A Sober Mind and a Response to Utah Mormons Can Support Trump

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.  

To pull down their pride...

A long time ago I found a great reference from Book of Mormon warfare in Mesoamerican history. But then I couldn’t find it again. I thought I had it in my notes but didn’t seem to have the right reference and I didn't have the book in my library.  Recently I had to check some old sources for my upcoming publication, and there it was!!

Tikal is one of the most important classic Mesoamerican cities, but there is still significant disagreement and debate about how a ruler might maintain legitimacy if foreigners rulers were placed on the throne. Archaeologists have found a sitting man statue with its head cut off.  The statue likely represented the king and its head ritually cut off.  The most interesting part is on the back. There is a different script still undeciphered and “someone drilled a large jagged hole through it, ending in a deep, round socket in the back of the figure. If the desecrated Hombre de Tikal sculpture were laid prone (the typical pose for a Maya elite captive), the drilled hole would be suitable for insertion of the wooden shaft of a battle standard…We would suggest that even after Nuun Yax Ain and his allies took the Tikal throne from Toh chak Ich’ak, he carried out a series of magical acts designed to legitimate his insertion in the dynastic succession.”[1]   

I think this provides additional context to Moroni’s action against the King Men.  Alma 51 uses the verb “pull down” in verses 17 and 18. After being slain in battle and cast into prison the King Men were “compelled to hoist the Title of Liberty upon their towers and lands” (v.20). The Title of Liberty was an important symbolic reference in Nephite history that held both ritualistic and spiritual importance.[2] And the “pulling down” can refer to specific objects such as the statues that represent their authority. Its not exactly stated in the text, but I can’t help but see how a pulled down statue with a hole in the back could refer to the pride that Moroni “pulled down” and the Title of Liberty they were forced to fly. Its not directly stated, but I think given the possible location of Book of Mormon events and the political subjugation of the King Men combined with the unique phrase to "pull down" it makes this an intriguing idea.  

[Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work and want to see more ideas, please consider using the pay pal buttons below to make a one time or recurring monthly donation.]  

*****

---

[1] David Freidel, Barbara MacLeod, and Charles Suhler, “Early Classic Maya Conquest in Words and Deeds,” Mesoamerican Warfare, Kathryn Brown and Travis Stanton eds., (Oxford, Alta Mira Press: 2003), 195 (192-196).  

[2] See my book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon, pages 57-64 for more.  Many people seem to be impressed with Kerry Hull’s new article.  I was a bit frustrated because his article didn’t show me a great deal I didn’t already know. In fact, I could have written much of it, and as you see from the above, he missed at least one item that might have informed our understanding of the Book of Mormon. Kerry Hull,”War Banners: A Mesoamerican Context for the Title of Liberty”  Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 24 (2015): 84–118.

How do you solve a problem like Iraq: The Fall of Ramadi in Alma 59

My book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents, argued that the Book of Mormon is a text that should be taken seriously by policy makers and even generals. The current events in Iraq and pending fall of Ramadi recall the capture of Nephihah in Alma 59, and provide additional insight into Nephite society and courses of action we might take. 

As I write this ISIS is driving towards the pivotal city of Ramadi.  They have captured nearby cities and threaten its supply route to Baghdad.  This is the capital of Anbar province, and the home of the Sunni Awakening that turned against Al Qaeda, allied with the U.S. during the surge, and essentially won the war in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War says that “the fall of Ramadi would deal a major strategic and psychological blow to the Anbaris and to the government of PM Abadi. It would also undermine the relationships between Anbaris and Baghdad, as Iraqi Sunni leaders in Anbar have been calling for an increase in aid to the province as a whole and to Ramadi in particular.”[1]  The known brutality of ISIS, their genocide, sexual slavery, and destruction of monuments is tragic enough. Many Americans have the sense that we allowed this to happen by leaving and failing to view ISIS as more than a jayvee team. Moreover, the provincial government has been begging for more troops and help. 

How does this relate to the Book of Mormon?

Nephihah was a pivotal city that was close to the borders town of Moroni, along the route to Bountiful, and protecting the route to Zarahemla. After if we read starting in Alma 59:9- 

And now as Moroni had supposed that there should be men sent to the city of Nephihah, to the assistance of the people to maintain that city, and knowing that it was easier to keep the city from falling into the hands of the Lamanites than to retake it from them, he supposed that they would easily maintain that city….And now, when Moroni saw that the city of Nephihah was lost he was exceedingly sorrowful, and began to doubt, because of the wickedness of the people, whether they should not fall into the hands of their brethren…[His leaders] doubted and marveled also because of the wickedness of the people, and this because of the success of the Lamanites over them.

