Moroni's Extreme Aggression? Notes on Alma 46:30

 

I'm busy making final edits on my next book. As I make those edits I thought this is an interesting nugget you might enjoy reading. 

        When Moroni’s thoughts are summarized by Mormon those thoughts not only suggest his behavior was a preemptive military action, but it was on aggressive side of what just war theorists consider acceptable. Moroni reasoned in the text that Amalickiah would inspire the Lamanites to war in the future when they are stronger. Alma 46:30:

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

        The future tenses are highlighted. Moroni sought to stop Amalickiah from gaining more strength and attacking later so he justified attacking now. Capture and kill him now, before they get more strength and attack us later, is a classic motivation for instigating war, but is more concerned with the future than the present.[1] Micheal Walzer summarized the many theorists of preemptive war and the varying justifications for the practice by using a term called the anticipation spectrum. In that spectrum he suggested that the only just preemptive wars are concerned with the present alarm of an immediate attack such as a charging assailant with sword in hand, nuclear armed planes already on their way to targets, or planes full of terrorists on their way to the Twin Towers. Walzer argues that unjust preemptive wars are concerned with stopping a gathering threat (Sparta, Germany, or the Lamanites will be stronger in the future so Athens, Britain, or the Nephites must attack now), or punishment for past actions (this nation is so unjust, greedy, prideful, ambitious, and aggressively expansionist it is too dangerous not to attack.)[2]

        By this measure Moroni’s use of preemptive war is more expansive than most just war theorists concerned with the imminent threat, because Moroni focused on the future threat and not the present. This leaves most students of the Book of Mormon in a unique situation, especially for those that use the infection model and place restoration scriptures as always superseding non-LDS theorists. Because in this case Moroni and the Book of Mormon seem more aggressive and less justified than what many commonly assume, especially compared to just war theorists that moderate the practice of preemptive war. This additional analysis becomes a much-needed caution to those that fail to do what Brigham Young advised and find truth even among professed infidels. There is much more in my book about theory and practice, and Walzer’s description serves as an excellent summary of just war theories regarding preemptive war as I discuss those details. In short, his desire for seeking battle places him on the aggressive extreme of justified preemptive war and serves as a reminder of the immense benefit of studying the great thinkers on the topic.

*****
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or you can buy one of my books in the top left. At the very least, follow my blog or my author page on Amazon for updates on the book. 

---

[1] Graham Allan, “The Thucydides trap,” Foreign Policy, June 9^th, 2017,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ (Accessed, May 14^th, 2024.)

[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 81.

Fear and Hatred in Zarahemla

 

Nationalist Chinese WW2 Propaganda Poster 

    Kendal Anderson is a libertarian writer (I originally put thinker, but as you’ll see, I think that is too generous,) with a new blog called Book of Mormon Perspectives. I wasn’t expecting to find much, but I was curious about what he had to say and found an amazing series of poor arguments that turned out to be right in my wheelhouse. What follows is a brief review of his ideas and supporting evidence that shows how an author can use a string of faulty or vague statements to build an argument that appears compelling but falls apart upon cursory examination.

    The review begins in the section called “Fear and Hatred.” (That section plus the famous movie inspired the title of this post.) There is so much wrong is so little space my rebuttal goes mostly line by line, but I suggest you read a few paragraphs to get a gist of his argument and then read my breakdown.

    We don’t start out too bad. He starts by quoting Alma 48:1-2 and the use of towers by Lamanite leaders to disseminate anger inducing sermons that will eventually inspire the Lamanites to war. Those scriptures are important. Though propaganda is more easily disseminated in modern age so using a modern term without the distinction between ancient and modern isn’t the best foundation.  Moreover, as I was checking past writings about the use of modern concepts in an ancient book, I found a paragraph I wrote that is frighteningly like the argument Anderson is about to build:

He [builds his argument about propaganda] by quoting a modern writer [discussing] the use of modern mediums in a modern society.… He then advanced his conspiracy theories with an uncited quote from Ezra Benson [and] he admittedly ‘imagines’ what Amalickiah says. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like George W. Bush’s rationale for his foreign policy. 

