Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon: Part V Helaman Chapter 1

This is part of an ongoing series. See part one, part two, part two(a), part three, part four, part six, part seven, part eight.

This chapter is one of the most interesting as it contains examples that support and undermine preemptive war. The record indicates that Paanchi was seized as he was “about to flatter” the people (Helaman 1:7-8). It’s not indicated how imminent his rebellion was. John Welch suggested he may have been in the open market place about to call for rebellion.[1] But he could have been meeting with key players among “the people” to ensure that his play for the judgeship was successful. The imprecise immediacy of his rebellion shows us the difficulty of judging the difference between preemptive and preventive wars assessing their relative merits.

The Nephites and those sympathetic to their cause would have viewed Paanchi’s rebellion as very imminent. The key leaders such as Moroni and Pahoran had recently died and the Nephites had unsettled or uncertain political and military leadership. A short time after Nephite leaders executed Paanchi the Lamanites invaded. At a state of dangerous unpreparedness (Helaman 1:18) the Lamanites marched quickly to capture the capital. The general was a dissenter from Nephite lands, ordered by the son of the dissenting Ammoron, brother of the arch dissenter, Amalickiah. Their attack showed that even a short time after the great victory of Moroni and during a time of peace the Nephite realm could face a speedy invasion that killed their chief judge and capture its capital. Not only did he die but he was unceremoniously “[smitten] against the wall (Helaman 1:21).”

Even with an army’s damage limited to what they could personally smash or kill, and a nation’s limitations in supplying its troops, the Lamanites could quickly desolate many cities before the Nephites “could raise a sufficient army” (Alma 16:2-3). In Helaman 1:19, the Lamanites marched “with such great speed” and captured the capital city, and eventually enacted genocide with these primitive means. This means that modern surprise attacks could be even more deadly and require active and preemptive measures as a defense. And just like ancient times, the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 demonstrate that the United States’ “narrow strip of wilderness” is surprisingly thin. But unlike ancient times, strategic surprise in the modern age may not simply represent the destruction of a small ancient city, but could take the form of a nuclear attack in a highly populated metropolis. The power of nuclear weapons increases the ability of an opponent to “end the war at a stroke.”[2]

Attacking the Nephite’s desire for preemptive war ignores the strategic realities that the ancient Nephite and Lamanite nations faced as a result of geography and technology. It is even more foolish in the modern world. According to many neo isolationists and peace advocates that incorrectly apply scriptures like D&C 89, the United States must receive an attack three times before they could justifiably response. Yet the threat of a surprise attack from Pearl Harbor was traumatic enough, just one from a nuclear weapon would mean that millions would be killed, or we would have to accept three 9/11 attacks of perhaps even greater magnitude before we could righteously respond.[3]

Yet the justifications still have caveats. Kishkumen, his robbers, and those that were not sympathetic to Nephite rule, would have argued that Nephites actions were unjust. Welch did establish a legal precedent for executing conspirators against the crown. Yet he also pointed out how the feelings of “alienation and hostility” would have lingered among the political opponents of the Nephites.[4] I’ve discussed the social bandit ideology before, and it is a powerful and common motivation for all insurgencies against the government.[5] A critical reading of the text reveals plenty of possible reasons for simmering discontent. Helaman’s servant stabbed an assassin after nighttime spying (Helaman 2:6), and Nephi exposed another killer in Helaman 9:6. Lawyers and leaders within the Nephite nation were known to beat confessions out of criminals (Alma 14:17-22), and both Lamanites and Nephties attempted to poison each other with wine (Alma 55:13). The Nephites even tested the wine on their prisoners first (Alma 55: 31-32)! Gaining and keeping power in Nephite society required significant cunning and craftiness from even righteous leaders. It’s no surprise then that the trial and execution was the catalyst for Kiskumen and his band to begin their campaign of assassination and rebellion.

Helaman 1 shows the danger of preemptively attacking somebody, as that action further inspired opponents of the government. But in the same chapter Nephite passivity in defending their lands was rewarded with a devastating invasion. The threat was always hanging over them, and preemptive war to remove or lesson that threat was a legitimate and even righteous action, albeit one with potentially explosive consequences. It’s also important to note that this was an internal matter just like the preemptive war against Amalickiah. But the imminence of his rebellion, and the desire to preemptively nip it in the bud and avoid costly consequences, represent the major attraction behind the strike. The threat of surprise terrorist or nuclear attacks in the modern world only increases the allure and justification for preemptive war.

Thanks for reading. Providing high quality, ad free research for over a decade takes time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or you can buy one of my books using the Amazon link in the top left. Thanks!! 