Ethnic Tension

The obvious comparison is that Moroni pleaded for reinforcements, didn’t receive them, and the fall of the city dealt a powerful blow to their spirits. There are more comparisons and possible insights. U.S. forces that remained would have acted as honest broker between the various factions in Iraq.  As strange as this sounds considering the pontificating about the hated Western imperialists, Sunni leaders in Anbar province had more trust in American soldiers than the government.   With soldiers in the country, and with future arms contracts for advanced weapons like fighter jets (now cancelled), which required a long relationship filled with shipments of spare parts, the military would have leverage to force the Shia government to be more inclusive of Sunnis and Kurds. Most importantly, our training advisers would have prevented the government from politicizing leadership posts within the army. Removing capable Sunni leaders (many of whom cut their teeth in Saddam’s army) crippled their effectiveness and led to their disgraceful retreat last summer.

                

The Book of Mormon doesn’t explicit mention others or describes domestic ethnic tension. In my book I describe how ancient historians often used loaded terms to describe ethnic others.  The late Roman historian Gildas called robbers a “hive of bees” and their influence an “infestation.”[2] Another Roman historian, Ammianus Marcellinus, called them “serpents that come out of their holes in spring” to attack with “wicked” and “most cruel” fury.[3] While Giddianhi described the robbers’ war as one for their rights, Ammianus described robbers as “swarthy and dark complexioned” who are “bitter exactors of their rights.”[4] This is compared to Mormon, who calls the Lamanites “lazy” (Mosiah 9:12), and Nephi, who describes those that do not believe as “dark” and “loathsome” (1 Nephi 12:23). The governor of the Nephites dismissed Giddianhi’s quest for his rights as the threatening of a “mere” robber (3 Nephi 3:12). This suggests that perhaps the people of Nephihah had the same smooth relationships with Zarahemla as Baghdad does with Ramadi.

Partition

Critics and even many members tend to view the Nephites as a Roman like empire that lasted a thousand years.  During most of Nephite history a better comparison would have been the rump states left over in Europe after Rome fell, or the city states of ancient Greece.  As late as the time of Alma the Elder he personally led the Nephites in battle just outside of the city of Zarahemla.  Those in Ammonihah rejected Nephite political authority, “the most capital parts of the land” rebelled in the Amlicite war, Morianton tried to seize land, and the unspecified strong holds and cities forced to raise the Title of Liberty (Alma 51:20) rejected Nephite authority and eventually allied with the Lamanites. The Nephites seemed ascendant after the war chapters, but as quickly as Helaman 1 they lost their capital.  In Helaman 4 Moronihah could only recover half the land.  The prophet Nephi left the land (and the record) for six years (compare Helaman 6:6 to 7:1)! When he came back the people had to plead to him through intermediaries (Helaman 11:8, suggesting he was still partially removed from the people.)  The Nephites retreated to their central territories to defeat the Gadianton in Robbers (3 Nephi 3-4).  In their final battle against the Lamanites Mormon says they number “as the sands of the sea” but only muster 30,000 soldiers for their war of survival (Mormon 2:42).[5] 

The point is outside of a short period of time during and after the great war, they were rather weak and didn’t not command large territories and huge populations.  The Nephites were not a large monolithic empire and faced various ethnic rivalries and political tension, perhaps similar to Iraq and seen in the failure to support Nephihah, which made cooperation difficult and fracturing into smaller entities more likely. 

What to do about it?

Looking at some similarities is nice, but what course of action might the Book of Mormon suggest?  After the fall of Nephihah, Moroni wrote a rather intense letter where he correctly diagnosed the treasonous reasons for the lethargic supply and mobilization by Zarahemla judges. His threatened coup turned out to be a counter revolution in conjunction with Pahoran. 

This is seemingly where the comparisons break down. Many Iraqis are sick of the government and tolerate the rule of ISIS.  The Kurds continue to rule autonomously and seek independence.   The current attacks in Ramadi are close urban operations that limit air strikes. The PM said that if unchecked ISIS could become unstoppable.[6] But not too many are flocking to his defense, and the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs basically shrugged at its loss.  Pahoran blamed the coup on “great flattery [that] led away the hearts of many” (Alma 61:4). 

Judging from the lack of support for action in Iraq, the reader might appropriately examine if the government under Pahoran and Moroni squandered public support for the war through misrule.  Moroni held men in prison for years without trial in Alma 51:19; 62:9. There is evidence that he killed dissenters (Alma 51:19), he threatened a coup and a genocide in separate letters (Alma 60:25-27; Alma 54:12-13), along with calling his opponent a child of Hell (Alma 60:18; 54:11), and he possibly militarized a vote against the King Men (after all, he and his supporters put on armor and gathered in a loud shouting body before the vote, Alma 46:21).  The war had to be funded from somewhere, and the 4,000 dissidents hewed down (Alma 51:19), and others imprisoned or executed provided plenty of revenue for the state, but likely left many kin seething with resentment.