    Using modern concepts and inventing quotes are tactics you will see Anderson commit as you read below. I don’t discuss it here, but Anderson also used a book from a close associate of Ezra Benson so my description of their playbook holds up well. All quotes are from his section on fear and hatred unless otherwise cited.

Group hate, based upon fear of a foreign enemy, can make murderers out of average citizens, who can be easily persuaded to support an unjust war when a ‘strong leader’ declares it.  

    Group hate can make people do those things, but the author mentions hatred as the only assumed reason for war. He ignores the long Christian tradition that war can be based in love. A long line of historic thinkers from Augustine all the way to the modern Catholic theologian Paul Ramsey talked about love and the latter used the story of the Good Samaritan as a justification for warfare that is directly opposed to hatred. Anderson also misquotes the term strong man and says strong leader. That may not seem like a big deal, but when a person is building an argument out of a house of cards it matters.  

We all saw this happen in 2003 when Bush declared an unconstitutional war on Iraq with no evidence of WMDs.

    There is no indication, primary source, or statement that shows hatred inspired the Iraq war. The United States was attacked on 9/11 and as a result they responded to Taliban that sponsored the terrorists, and Bush preemptively attacked a long-standing source of terror. People can debate the soundness of those reasons, especially in Iraq, but neither are necessarily derived from hatred. To support his contention Anderson needed to provide evidence.

    Also, it’s popular to complain that there was no declaration of war, but the authorization of force from congress was functionally the same. This ranks up there with “we’re a republic and not a democracy,” and “the civil war didn’t end at Appomattox” that are annoying, pettifogged facts people use to sound smart but don’t really mean anything. Finally, that congressional resolution which authorized the war listed many valid reasons beyond WMDs, though that was the one most focused on by the Bush administration. 

Even the supposed prophet of God, Gordon Hinckley, capitulated to government propaganda in a talk called War and Peace.   

    I highlighted the bold word and members of the church can assess if that is the proper way to speak about prophets. Propaganda is also a loaded term. I talk a great deal in my first book, and elsewhere, that many terms are used for their emotional value and not for their descriptive value. So, when I see an emotionally charged word it’s a clear signal that his argument is based upon emotion and not facts, which is supremely ironic considering the author’s main argument is that governments use fear inducing propaganda to inspire war. In my review of Anderson’ book I relied upon Richard Hofstader’s famous description of the Paranoid Style in American politics, and part of that style is becoming what you oppose. It shouldn’t surprise me that Anderson uses fear and hatred in building a case about how evil governments use fear and hatred.

    Moreover, he is on poor factual ground as well. My mentor when I was an undergraduate wrote a book about war time intelligence and his take, published shortly after the Iraq war, was that the administration presented the worst case, least likely scenario about WMDs, but that isn’t necessarily lying or propaganda.

[Hinckley] was wrong; the intelligence was faulty. He should've quoted the Book of Mormon and spoke out against unjust war.

    I again bolded his sustainment of the prophet. I would like to know which verses Hinckley should have quoted. In addition to Anderson being vague, President Hinckley did quote Alma 43:45-47 along with numerous other scriptures. I suspect Anderson wanted something more to his liking, but he should have been more specific.  As you’ll read in my review of a recent book on Mormon pacifism, there are verses in restoration scripture and the Bible that can be used to support both just war and nonviolence. (Mormon thought is so preliminary on the matter that many discuss and argue about the topic as though they alone have the answers or they’re the first ones to notice the tension between peace and war.) A vague denunciation of the prophet for not quoting “the Book of Mormon” is useless.

The Nephites were nationalists just like we Americans are. It is easy to hate the idea of a foreign people that you've been taught is an enemy.

    This is a broad statement that needs support, especially because there are verses that directly contradict this idea. Alma 48:23 says the Nephites were sorry to take up arms and send so many unprepared souls to meet God. That is the opposite of hatred and suggests a loving heart that wanted to avoid war. This is before we consider Ammon, the former crown prince who was so concerned about Lamanite salvation he evangelized to them. If this isn’t an ethno-centric exaggeration, it was the Lamanites that taught their children to hate (Mosiah 10:17). As I described at the beginning of this piece, nationalism, like large scale propaganda, is a modern concept. Thus, the author must provide specifics to show a premodern form of nationalistic propaganda that equals modern America.