**********

[1] John Welch, “The Case of Paanchi,” Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, (Provo, Salt Lake City: Brigham Young University Press, 2008).
[2] Carl Von Clausewitz, On War,( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)363.
[3] Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, 157.
[4] Welch, The Case of Paanchi.
[5] Morgan Deane, “Climbing a Tree to Find a Fish: Insurgency in the Book of Mormon”, Provo FAIR Presentation, August 4th, 2016.

Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon: Part IV Alma 46-50

This is part 4 of an ongoing series. See part one, part two, part two(a), part three, part five, part six, part seven, part eight.

These scriptures are most commonly cited as a defense of preemptive war, though there are hidden details and consequences that should prevent easy use of the strategy.[1] As he prepared an ambush for Lamanite forces, Captain Moroni “thought it no sin that he should defend [the Nephites] by stratagem” (Alma 43:30). Moreover, Moroni preemptively attacked and tried to capture and presumably execute Amalickiah, based on the assumption that preventing his escape through military action would prevent a future war. As with Zeniff’s scouting, this action is presented without editorial dissent, and it is instead given as part of Moroni’s stellar resume. In the same chapter that described a period in their history that was “never happier,”[2] Moroni “cut off” the Lamanites living in the east and west wildernesses (Alma 50:11). This occurs during a time of supposed peace, but it could also be described as a lull or “cold war” between the First and Second Amalickiahite War.[3] Duane Boyce went further and created a just war theory out of Moroni’s preparations in Alma 48.[4] During an attack or in a time of strained peace, Moroni is lauded for his preemptive actions, ambushes, and active defense.

The major objection to this line of thinking from opponents of preemptive war comes from the idea that Amalickiah was just a dissenter. The argument then goes that these were wicked Nephites that caused “otherwise neutral” Lamanites to go to war with their propaganda.[5] But this breaks down upon further examination. The father of King Lamoni was hostile on site (Alma 20:10), and pretty quickly the king tried to kill Ammon (Alma 20:16). The leader of the Lamanites gives a pretty good indication of their general disdain and aggressiveness towards the Nephites, not their neutrality. Readers of the Book of Mormon have the advantage of knowing the rest of the story. Amalickiah went on to raise an army, provoke war, and invade in what was an intense and lasting conflict, so Moroni and Nephite leaders had ample cause to be concerned about his behavior. As will be discussed below, seizing and killing potential usurpers was a common practice for the Nephites and in Amalickiah’s case it was necessary.

Those who say these chapters don’t count as enough defense of preemptive war also point to the refusal of Lamanites to take up arms. But this wasn’t an indication of their peacefulness. As described above, their refusal is evidence that Nephite martial prowess and preemptive strikes could successfully dissuade an attack before it was launched.

Supporters of preemptive war who cite these verses also miss the factors that led to Moroni’s use of it in the first place, and they fail to look at the consequences of his actions. Both of these factors complicate the use of these scriptures in defense of preemptive war, though they do not nullify them. Moroni was old enough to remember the Amlicite war. In Alma 2:9 the Amlicites appointed Amlici as king. A short time later they attacked the land of Zarahemla and even joined the Lamanites. In response to these provocative actions the Nephites seemed defensive and reactionary. Alma 2:12 described how the Nephites knew the Amlicites intent and “prepared to meet them.” They did arm themselves, but the Nephites didn’t attack first or advance to meet the enemy, they didn’t try to position themselves to fight on advantageous terrain. Reinforcing the idea that a passive defense instead of preemptive attack places the defenders in a poor position when they do face battle, the Nephite army were in such a poor position that they had to make an armed crossing of a river (Alma 2:27). They almost didn’t make it to the battle, as the breathless report of their spies spurred them to a perilously tardy counter attack (Alma 2:23-24). With the hindsight gained from the Amlicite War, the Lamanite attack that resulted from Ammon’s missionary service, and possibly Zeniff’s aborted attack, of course Moroni preemptively chased down Amalickiah, and sought to “cut off” and “head” his army (Alma 46:30-32). In short, Moroni learned the lessons paid for in Nephite blood when they awaited Lamanite attack, forfeited the advantage of surprise, and had to reacted to Lamanites who took the initiative.