The Nephite example suggests that military force won on the battlefield for Moroni and inspires many, (including me as a young recruit in Marine Corps Boot Camp) but it remains a short term solution because their underlying ethnic tension, political fragmentation, and heavy handed policies didn’t change. As I focused in my second book, in many cases forceful action created more enemies.     

The situation in Iraq is complex and difficult. The American public doesn’t want to send ground troops.  ISIS spans both Iraq and Syria and any action against them might assist Iranian agents in Iraq or help Basher Al Assad keep power.  Military operations cost money and degrade the military’s readiness for future conflicts. But many argue America has an interest in fighting genocidal barbarians forcing many into sexual slavery, who steadily advance and export terrorism. Much like the Nephites that cut bait and consolidated their central territories during the Gadianton threat, and Mormon’s strong defense of the narrow neck of land suggest that the least worst American option is to consolidate their position by supporting the Kurds as a bulwark against ISIS expansion, continue bombing, and work to train the Iraqi army so they can roll back ISIS.  This limits American commitment but provides a low risk high reward way to protect American interests in a vital region, without a burdensome American commitment. 

This was rather heavy on analysis, what do you think of the situation?

---

[1] http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Iraq%20SITREP%202015-4-15%20-%20print_0.pdf (Accessed April 17^th).

[2] Marcellinus, Res Gestae, 1.25-26. Of course, swarms could also refer to the difficulty and pain in prosecuting a successful counter-insurgency campaign. 

[3] Ibid., 19.8.1-2; 28.2.10.

[4]  Ibid., 22.16.23.

[5] Interestingly, if you look at the military participation ratio a society that was about 200,000 people, or about the total of dead at Cumorah, could produce an army of 30,000.  See “A Nephite Ten Thouand” in my upcoming book for more. 

[6] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/16/iraqi-city-ramadi-verge-falling-isis-prime-minister (Accessed Apr 17^th 2015). 

Guest Post: Lamanite Alliances, Spheres of Influence, and Historical Complexity Part II

[This is the second part of a guest post by Ryan Tanner. You can find the first part here.]

This brings us to 72 BC, when Amalickiah arrives in the land of Nephi. By this point the elite in the city of Nephi had settled on a new king. His control over the seven cities may have been very tenuous. The elements of power that must have existed in the city of Nephi would have included those who were originally direct competitors of Lamoni's father, the new elite who rose to power after the Anti-Nephi-Lehis left, the Amalekites and the Zoramites, and the interests of the six other cities in the alliance. The elites who were in control in Nephi would have been entrenched there since the days of Lamoni's father, or longer, and were currently in a semi-stable position since the Amalekite and Zoramite backed contender to the throne, Zerahemnah, failed in his bid.

The new king, whose name is never mentioned, would have been the one person holding the new alliance together. It is possible that he was an outsider, meaning he was not from the city of Nephi, but had been accepted by the elites in the city, possibly by his marriage to the queen, who as we will see later had considerable control over the city of Nephi and the elites who lived there. In effect he was acting as the glue between the seven cities, but the connection was most likely tenuous.

Under the influence of Amalickiah, with perhaps the backing of the Amalekites and the Zoramites, the new king proclaimed his intention to invade the Nephite lands. The tenuous alliance was immediately put to the test when some of the allied cities (we have no idea which ones or how many) refused and banded together under the leadership of Lehonti, who they proclaimed as their king (Alma 47:6). The power base of Lehonti must have been the Lamanites who were not under the control of the Amalekites and the Zoramites, and/or those who were not under the direct control of the city of Nephi.

Thus the new king was in danger of having his newly forged alliances come undone, but he could not attack the rebels directly because then he would have lost even more influence in the surrounding area. He was effectively in the same situation Lamoni was in when Ammon arrived in the land of Ishmael. The king could not order an attack on the army of Lehonti without risking civil war. But other influences were pushing him towards war with the Nephites, and he needed the cities and troops under the control of Lehonti. Thus Amalickiah, like Ammon, presented a way out. If Amalickiah succeeded then the king could further consolidate his power, but if Amalickiah failed then the Lamanite king could easily disassociate himself from the attack. Perhaps the army sent with Amalickiah was composed mainly of Amalekites and Zoramites, and those Lamanites that they could muster out. Thus if the expedition was a failure then the Amalekites and the Zoramites, or whoever the king sent with Amalickiah, would have been expendable allies, or at least allies that were not considered essential to the elites in the city of Nephi.