This is why very few Americans care when drones kill foreign women and children; they are part of the abstraction, the collateral damage.

    Again, this follows the playbook I described at the top. Anderson provides pure fiction about the average American. If he relied on facts and not creative fiction to support his arguments he would know that Americans generally support drone strikes against terror targets, but that support drops a great deal if it causes civilian casualties. While any death is tragic, there is a robust body of thought that governs the morality of double effect, and this body of thought guides policy makers. The argument that Americans hate the world so much that they condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians is a lazy and wrong argument.

[Quoting Alma 25:26] 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.

    This is a very important verse but not for the reasons the author thinks. First, let us consider that he ignores the Christ like love that Ammon had for the Lamanites which inspired his mission, but then he selectively uses Ammon’s words when they seem to support his theory that Nephites were hateful. Second, Ammon’s mission inspired a series of events that caused the death of innocent Nephites. A short summary of that post includes how Ammon’s mission was successful because of his martial skill. It caused the death of many of his converts, resulted in the Lamanite attack on Ammonihah (which was seen as God’s punishment of that wicked city), caused innocent civilians around Noah to be captured. And required a massive battle to recover them. That battle resulted in God’s punishment of the Amalekites, but also resulted in the death of many innocent soldiers.  All of which supports the idea that maybe Nephite policy makers that wanted to “take up arms…and destroy them” had some merit to their preemptive war.

Kill the abstraction before they kill us. We are better than them; they are savages and terrorists. We should just nuke the entire Middle East. They are little more than animals. They won't stop until we are all dead so we should kill them first. Don't let them practice their religion here. Every Mosque is a terrorist cell. Throw them all in Guantanamo and torture em. Go Murica!

    This is in quotes, but I’ve never heard any person or policy maker say anything remotely like this. It figures that the only direct quote from this author is a fictional straw man to show the platonic ideal of a fearful and hateful American. Once again it matches my description of libertarian arguments at the beginning of this piece. The author is vague or silent when it comes to citing scriptures and data to support his claims but suddenly verbose when inventing fictional American hatred.

The human mind is more powerful than the world's most advanced quantum computer. There are no limits to the amount of knowledge and data it can hold. Our potential to learn new concepts and store them in our brains is limitless.

    This is the merciful and massively ironic conclusion to his piece. The human mind is amazing, but significantly less so when filled with ideological blinders and lazy thinking.

    The author’s piece isn’t as revelatory as he would like us to believe. His piece shows how conspiracy theorists and posers can sound convincing without knowing or showing much. They take a bunch of vaguely familiar ideas without supporting evidence, mash them up, start stacking, and after a paragraph or two the argument starts to sound authoritative. But that’s only an illusion. When you take the time to examine each idea, as I did above, and then provide evidence for those rejoinders, the reader finds that strong man was incorrectly transposed as strong leader, the hatred of Americans and Nephites were invented, basic ideas of just war like the loving heart and doctrine of double effect ignored, the Iraq war was authorized by congress, President Hinckley did quote clear verses in the Book of Mormon that support just war, the author’s scriptural support is nonexistent or selectively used and so on. Truly, this author has an appearance of scholarship, but without the logical command of details to have the power of scholarship (2 Tim 3:5).

I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or you can buy one of my books using the link in the top left.) 

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 )

The Day They Came

Cross posted at Wheat and Tares. 

The villagers were enjoying the last coolness of the night before the sun rose. A gentle breeze rolled off of the ocean from their semi-permanent shelters. A few women were already beginning to grind nuts and millet to make the morning meal.  The men were stirring, ready to hunt wild pigs and speer fish to supplement the fruits and grain.

As the sun rose the first hint of danger was the barking and squawking of small animals in the village. On top of the hill, the birds suddenly flew from the tree tops and thick brush. The rustling of fleeing animals from the underbrush got louder. Once the sun has crested the hill it outlined the approaching soldiers. Their head gear added to the length of their shadows, and the sun glistened off of their new heavier armor made of glass, bone, and pieces of metal. Their swords were already in hand, and they had started to pick up the pace in their balanced ranks.