While Moroni’s active and premptive strategy didn’t repeat the past mistakes it possibly created new ones. The first negative consequence was the possible militarization of events by Moroni. The Nephites supporting Moroni rushed forward with their arms and armor to make these covenants (Alma 46:13, 21), which suggests Moroni escalated from warm disputes with fists to one side being armed for warfare (Alma 1:22). A politician with Amalickiah’s skill wouldn’t have needed much to make a strong case out of these actions to the Lamanite king. Nephite actions, including Moroni’s armed response, attack and attempted capture of Amalickiah and preemptive seizure of land in Alma 50 provided Amalickiah with mountains of ammunition. One can picture the shot in the arm Amalickiah received after making arguments to the Lamanite king (Alma 47:1) and his supporters received when they spoke the Lamanite people (Alma 48:1) when the Lamanite refugees from the wilderness came pouring into the land based upon Nephite preemptive action (Alma 50:7). The angry young men would have made especially ready recruits for his “wonderfully great” army (Alma 51:11).

Instead of neat conclusions based on a handful of verses, a close reading of the scriptures suggests no easy answers to today’s dilemmas in Moroni’s actions. He certainly seemed justified based upon the trauma of his youth. The brutal killing of Gideon, civil war, destruction of Ammonihah, capture of prisoners, near defeat, almost annihilation, many deaths, and famine of the Nephite realm during his youth made him rather aggressive in defending the Nephites. His actions were successful in defending the Nephite realm and they almost nipped the threat from Amalickiah in the bud. But they had severe unexamined consequences that may have exacerbated Nephite problems. The solution instead of dogmatic dismissals and overwrought denunciations of the practice is that it was a strategy with precedent and justification but was not a simple solution or cure all. It is possible that many of the negative consequences could have been avoided if Moroni had been completely successful in capturing in capturing Amalickiah, but the next example suggests preemptive action wouldn’t solve Nephite problems.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author and providing quality ad free research for the last decade takes time. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or you can buy one of my books using the Amazon link in the top left. Thanks again. 

***********

[1] Mark Henshaw, Valerie Hudson et. Al. “War and the Gospel: Perspectives from Latter day Saint National Security Practitioners,” Square Two, v.2 no.2 (Summer 2009.) http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleHenshawNatSec.html
This passage borrows material first written Morgan Deane, Offensive Warfare in the Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 32-33.
[2] Mormon said there “was never a happier time” during a lull in the war chapters (Alma 50:23). R. Douglas Phillips refers to it as a “golden age” in “Why is so much of the Book of Mormon Given Over to Military Accounts?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen Ricks and William Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 27.
[3] Using the terminology of John Welch, “Why Study War in the Book of Mormon?” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon, ed. Stephen Ricks and William Hamblin (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991), 6-15.
[4] Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, chapter 15.
[5] Connor Boyack, “The Problematic Inward Vessel,” Connors Conundrums, February 23rd, 2009. (Accessed October 21st, 2016. http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/the-problematic-inward-vessel )

Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon: Part III Alma 25:26

This is part three of a series. See part one, part two, part two(a), part four, part five, part six, part seven, part eight.

The next mention of preemptive war comes from Ammon’s speech. He doesn’t include many details, but he did contrast he and his companions’ successful missionary service with the desire of the Nephites for preemptive war. At the time of the missionaries departure the Nephites reportedly said of the Lamanites, “Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us” (Alma 26:25.) Aaron, one of the individuals that was at that speech, as the son of Mosiah (II) was only two generations removed from the serious wars faced by King Benjamin and the attack led by Zeniff. This timeline is little longer than World War II is from current policy makers and suggests that preemptive strikes were still common in the discussions held by Nephite leaders, and this was viewed by many, as a legitimate Nephite strategy. The highly successful missionary effort and its explicit contrast with the peaceful conversion of many Lamanites seems to be the first indication that the Nephites wanted a better and more spiritual strategy. Ammon at least saw his successful conversion of the Lamanites as a repudiation of the strategy and current 21st century peace advocates see this as a strong rebuke of all warfare, not just the strategy of preemptive warfare.[1] Joshua Madsen wrote, for example, that the service of missionaries “defied cultural stereotypes” and showed that “love and service can break through false cultural narratives, unite kingdoms, and converts thousand to Christianity where violence could not…In the end, Nephite just wars did not bring peace, whereas those like Ammon who rejected their culture’s political narratives and hatred did.”[2]

Yet, Ammon’s success as a missionary benefited greatly from his martial prowess. According to William Hamblin and Brent Merrill, it was not impossible, but took a great deal of skill and application of military training to disarm a foe in a single stroke.[3] The servants that Ammon protected with his disarming prowess seemed to practice the post battle Mesoamerican custom of the presenting of arms, which suitably impressed the Lamanite king and made him receptive to Ammon’s preaching.[4] The other missionaries gained access to the king’s father by Ammon’s success in one on one combat against that head king (Alma 20:20). In short, his missionary efforts benefited from his rigorous military training, and from the martial customs of the day. At the very least it seems fool hardy to dismiss the need for military strategy, when it was the efficacy of his military training and their martial culture that helped him have so much success.

