nephi's time (550 BC) and the next mention of swords (around 200 BC), perhaps there was some cultural borrowing based on the remaining weapons from Jaredite society.

And the Lamanites were on the south and there are numerous references to the Nephites denying the Lamanites access to the lands in the North, so there would be little contact between Lamanites and the Jaredite homeland untill about 300 AD, or almost 600 years after the final Jaredite battles. Given that they were mortal enemies the Nephites would seek to deny access to those weapons, providing one more reason for the incessant warfare between them, and making the strategic decisions of Lamanite leaders make more sense. (Like Amalickiah seeking “the lands north” instead making a turn and flanking the Nephite capital in Alma 51, or that same Coriantumr from Helaman 1:15 driving for the land north as his top priority)

Finally, the time of Columbus’s arrival was over 1000 years after the end of the Book of Mormon. In a general sense many things were found. My post entitled “But Ricky” has many of them, Jeff Lindsey has complied many, John Sorenson, and Clark have as well, you simply need to take so time to look at many of these “evidences” that pile up in the Book of Mormons favor.

This post is getting rather long winded, I hope it made sense and answered some of the problems you had. If it doesn’t, I can clarify anything I left unclear. I appreciate your time, and suggest that you study the Book of Mormon more in depth and read some arguments from its adherents before you disqualify them right off the bat. If you don’t have any questions about my post, I will humbly bow out and agree to disagree with you.


(And yes I should be packing, but I don't want to)

The Missing Ingrediant

After doing some searching on the internet I came across an article from The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) that detailed the missing ingrediant from my comparison post. The citation is here:

Recent Trends in Book of Mormon Apologetics: A Critical Assessment of Methodological Diversity and Academic Viability
Benjamin N. Judkins
FARMS Review: Volume - 16, Issue - 1, Pages: 75-97
Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2004


The most important quote places my research concerning comparisons in ancient warfare in a broader context. At the end of the quote I will explain how my research attempts to avoids the pitfalls that he mentions.


The ethnographic school, founded and championed by Hugh Nibley...seeks to situate the Book of Mormon as an ancient document through a slow and steady process of building up literally thousands of parallels with the ancient world. It is more in the traditional Latter-day Saint vein of seeking to open a space for rational belief rather than attempting to "prove" a proposition...it has probably made the most substantial contributions of all. Especially helpful are recent efforts to use the work of Margaret Barker and others to situate the Book of Mormon in the emerging vision of what life in the ancient Near East must actually have been like. Efforts to show the Book of Mormon's compatibility with this world (knowledge of which was totally unavailable to Joseph Smith and his contemporaries) serve both to reinforce the historicity of the work and to provide a powerful new lens for examining its essential message. The recent work of Daniel C. Peterson, John Gee, John A. Tvedtnes, and others all offer striking new ways of reading the text—even some of its most Christian, nineteenth-century-sounding sections.

The ethnographic school itself is not free from methodological issues. One must specify what cultural parallels are expected in a given place and what sorts of parallels would be significant before conducting any investigation. At a minimum, an ongoing dialogue between theory and empirical investigation must occur. If it does not, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to defend a set of correlations against the charge of spuriousness. In fact, it is the lack of such theoretical considerations that has led to the not totally unjustified charge of parallelomania, particularly with regard to Nibley's work.

As I have done in such posts as "Military Cause for the Social Problems in the Book of Helaman" and "The Bad Emperor", I have tried to analyze a separate text or historical incident, such as the Agrarian Crisis or the Bad Emperor trope used by Chinese historians before I have shown its similarities in the Book of Mormon. As seen in my posts, I detail the salient features of the given point, and detail the same points within the Book of Mormon. I also take special pains to point out the differences in the given theories and tend to draw modest conclusions. These are all attempts to maintain a sober study of the Book of Mormon that does not seek a single 'silver bullet', or shoe horn comparisons, but seeks to find many loose parallels that help our study of the Book of Mormon and our knowledge of its historicity.

An eeeevil Plan? The terminology of War

Mormons have been in the news alot lately. Much of has to do with our supposed "war" on gays. I don't plan on interacting with the temper tantrums of the gay community. I instead want to focus on the place that war has in our moral reasoning.

Often our children want to play war because it is a basic morality tale. You learn who is good and bad, as well as the benefits of certain virtures such as sacrfice and courage. Henry Kissinger in his book Diplomacy, also outlines how America wants to fight its wars with the rhetoric of a moral crusade. (war to end all wars, war to make the world safe for democracy etc)

The political borrowing of wars moral terminology tries to impart that same sense of moral focus. Ironically, it is mostly used by liberals who eschew regular war in favor of social causes: the war on poverty, war on drugs, etc. This tries to gain a sense of moral high ground for the progressive advocates. The prosecutors of this war can feel justified by their intrusion into others lives or increased government control because of they are "fighting" for their noble cause.

In this case, the gay community is trying claim the opposite of the usual moral terminology. They are trying to portray the prop 8 campaign as an evil war. (Think Dr. Evil from Austin Powers when you say it). So instead of liberals wrapping themselves in a flag with their "war" against various social evils, they are trying to cast their opponents as evil aggressors (probably wrapping themselves in a Nazi flag).

This reveals a language of victomology, where any loser in a vote suddenly becomes a victim similar to those in Darfour or the refugees in Palestine. These are blatant appeals to emotion that skip any logical and rational case for gay marriage in favor of simply guilting their opponents into giving in. In my experience defending prop 8, I always start with a few logical reasons why I want to preserve marriage; in return, the first card my opponents always play is to call me hateful.

Its also rather passive aggresive. They try to obfuscate their hateful and rude attempts at fighting back by dramatically painting their oppoenents as the aggresors. Hugh Nibley described this type of langauge in the Book of Mormon. Laman and Lemuel both complained that their brother was tyring to usurp power from them even as they repeatedly tied down, beat, and fought their brother. In Alma 54, Ammoron complained that his war was to avenge the wrongs done to him, when he was the one that fled after his failed revolution. The robber Giddianhi complained in the same fashion (3 Nephi 3:4-11). Giddianhi was a robber that lived in the mountains, and he complained of the wrongs done to him as he was threatening to rob and plunder Nephite lands.

In short: we should not be surprised that the aggresors, those who want to dramtically redefine marriage to suit their indulgences, should then try to wrap themselves in the language of the victim. As we examine the moral rhetoric that comes with war we see one more way Warfare in the Book of Mormon can help us today.