So let us reconsider the sociopolitical situation that Amalickiah was working with in and around the land of Nephi. A previously cohesive alliance of seven, or more, Lamanite cities had recently been broken up by the very public conversion of a significant segment of the ruling class to the religion of the Nephites. Certain groups, such as the Amalekites, had been exerting influence in Lamanite society for a number of years, but were still considered outsiders. Others, such as the Amulonites, had some influence, but lost it recently. The Nephite dissenter axis was recently strengthened by the addition of the powerful Zoramites, but the Amalekite-Zoramite coalition was not enough to gain control of the seven cities, perhaps due to the loss of their main candidate for the position of king, Zerahemnah.

The elites of the city of Nephi, which we suppose had had control of the surrounding area and cities for some time (i.e. a few generations), were unwilling to relinquish their positions of influence to the Amalekite-Zoramite axis, but had to balance that against the machinations and intrigue from the other six cities in the alliance. Despite the fact that the elites may not have wanted a close relationship with the Amalekites and Zoramites, they were constrained somewhat by the fact that the Amalekites and Zoramites represented the mortal enemies of the Nephites. Specifically they were the enemies of Moroni and his armies, which had entered into an alliance with the people of Ammon, that is, the one group of people that had someone who could legitimately lay claim to the title of King of the Lamanites. Thus the elites in Nephi may have been relying on their alliance with the Amalekites and Zoramites to help prevent the return of the legitimate king, backed by a Nephite army.

After the death of Lehonti, and the treacherous assassination of the king, Amalickiah was in command of an army that was most likely made up of troops from the Amalekites and Zoramites, and from the surrounding six Lamanite cities. There was apparently significant loyalty in this odd assortment of an army to the king since Amalickiah could use the death of the king to motivate his troops. Also it is an indication of the rather tenuous position of the king since Amalickiah could blame the king's murder on the king's own servants and people would believe it. Perhaps his reasoning was somewhat along the lines of, "The servants must have been agents of Anti-Nephi-Lehi who remained in the land to kill the king." Thus giving the Lamanites another reason to go along with the war against the Nephites and their new allies, the Anti-Nephi-Lehis.

At this point the city of Nephi is surrounded by a Lamanite army that most likely was not made up of men from the capital city, that is, the city was not their home and they would have no objection to sacking the city. The army may also have been looking for some sort of payment and the capital city may have been a tempting target. Also the army may have contained troops from the Amalekite-Zoramite coalition which were not Lamanites and would have no problem with inserting themselves into the Lamanite power structure.

So in this rather explosive situation the queen of the Lamanites asks Amalickiah to "spare the people of the city", invites him to come into the city, accepts the evidence of the king's murder, and in a move that allows her to maintain the independence of the city and its elites, while preventing the sack of the city, and the potential takeover by the Amalekite-Zoramite coalition, while at the same time not giving preference to any one of the many Lamanite groups that were vying for power, she agrees to marry Amalickiah and bring about a quick end of the recent difficulties. Her ability to maintain her position is evident by the fact that after Amalickiah dies in the subsequent war his brother must return to the city of Nephi to report on his death and consolidate his power before returning to the battlefield.

For the other competing groups Amalickiah represented an acceptable candidate for king. The Amalekite-Zoramite coalition would have accepted him as a fellow Nephite dissenter who was opposed to the expansionist policies of Moroni. The Lamanites from the other six cities would accept him because he was not from the Amalekite-Zoramite coalition, or from any of the seven cities. Thus he would not upset the new balance of internal power among the Lamanites who had to reorganize their power structures after the flight of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. He was also opposed to Moroni, and Moroni's new allies the Anti-Nephi-Lehis.

If we look at Amalickiah's rise to power in this context we see that there were many competing and complex interests at work. For all these competing and complex interests Amalickiah represented the ideal compromise. Even though he was not their man, more importantly he was no one else's man. In a society that had just four years before gone through a major upheaval, Amalickiah was the one man who could be everything to everyone and not disturb the new and still unsteady power structures. Sometimes we forget or do not account for the impact that Ammon and his brothers had on Lamanite society and power structure. It was only four short years between the flight of the people of Ammon and the arrival of Amalickiah in the land of Nephi. Lamanite politics and society were still in a flux and Amalickiah, rather than being a conniving fiend who duped the easily deceived Lamanites, was actually a significant stabilizing force in an otherwise unsteady time for the Lamanites. It is unfortunate that Amalickiah used, and squandered, his opportunity by perpetuating a war on the Nephites rather than building a more stable and just society.

Now a good portion of what I presented here is speculation and my own thoughts and interpretation of the parts of history that we have in the Book of Alma, but it does provide a different way of viewing the beginning of the Nephite-Lamanite war found in the war chapters of Alma. I would be delighted if others can give additional insights and commentary on this situation because I know that there are several things that I did not cover or consider in writing this. For example, some of these conflicts may have been more to do with control of trade routes, or rich mining grounds, or farmland, than simple political intrigue. So there are definitely more things to consider, but some of those we may be unable to know until we can pinpoint the location of these events and consider the archaeological evidence to give us more insight into what was happening at the time. Until then we must rely on the text to give us the clues.