Moreover, that removal of the Lamanite kings the missionaries converted set in motion a chain of events that helps to validate the offensive minded Nephite strategists. It says in Alma 24:1 that the Lamanites who hadn’t been converted were “stirred to anger” against those that were converted. In Alma 25:1 it then says the remaining Lamanites “swore vengeance” upon the Nephites. These are very simple explanations of Lamanite domestic and foreign politics. Mormon likely translated the political and historical foundations for the conflict into spiritual terms.[5] Those can remain valid and useful in spiritual terms, and we might also examine the text for political interpretations that can add nuance and depth. The spiritual success of Ammon and others removed both the head king and his son from their positions of power in Lamanite society.[6] The resulting vacuum created the political conditions for warfare. Scholars note that it was part of the Mesoamerican cult of war that a new king had to consolidate his legitimacy by winning in battle and sacrificing captives.[7]

The scramble for the kingship and the need for that new king to win a quick victory led directly to the city of Ammonihah. Mormon presented this as a just spiritual punishment for their wickedness against Alma and the members of the church. Yet, the account also includes “some from the borders of Noah” and “others” taken captive into the wilderness (Alma 16:3). Presumably, these were righteous members of Nephite society that didn’t deserve the same punishments as those in Ammonihah. Yet they were swept up in the Lamanite attack anyway. The account in Alma 16:8 said that the Nephites managed to retrieve the captives after a battle.

Alma 25 also recorded multiple battles (Alma 25:3) and the death of many Amulonites after their defeat in battle was presented by Mormon as the fulfillment as prophecy. But again, these battles weren’t bloodless, and meant that many Nephite soldiers died who presumably didn’t invite God’s wrath like the people of Ammonihah. Like the captives from the Land of Noah, these deaths could reasonably be considered innocent and needless because of the missionaries’ pacifistic refusal to fight preemptive war. Moreover, because they Nephites reacted to Lamanite aggression they likely out of position and without the element of surprise which made these battles tougher, and more bloody than they would be if the Nephites were prepared. For example, compared the desperate rush in Alma 2 to Moroni’s prepared ambush in Alma 43. The battles were in the same location, but Nephite preparation and surprise made the result far different. Just as the people of Zeniff likely learned, it was better and less bloody to fight a battle at a time and place of their choosing, then having to hastily form their own army (Alma 16:3), and then chase down or trap the Lamanites and recover innocent Nephite captives.

There is no promise that a preemptive strike to prevent later bloodshed would have been any better than attack on Ammonihah and the battles that resulted from missionary conversions. Yet Alma 47:2 says the Lamanites were afraid to mobilize against the Nephites because of their past defeats. The above consequences of missionary service that disrupted the Lamanite political realm combined with their trepidation in Alma 47:2 suggest Nephite strategists that argued for preemptive war could point to legitimate benefits like deterrence and credibly argue that lives would be saved.

It remains tough to justify preemption based on what could happen, yet destruction of Ammonihah, the captives of Noah, and resulting reactive battles and death of blameless Nephite soldiers make a convincing case study which shows the disasters that await a nation when preemptive warfare is automatically disqualified.[8] The spiritual benefits of Ammon’s missionary work are undeniable, yet even the most benign results benefitted from martial methods, and they contained bloody consequences which suggests that preemptive war cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author and providing ad free, high quality research takes time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or you can buy one of my books using the author link in the top left of the page.
 
*********
[1] Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, “Teaching about War in the Book of Mormon,” Mormon Matters Podcast, August 11th, 2016. (Accessed October 21st, 2106. http://www.mormonmatters.org/2016/08/11/341-teachings-about-war-in-the-book-of-mormon/ )
[2] [1] Joshua Madsen, “A Non Violent Reading of the Book of Mormon,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015.) 24.
[3] William Hamblin, Brent Merrill, “Swords in the Book of Mormon,” in Warfare in the Book of Mormon William Hamblin, Stephen Ricks eds, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS Press, 1991). http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1108&index=15
[4] Bruce Yerman, “Ammon and the Mesoamerican Custom of Smiting off Arms,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 8/1 (1999): 44-77, 78-79. http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/8/1/S00009-50cb975e67df08Yerman.pdf
[5] Grant Hardy, “Mormon as Editor,” in Rediscovering the Book of Mormon, Melvin Thorne and John Sorenson eds, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991,) 15-28.
[6] Jon Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: A Mesoamerican Book, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2013), 363-365.
[7] Brant Gardner, “The Power of Context: Why Geography Matters,” Book of Mormon Archeological Forum, 2004.
[8] Morgan Deane, Offensive Warfare in the Book of Mormon and a Defense of the Bush Doctrine,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 38.