The cry went up from one of the women and the village became a scene of commotion. The women screamed for their children, or just screamed in terror. The old men stirred more slowly, sad at what they knew was coming to their village. They had warned the younger elders of the perfidy of their neighbors, just as their grandfathers had warned them.  They even received warnings from fleeing political leaders. He told disturbing tales of armies that were led by a young, angry, firebrand who it was said, often discussed his desire to seize more land and used the army to intimidate disagreeing opponents. It was said he spent small fortunes on arming them with new and heavier armor, he desired the extermination of everybody who opposed him, and he sent that army to pull down and level his opponents and seize their wealth.  And the intimidating soldiers, with heavier armor stood right in rank and file as evidence in front of the terrified villagers.

The young men in the village were moving the fastest. The soldiers marched forward with a steady crunch, swhoosh, chrunch, swhoosh and by the time the soldiers had marched to the bottom of the hill they faced a small line of young men and experienced warriors armed with swords, curved swords, and slings made out of bone, jade, obsidian. The fleet and elite warriors of the village managed to put on hide armor and thick, padded cloth armor.

The captains yelled to maintain ranks, and the chief captain yelled the order to attack, and the soldiers rushed forward with a unifying cry! The skirmish was over quickly, as the heavier and ornate armor of the army deflected the blows of the warriors. Only one of them every now and again was even wounded, while the lightly armored and surprised warriors were quickly killed and overwhelmed. The few armed with slings managed to wound a few soldiers, mainly in the legs, but it was a one- sided conflict. The defeated villagers grabbed whatever they could and rush into out the other side of the village. They fled in small groups with bits of necklace, pottery, food, and clothing.

Each family in the village had at least one small boat for fishing in the sea, and it proved useful in crossing the nearby river. The softly rushing water flowing through reeds, and the croak of frogs contrasted with the smell of smoke, screams of the wounded and dying, the mourning for the fallen and the crackling fire that soldiers had started. Those who fought the fear and the heart break to look behind them saw the rising smoke. They would never come back to what they considered their home. They faced an uncertain future among loosely related political and ethnic groups around the capital and its environs, the surviving men resolved to get revenge for their eviction and looked forward to telling their stories of woe to whoever would hear it. Maybe they would be allowed to speak from the towers…

*****

English colonists attacking the Pequot in 1636. I know this brings up imperialism and other sensitive matters, but that was not an exclusive Western, white, and modern sin. I think an argument can be made that the Nephites were imperialists as well. 

In the village the captains started organizing the consolidation. They focused their ire on a large wooden tower. It was recently built in the center of the village and the army didn’t need to guess what lies it had testified to. They just barely missed capturing that traitor and he had found a friendly audience among this group. They torched the tower immediately.  The semi-permanent structures were torn apart by soldiers. The new space would be the location of a governor’s headquarters, the first homes for new settlers, and store houses for the expected farming and hunting.  Most importantly, they would have space for a barracks. The wood could be used for new palisades on top of the planned berms around the city. The remaining individuals not quick or healthy enough to flee were held captive. The soldiers were under strict orders not to rape them, but some of them certainly leered enough to make the women and girls uncomfortable. Their last king had outlawed slavery years earlier, but the soldiers had plenty of work to do before the coming settlers, they wanted some reward and could use the cheap labor provided by the captured individuals. The captured would work in the houses and fields of the new elites and be grateful for the steady employment and lifestyle far above their current savage condition.

The chief captain sheathed his sword and took a deep breath. He examined the bustling activity and felt a surge of pride. He had sworn and oath to protect his people and continue to do so. The berm and palisade along the river would prove a solid defense against the depredations of these savages. They’ve wasted this land, and laid waste to his land for far too long. They’ve been even more restless since that traitor escaped, and he instinctively took another satisfying breath of the burning wood from the tower.  He point north and south along the river and directed the new patrols to hunt down and capture stragglers. He asked his assistant to bring his writing equipment and erect a small table. He needed to report to the Chief Governor, and make sure the new settlers arrived in orderly fashion. The security of the realm depended making this region productive…