For the Peace of our People: Amalickiah's Arguments in Alma 47

Amalickiah’s flight to the Lamanites and subsequent intrigue that won him the Lamanite throne and war against the Nephites seemed a bit too easy.  Everybody in the account seemed to do exactly what he wanted.  But upon closer examination of the scriptures the reader can see that Amalickiah’s arguments were based in mutual self-interest and often justified his actions using the rhetoric of peace.

One of these arguments is listed in the text. After one of Amlickiah’s servants killed the king in verse 27 it reads: And it came to pass that Amalickiah commanded this his armies should march forth and see what had happened to the king; and when the had come to the spot, and found the king lying in his gore, Amalickiah pretended to be wroth, and said: Whosoever loved the king, let him go forth, and pursue his servants that they may be slain.

By killing the king, letting the army see his fake grief, and placing blame on the king’s servants Amalickiah strengthened his loyalty among the army, and his credentials as a “bold” Lamanite. (Alma 54:24)[1] He also removed the only witnesses that might foil his plan and cast blame on him. So in this case Amalickiah presumably enticed his servants by offering him a better position in the future king’s household.  Amalickiah used the fear and self-preservation of the murdered king’s servants to cast the blame on them and he used the natural loyalty of the soldiers to their king to win their hearts. This example is towards the end of the story, but an analysis of the rest of the account shows similarly manipulated emotions. 

In verse one Amalickiah and a small group of men fled from Moroni to the land of Nephi and the Lamanites.  The small group probably consisted of his personal household and fellow elites but maybe included military specialists as well.  They likely followed Amalickiah because of promises of future wealth and success and when they arrived the text says they “stirred up” the Lamanites. Many of his arguments were most likely different versions of events seen in scriptures that Amalickiah embellished or twisted to promote his interest and make it appear in the interest of the Lamanites to go to war.  His argument might have been that the Nephites expelled them and they fled for their lives because they were a peace faction that had tried to prevent the rise of dangerous men like Moroni, and they tried to prevent some of the policies that Nephite elites wanted to implement.  Alma 51:13 recorded how many king-men refused to take up arms when the Lamanites attacked.  Even modern commenters suggested that Moroni’s execution of the king-men and compelling them to fight was a “war crime.”[2] So anciently Amalickiah could have claimed some sort of objection based on real (or more likely feigned or politically convenient) claims of friendship and brotherhood to the Lamanites.  Alma 61:8 described the coup by the king-men that entered into a treaty of friendship with the Lamanites. So again, the scriptures contain evidence that the king-men and Amalickiah might have promoted themselves as a peace party professing friendship with the Lamanites. 

Amalickiah also could have stirred the Lamanites towards war over news of a pre-emptive invasion.  While he could have made up any number of plans and there was no way for the Lamanite king to verify it, a short time after Amalickiah’s flight Moroni pre-emptively attacked and expelled the Lamanites in the East and West wilderness. (Alma 50:7-9)  Moroni also rallied the people around his Title of Liberty and mustered the army against Amalickiah and his men.  Amalickiah and his followers could have viewed this as mob like and excessively militant action that infringed on their rights.  Certainly Amalickiah would have relayed Moroni’s actions in chapter 46 in the most sinister terms possible to the Lamanite king. Perhaps the king was inflamed enough by this news to declare war.  Or Amlickiah could have convinced him that a quick strike at Ammonihah, their target chosen in chapter 49 because of the easy attack a  generation earlier, (Alma 16:2) could blunt some of Moroni and the government’s militancy. He might have added that the bloodshed from a quick strike would be less than the bloodshed from a later war after the Nephites had gained more power.[3]   

                But the Lamanite soldiers were reluctant to obey the king’s command.  In verse three Amalickiah gained control of the part of the army which remained loyal to the king. As we later see, those who disobeyed the king’s command were not simply rebellious soldiers, but a full-fledged rebel faction with an anointed king. (v.5-6) But why did the king appoint Amalickiah?  Amalickiah and his men obviously had more knowledge of Nephite territory so they would be natural leaders while attacking the Nephites. (Alma 48:5) But that advantage became a disadvantage in unfamiliar Lamanite territory.  The “place of arms” (Alma 47:5) to which the rebel Lamanites fled was roughly ten miles from the capital city,[4] so terrain wasn’t likely an issue.  The real advantage lay in the added social capital and elites that Amalickiah brought.  He had the above knowledge of (maybe exaggerated) Nephite militancy.  He had military skills evidenced by he and his brother’s later leadership of the entire Lamanite army and war effort, and they escaped Moroni’s pursuit. (Alma 46:32-33)