Preemptive War in the Book of Mormon: Part II Omni 1 and Mosiah 9

This is the second part of a series. See part one, part two(a), part three, part four, part five, part six, part seven, part eight .

The very first instance of preemptive war occurs very shortly after the Nephites left the land of Nephi. They left in Omni 1:12, and by the end of the chapter they had already encountered “serious war and much bloodshed’ (Omni 1:24.) The most interesting verse for this study is Mosiah 9:1. Zeniff reported that he was sent as a spy that the Nephite armies might “come upon [the Lamanites] and destroy them.” This could be part of an ongoing war, but sounds more like a preemptive attack.  Zeniff’s desire to spare them in the latter half of the verse suggests the attack was already decided upon, and they were identifying the best way to execute the strike.  His account then already assumes that an army was gathered, equipped, trained, and an attack settled upon by leaders. Zeniff’s leadership of the scouting party, the account of his being learned in the language of the Nephites, and his later rescue by many friends and family, suggests he was an elite that may have taken part in the decision-making process. Besides the somewhat vague reference to serious war and bloodshed, there is no indication that this was a response to a series of attacks from Lamanites that required an offensive defensive strategy within a general defensive posture. This was simply a preemptive strike. The nature of this strike seemed so perfunctory to Zeniff, and Mormon who included Zeniff’s record, that there is no editorial comment condemning the launch of the attack. It is such an innocuous part of the story that it became part of the unspoken background of it.

His desire to abort the attack, his disagreement and subsequent fight with the Nephite leader becomes part an argument that places his righteous desire for peace against his “blood thirsty” and “austere” commander (Mosiah 9:2). Yet Zeniff quickly assured the reader that he was “over-zealous” (Mosiah 9:3), and perhaps unwise, in desiring to live peacefully next to the Lamanites. (His grandson quotes or seconds that idea in a speech to his then enslaved people [Mosiah 7:21].) Zeniff implied he was tricked by the “cunning” of the Lamanite King (Mosiah 9:10). Despite initially seeing the good in them, which made him want to abort the attack and resulted in blows over strategy, he foreshadowed the calamities of his decisions in verse 11 by citing rather typical ethnic stereotypes against the Lamanites and their desire to bring the people of the Zeniff into bondage (Mosiah 9:11.) His younger and more foolish self apparently had so much trust and so little cause to expect conflict that he didn’t build weapons or set guards (Mosiah 9:16, contrasted with Mosiah 10:1-2). He had to “invent” any manner of weapon (likely converted farming tools and hunting weapons) so his people could fight and only after the first battle did he make weapons and set guards. Eventually of course, the people of Limhi two generations later utterly failed to deliver themselves in three consecutive attacks (Mosiah 21:6, 7-8, 11-12), and ultimately needed divine intervention to escape their predicament.

All of this suggests a need to reassess both Zeniff’s description of the other Nephite commander as bloodthirsty and austere and the categorical dismissal of their attack. After all, Zeniff himself at least eventually came up with plenty of reasons why he was foolish, overzealous, and perhaps naïve, that we might consider he also repented of his decision to abort the attack on the Lamanites. This should have more weight because Zeniff was one of the few writers in the book to see the good in the Lamanites, but even he was quick to remind the reader of all his mistakes in judgement. Moreover, the colonists in subsequent generations were subjugated, and even believed that the Nephites had been exterminated (Mosiah 7:14). Arguably then, the other commander, who was initially called blood thirsty and austere, might have had a good argument that he was simply following a pre-approved and efficacious strategy to counter inevitable Lamanite aggression.

The Nephite leaders, Zeniff included, had plenty of reasons to believe the strategy had good merits. The failure to follow through with this attack led to all of the negative consequences above including defeat, subjugation, heavy taxation, failed counter attacks, and finally a need for divine rescue. Despite Zeniff opposing a “blood thirsty” leader the people of Limhi still had to fight. Having to fight anyway is bad enough, but because of their refusal to attack after Zeniff’s reconnoiter, they had to attack or try and break free of their slavery in much worse conditions. If Nephites were forced to fight and die anyway, it makes sense that it would have been more effective if they risked their lives when they had the advantage of a surprise attack and not the other way around (Mosiah 9:1 compared to v. 14). Zeniff’s regret over his actions and the desperate Nephite fights forced upon them, only in worse conditions after their aborted attack, combined with the lack of objection in the text suggests that this preemptive attack had a great deal of merit.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author and providing ad free, high quality research takes time and effort. To support more of this research please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of the books linked to above.