***** 

This is a dramatic recreation of the events in Alma chapter 50 and includes elements from the war chapters in general. That chapter describes Moroni’s actions to fortify the land and expel Lamanite settlers in rather laudatory terms. Verses 18-21 actually described a Nephite golden age that happened right after these actions. As Grant Hardy described, in literary accounts the text often tries to distract a person. I thought it was interesting that the account moved away from Moroni’s actions to instead discuss how happy the Nephite’s were. But I thought a more critical look at his actions suggest this might have had negative consequences, such as a flow of angry refugees, and a confirmation of the insidious stories that Amalickiah was telling. I doubt the process of securing the wilderness areas was pleasant. They didn’t get an eviction notice with 30 days to prepare; it was likely an unpleasant and violent experience for those that experienced it. I also added some reasonable embellishments based on my knowledge of military history, the history and geography of the region, and human nature. I hope you enjoy it, I might add this to the introduction of my next book, and if I was really ambitious perhaps I would write a Game of Thrones style epic fantasy based on the war chapters. What details did you notice from the scriptures? What details do you think I should have added? Thanks for reading! 

[I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider making a donation using one of the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page.] 

Approaching the War Chapters: Part One, Causes of the War

A great deal has been written about the war chapters. This includes spiritual principles, and a sequential listing and analysis of events within the narrative.  I think many of these accounts are good but sometimes miss the forest from the trees. What follows would be a few of ways I approach the study of the war chapters as whole.  This study uses specific details, but doesn’t get bogged down in a meticulous campaign narrative. And it starts to see how the entire block signifies larger issues and connects to what happened before and after it. 

This examination assumes that readers are well aware of spiritual insights within the text. It takes an explicitly academic approach to add vital depth, nuance, and context to the account that we read.  Reading the Book of Mormon for the first time after graduate school was like changing from a black and white television to color and I hope to share those insights with you.

To illustrate this principle I might look at the chapter of my new book (yes that still exists) called “TheUndissected War.” It looks at the major reforms of Moroni and asks how they might have changed Nephite society and led to a rapacious government, high taxes, and insurgency.  This is an example of how one set of chapters tends to be studied in a vacuum, without asking how it might look as a cohesive whole, and as something that is connected to what happened before and after it. [1]

To start the study here I would look at three models for looking at why the war started.  The first is the anthropological model for warfare.  John Sorenson first suggested this model and it’s rather popular for, naturally, anthropologists.[2]  It posits that increasing population leads to intense competition for resources within and among societies.  They forcefully compete for resources like farm land, trade routes, or to avoid famine.  This model tends to downplay personal factors like great people (see below), in favor of inexorable social factors.  To use a modern example, these would be people who argue that the long term trends of the Soviet Union would have led to its eventual collapse because they were failing to compete internationally and ruinous domestic policies. 

Examples of this model would include that many verses that refer to Nephite population growth (Alma 50:18; 62:48, 51), their increased wealth (Alma 4:6, 8; 45:24; 62:49), the Lamanite desire to plunder (Alma 17:14), and the expanding settlements (Alma 49: 3; 50:13-15; 63:4).  These events point towards an increasing population, expanded wealth, and the competition among the Nephites and Lamanites for it. A more detailed example is that of the Zoramites. I discuss this in my first book, how the Zoramite elites wanted to flaunt their wealth and increased status within society (Alma 31:28.) But this clashed with the egalitarian nature of Nephite kingship (Alma 31: 4, 19, 24.) This contrasted a great deal with King Benjamin who emphasized how he farmed with his own hands and the humility of serving one another (Mosiah 2:14, 26.)This compares with the Mesoamerican system that emphasized wealth and equated it with power during this period.[3]

The second model is based on interstate competition.  Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian war is the classic tale of interstate rivalries. After leading the Greeks to victory Athens and Sparta split and started to compete for leadership of Greece.  Athens started in the much more dominant positions. But the Spartans were powerful as well and they continued to vie for influence in Greece. This competition for leadership in the political sphere led to armed competition as Athens tried to maintain its preeminent status and deny Sparta any more strength. 

The modern example for this would be the rise of Germany before World War I. Britain had ruled the waves over an empire where the sun never set. But Germany began a rapid buildup, repeatedly created international crisis through the belligerent use of force, and expanded their navy.  This growing threat created things like the alliance system and strict mobilization tables that set up what Henry Kissinger called a doomsday machine.[4]  Henry Kissinger would say that the British sphere of influence was being threatened by the expanding German sphere which created conflict. 