Brant Gardner argued that an earlier king sent Ammon to the waters of Seebus because he was an outsider and a wild card that could affect the balance of power between rival houses.[5]  The king couldn’t punish those who pillaged his flocks because they were protected by rival elites and maybe even the king’s relatives. But he had to maintain his power so he killed his servants for failing to protect his flocks. Ammon on the other hand, did not have those restraints, so the king placed him in a difficult situation to see what he could do and maybe solve the king’s problems.  Amalickiah could have fulfilled the same role for the current king. In a budding civil war he was an outside force. He could have succeeded in his mission and earned the king a united and more powerful army.  If Amalickiah suppressed the revolt heavy handedly, killed the wrong people such as those with powerful connections, or made the wrong enemies (remember that one man tried to kill Ammon in revenge at the king’s house [Alma 19:22]), he could act as the king’s scape goat. The king might have even used one of his servants to slay Amalickiah.  So we see how Amalickiah used the king to gain command of an army, but the king likely used Amalickiah as well.  

In verse 13 Amalickiah presented the rebel general king, Lehonti, the rebel general king, with a rather attractive offer.  Amalickiah desired him to come down [from the mountain] with his army in the night-time, and surround those men in their camps over whom the king had given him command, and that he [Amalickiah] would deliver them up into Lehonti’s hands, if he would make him (Amalickiah) a second leader over the whole army.

Mormon summarized this offer in a way that made it sound too good to be true. But Amalickiah’s argument probably sounded different.  Amalickiah could argue that the king placed him between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, the king forcing him to lead Lamanites into battle against other Lamanites.  But Lehonti had the high ground, possibly controlled the source of their obsidian weapons at the place of arms, and possessed greater numbers. So Amalickiah had to obey the orders of the king to attack, but was likely to fail. His attack would result in Lamanites killed on each side, with the result that whomever won the civil war would be in a weaker position to resist Nephite aggression.  Amalickiah’s offer instead made it so nobody would have to fight. Lehonti would win after a brilliant attacking move. Amalickiah would save his army, and like Ceasar’s pardon of Brutus, Lehonti would appear to have king like magnanimity and appoint Amalickiah as the second in command.   Lehonti likely had a practical need for Amalickiah’s martial skills, and the knowledge of Nephite plans would give him additional leverage to win the people; as Lehonti could use Amalickiah’s knowledge of supposed (or real) Nephite attacks to presnt himself as a defender of his people against Nephite aggression. This agreement saved Lamanite lives by uniting the armies without bloodshed and both commanders benefitted.  Amalickiah, knowing that he was perhaps expendable to the king, extricated himself from the need for a costly and likely fatal frontal assault.  Lehonti appeared as a strong conteder for the throne by uniting the army without bloodshed and appearing conciliatory between the two factions.

In verse 15, Amalickiah schemed to gain strengthen the loyalty of his soldiers.  The latter awoke and found themselves surrounded by Lehonti, and begged Amalickiah to save them.  According to the above agreement he did so.  Armies were largely based on personal bonds of loyalty, so it was important for a leader to gain that trust. As an outsider, and maybe even seen as expendable by his rank and file soldiers, the increased loyalty helped Amalickiah, even as Amalickiah fulfilled his part of the agreement to help Lehonti and save the lives of soldiers in both armies. He continued to build loyalty with the theatre surrounding the murder of the king discussed above in verse 27.  In each case Amalickiah further convinced the soldiers that Amalickiah had their best interests at heart. As with any ancient army commander, he had the trust of their soldiers that he would lead them to victory and plunder.  Amalickiah in turn gained by having an army more closely bound to him.  

Verse 33 presented one of the most intriguing items after Amalickiah gained complete control of the army: Therefore, when the queen had received [word of the King’s death] she sent unto Amalickiah, desiring him that he would spare the people of the city; and she also desired him that he should come in unto her; and she also desired him that he should bring witnesses with him to testify concerning the death of the king.

If the queen requested that he spare the people of the city it suggests that the Lamanite army could have sacked the city. Anciently, plunder acted as one of the few reliable ways for an army to get paid, and often acted as a bonus for the success of a campaign.  Like the faceoff between Amalickiah and Lehonti’s army, perhaps the queen still had military force and the inclination to oppose Amalickiah.  But then the queen requested, or possibly ordered, that Amalickiah bring witnesses of the king’s murder. And the next verse says that the witnesses “satisfied” the queen. Hearing testimony suggests some sort of legal procedure. So it’s possible that this served as part of the ritual surrounding a coronation, or more theatre to cover the naked ambition of two joint rulers. The unexpected death of a sovereign often resulted in a mad scramble for power. The queen could easily use her position, and networks of elites to control the capital and remain in power. Amalickiah, in contrast, could use the army as a platform to control the countryside and seize the capital by force. With rival bases of political power, a desire to “spare the people of the city” likely represented a coded political message to end the still simmering power struggle.[6] The queen remained in power; and with Amalickiah she had a partner just as powerful, if not more so, than her late husband. Amalickiah gained by keeping control of the army and possessing a stronger claim to the throne. Not to mention he shared bed with what appears to be the Cleopatra of the Book of Mormon.   