The evidence in the Book of Mormon is somewhat similar to the anthropological factors, but would look more at politically inspired events.  The shift of the Zoramites into the Lamanite sphere of influence (Alma 31:4; 43:4), the shift of the Anti Nephi Lehis into the Nephite sphere of influence (Alma 27:22-23), the expansion of the Nephites into the wilderness after expelling the Lamanites, the quick strike at Ammonihah (a city that only tacitly acknowledge Nephite rule, Alma 49: 6) in order to bolster Lamanite claims to Kingship (keep in mind that was the first city they attacked several times) point to the geo political factors of expanding and contracting spheres that cause conflict.  This happens in particular during times of rapid growth or decay of one power against another. (Think of the common phrase: power abhors a vacuum.) 

The third model is the great person concept of history. In classical history this would be closely related to people like Caesar and Alexander the Great who, through force of will, marched across the world, won many important victories, changed governments, and altered the thousand year history of their people respectively through Hellenization or ending the Roman Republic.  To use the modern example, in contrast to the argument that the Soviet Union would inevitably collapse under the weight of communism and their military adventures, the great person model stressed people like Ronald Reagan, John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher and Gorbachev. They collectively change their countries through their force of will and policies such as the Star Wars initiative, Perestroika and Glasnost, and the Solidarity Movement.

This model is fairly obvious to see within the Book of Mormon.  Moroni and dissenters like Amalickiah dominate the text. The latter’s rebellion instigated the long conflict. He erected tours to inspire the people to war (Alma 48:1) and overcome significant resistance to implement his plan (Alma 47:2.)  Moroni had to pull down the pride and nobility of many within his own society as well (Alma 51:15-21). And the text explicitly states how arch dissenters placed fellow dissidents in leadership due to their animosity towards the Nephites (Alma 43:6-7).  

This post presented several models to help readers better understand the war chapters and the causes of war within the text. The anthropological model emphasizes the competition for scarce resources among different groups, and the conflict in how to consume and display wealth within society.  In spiritual terms it helps readers understand the natural man and the tendency towards satisfying wants in dangerous and violent ways.  The competition model can help readers understand the swirling eddies are local and international politics, the way that states can be sucked into war, and the dangers or even possible benefits of interstate competition.  And the great person dynamic takes out rather large accounts involving thousands of people and cataclysmic battles to offer respective inspiring tales about the power a strong righteous person can make (Alma 48:17), or a cautionary tale of the influence of one bad man (Alma 46:9.)

The next section will examine more useful models and ideas concerning Nephite conduct within the war.  Among other things it includes a brief summary of the Nephite experience in battle, the home front model, and use of selected military theorists to act as judges of Moroni’s strategy. (If you don't like to chase links, you can find the third section here.) 

[Thank you kindly for reading. If you find value in this work please consider subscribing or making a lump sum donation using the buttons at the bottom of the page. The more you support this research the more I can provide it. Thank you!] 

---

[1] History is sometimes maligned as insufficiently grand to study the Book of Mormon. But I can’t think of anything more powerful, not even esoteric philosophy, that compares to a sound understanding of multifaceted causes and effects of complex events like the most dense and detailed narrative within the Book of Mormon.   

[2] In a more detailed and formal paper I would provide a source. I would also summarize his ideas more extensively and offer a judicious assessment. But these are rather detailed notes and not a formal paper so I haven’t done that yet. 

[3] Chapter 3, “They Fought on Both Hands with Exceeding Fury,” in Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon (Ebookit Press, 2014).

[4]  Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995.) 

Scapegoating Amalickiah

This is a comment I made over at the blog Millennial Star. Frequent readers of the blog will likely know these ideas already, since they are from my new book. 

This is interesting concept. I don't have too much to add on the atonement aspect of scapegoating. I might ask about if we can see the modern understanding of scapegoating in the BoM. In what ways do people we traditionally see as villains might have legitimate complaints or exculpating factors?  John Welch did some of this in Legal Cases in the BoM.  He looked at the incident of Nehor, and found that his conviction wasn't for murder likely because there wasn't enough evidence of premeditation. There is also some evidence that Gideon was wearing armor and that he escalated the argument by threatening him with church discipline.   He goes on to describe how difficult political factors forced Alma into a difficult decision and innovative decisions to execute him for enforcing priest craft with the sword (Alma 1:12). 