Amalickiah probably assumed the throne claiming he was from the peace faction of the Nephites.  The king-men associated with him often opposed the Nephite conflict with the Lamanites, and they could claim to oppose Moroni’s aggressive promotion of the Title of Liberty and pre-emptive war. Amalickiah could claim that he prevented bloodshed in a nascent civil war as a servant of the king fighting Lehonti, and as a leader of the united army opposing the widowed queen.  He spread the city upon his ascension, and likely promised to protect his new subjects from Nephite encroachment. Of course, modern readers get a version of the story from Mormon.  But every story has more than one side and a careful reading and analysis of Amalickiah’s story suggests he achieved so much because spoke in terms of mutual self-interest, and he often justified his actions using the rhetoric of peace.

---

[1] His brother Ammoron used that phrase, but he is treated as an extension of Amalickiah.

[2]John C. Captain Moroni the War Criminal, September 1^st 2008.  http://bycommonconsent.com/2008/09/01/captain-moroni-war-criminal/  (Accessed January 2^nd, 2014.)

[3] Keep in mind that Sorenson proposes the new city of Moroni in those territories as a military garrison right on the border with the Lamanites.  And he cited Helaman where they lose half their territory (Helaman 4:16), when Nephi tried to retrench Nephite society he started at Bountiful (Helaman 5:14-16), and later when Christ appeared at Bountiful,  that the Nephite center of gravity seems to have shifted north and to the east, in many of the new lands they conquered in Alma 50. John Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: A Mesoamerican Book (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013,) 49-53. So the Lamanite concern seemed justified.   

[4] John Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: A Mesoamerican Book (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013) 330.

[5] Brant Gardner, The Case for Historicity: Determining the Book of Mormon’s Production Culture (2004 Fair Conference. http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-case-for-historicity-discerning-the-book-of-mormons-production-culture (Assessed January 1st 2014).

[6] I first discussed this verse here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/search?q=spare+the+people  (Accessed January 2^nd 2014.)

The Beltway Disease

A couple posts ago I mentioned how we have a text that can and should help us analyze current events. The scriptures can also help us see beyond a person's rhetoric and instead see the potentially damaging actions that could occur. My friend sent me a link to an article from Meridian Magazine. The article uses the King Men as a tool to analyze President Obama's first nine months, and the culture of corruption in general that surrounds the Beltway.

I disagree with several points of his analysis. First, like Micheal Hobby, I think the King Men were far more active in Nephite politics before and after the episode that Lawrence describes. But six years is close enough to the four year presidential cycle so I can see why he would stress that number. Plus even though I dislike Obama's policies, I don't think he has entered dictatorship territory yet. Jimmy Carter territory for sure, but not the far out dictatorship that many people are warning. Although, Lawrence addresses this concern by showing how the King Men were often subtle and deceiving.

I think Lawrence's best point was how the King Men thought they were the new nobility and looked down on others. I've lost track of the number liberal blogs where anybody who believes in God, Guns, or traditional morality are just plain hick, racist, and troglodyte rubes. A sad number of Mormon blogs are like this as well. Everybody in the club considers themselves the new elite and they make sure through their acerbic comments that anybody who dares to disagree will know that they are just not as smart, nuanced, educated, subtle etc, as the permabloggers. You also see this in the way Obama treats the Town Hall protesters. My wife recently asked why Obama is continuing to seek his version of health care even though Americans clearly want something else. My answer was that he knows what is better for us, so our opinions don't matter. If only WE KNEW, we would want his plan and more government in our lives. Since we don't know, we must be angry and ignorant dummies for protesting his plan.

This post was more political than usual. Feel free to respectfully post your comments if you disagree. I also wanted to point out an example of using the scriptures to analyze current events. The danger comes from the harsh feelings that result when your analysis and conclusions differ from others. Overall I would recommend this article as a way to use the scriptures to examine the difference between rhetoric, goals, and actions.

Research Update: Buffet Style

I've sat here at my computer for almost an hour now as I write a few sentences and delete them, only to do the same thing again with another topic. So instead I will change things up and give you a peak at several items, questions and research topics I am looking at.

Slavery in the Book of Mormon: Helaman 11:3 mentions how women and children were kidnapped by Gadianton robbers. Why? Was it slave labor, companionship, or trading items (like the African nations that traded slaves for guns)? This could be another example of "Sabine Women", where they steal the women to marry them. This also connects to the agrarian crisis I talked about . One of the actions that cause the crisis (described in a link below) is the importation of slaves through successful wars of conquest. These slaves then become the labor that fuels that rise of rich large landowners and displaces the small farmers that form the bulk of soldiers.

King Men Insurgency: The letter from Giddianhi in 3 Nephi 3 sounds remarkable similar to Helaman 1. Both leaders complain about their "rights of government". Both Helaman 1 and 3 Nephi 3 contain similar sounding names: Pacumeni, Pahoran, and Paanchi. And Gidgiddoni and Giddanhi. The conflict over the judgeship started the Gadianton robbers since Paanchi was set to be executed by his brother Pahoran but Kiskumen assassinated him. 3 Nephi 4 is the one of the ultimate resolutions where the Gadianton robbers are defeated in a 11 "...great and terrible...battle thereof, yea, great and terrible was the slaughter thereof, insomuch that there never was known so great a slaughter among all the people of Lehi since he left Jerusalem."

The insurgency part comes from the earlier parts of the struggle, where they operate secretly in the cities. But some 60 years later they can operate as a (almost) nation killer. In many cases this matches the classic three phase insurgency advocated by Mao Tse Dung. Daniel Peterson in Warfare in the Book of Mormon discusses the theory behind their actions. I simply wanted to suggest their political motives, stated in Helaman 1 and in Nephi 3 and suggest that many of the Gadianton robbers were from leading houses and possibly the two leaders: Giddianhi and Gidgiddoni were from the same house. The replacement leader (Zemnarihah) also sounds much like previous dissidents. 3 Nephi 1:29 says that Zoramites were the cause of some dissensions, so there is another connection.

Agrarian Crisis Update: I stated my preliminary research here I read the Book of Helaman and 3 Nephi in depth searching for the 6 major steps I described there. I did not find a neat picture. I found so much material I may have to divide it into books. I have also found a great deal about the possible motivations for the Gadianton robbers. Such as soldiers that wanted "their cut" of the economic pie, disaffected rich citizens, those that could not stay in the Church simply by "professing" loyalty(Helaman 3:33). These all flourished due to the diminishing power the Chief Judge, resulting in almost complete impotence by 3 Nephi 7. I found the wars were actually closer to home and less frequent with the Lamanites. The chief problem was an internal struggle for power among leading Nephite houses. And the government lost control over the exercise of violence. There seemed to be private wars (Helaman 4:1-2 and 5:21, predatory practices among the Nephite elite (Helaman 5:38 and 3 Nephi 1:9) and significant local autonomy as well (3 Nephi 5:23).

In short, I have to take alot of time and see if the text matches the model presented. But the difficulty in doing so suggests some similarities that stimulate thought and discussion but there is a better model to explain the social problems in the Books of Helaman and 3 Nephi.

The Land Northward: The end of Alma suggests that the land Northward became an active region in Nephite life. The 6 year ministry of Nephi suggests these lands were extensive (Helaman 7:1). The Gadianton robbers had to be cut off from the land Northward by Gidgiddoni. And after the disintegration of central power by King Jacob and his band he fled to the land Northward so he could "flatter" the people and grow in strength. (the same word, "flatter" is used to describe Paanchi's efforts which resulted in the established of the Gadiaton robbers; Helaman 1:7) In conjunction with the concept of military colonies, naval military expeditions, and these verses, there is something about the lands North that contribute to military power. At the very least the land is far enough removed from the central government to make extensive control and military expeditions difficult. I have also heard some internet chatter about comparing the extreme northern lands to the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan. The concept is intriguing and may be the "break" in external evidence that many look for.

Local Elites: I promised last time that I would discuss an example from Chinese history concerning local defections and a disconnect with the central government. The defection of Lu Wende to the Mongol leader opened up the Yangtze to invasion and started a "band wagon" effect for other leaders. These leaders were disconnected from the Song Court due to jealous civil bureaucrats and local parochial elites. (See War Politics and Society in Early Modern China by Peter Lorge, chapter 4) In the Book of Mormon I can see that their government was not a strong hegemonic empire like the Romans, but more of a loosely connected confederation of city states led by local elites. Thus some ruling families that may feel "outside", such as younger brothers or old Mulekite and Jaredite families would feel the need to gain greater power. Look at the dissenter Coriantumr (Helaman 1:15) and Zemnarihah (3 Nephi 4). Thus a comparison with other cultures in history, such as Chinese culture, could help us glean more information concerning Nephite culture.


So there are a few of the topics I thought about posting on. Comments and suggestions are appreciated as I try to sort through and refine the million different ideas I have.