In my new book, Evil Gangs and Starving Widows: Reassessing the Book of Mormon, I find several similar examples. For example, if you compare Moroni's actions with that in the Amlicite rebellion, you see that Moroni was far more proactive, and some might even say militant in trying to stamp out the rebellion. This is understandable considering the events in Alma 1-4, but it had its own disastrous consequences.  Instead of a simple vote, Moroni and his men rushed forth with their armor to influence the voice of the people. I suggest this had militant overtones that we often miss. (Though people defying the government in Oregon don't seem to miss it.)  After Amalickiah was expelled, Moroni seized a great deal of Lamanite land during a time of peace. We can tell from Alma 47 that the Amalickiah was very smooth and likely made a great case for why the Nephites were dangerous.  I'm sure the Nephites seizing land in Alma 50 and expelling the Lamanite settlers only strengthened the arguments that Amalickiah had been making to the king and the people.  See, they're coming for you. 

There are others items I could point to, but both of these items suggest its possible that Moroni's militant and preemptive actions helped precipitate the war and strengthened Amalickiah's arguments.  This is a somewhat controversial reading of the text that goes against what is popularly assumed. Yet if we are looking for scapegoats, mining the text for subtle clues, and accounting for the predisposition of the editor we find that Amalikiah might be one. Of course this doesn't excuse his evil machinations described in Alma 47. Yet Helaman’s servant stabbed an assassin after nighttime spying, and Nephi exposed another one in Helaman 2:6 and 9:6. Leaders in Nephite lands 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)! This is in addition to Moroni's preemptive war and indefinite detention of prisoners (Alma 51:19; Alma 62:4). The Nephites weren't strangers to cunning or militant actions with dubious morality.  Amalickiah is scapegoated as the villain even though we can see or infer where Moroni's actions helped lead to war.  

Thanks for letting me talk about scapegoats! Good post.  [Thank you for reading. If you found value in this post please consider subscribing for three dollars a month or making a small lump sum donation using the bottoms at the bottom of the page.] 

Rethinking the Book of Mormon

[I've included the potential book blurb for my second volume, and a preliminary table of contents. The manuscript is submitted to the publisher, and I look forward to hearing back from them. I hope you're as excited as I am!] 

Believers in the Book of Mormon contend it is an account of real people that existed in history. From Joseph Smith’s plural marriage to Brigham Young’s statements on race, as we study the complexity of history we develop a deeper appreciation for struggling leaders moving, sometimes imperfectly, through a tragic and fallen world. Rethinking the Book of Mormon is the first book of its kind to develop a similarly complex history within ancient scripture. Extensive historical examples, including the campaigns of the Byzantine general Belisarius, "evil gangs" of Samurai, and purposeful manipulation of records by Chinese dynastic historians, combine with detailed analysis of subtle clues in the text to provide additional insight into the militarization of the Nephites by their spiritual leaders, the deadly machinations even righteous rulers needed to gain and keep political power, and the reliability of reported armies sizes as judged by the military participation ratio. Filled with unique insights, such as the ironic use of peace rhetoric by Amalickiah that led to a great war, the velvet glove rhetoric of Giddianhi that suggests he was more than a toothless highway robber and had some legitimate complaints, and Moroni’s innovative and winning tactics leading to rapacious taxation and insurgency, Rethinking the Book of Mormon is a revolutionary interpretation that offers a complex understanding and reinterpretation of both heroes and villains in the text; which promises to enrich our understanding of the vibrant historical narrative within the Book of Mormon.  

1. Introduction

2. Gideon's Legacy: The Spiritual Foundation and Militarization of the Nephites

3. The Vandal Wars, Evil Gangs, and the Fall of Chang'an: Three Untold Stories in the Book of Mormon

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

5. Undissected Victory: The Consequences of the Great War

6. Plundering the Narrative: Giddianhi's Letter in 3rd Nephi 3:2-10

7. Myriads, Centurions, and a Nephite Ten Thousand

8. Complexity, Political Maneuvers, and Contradiction: The Book of Mormon Rethought  

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.

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

[Ryan Tanner is a student at UNC Chapel Hill pursuing a graduate degree in Physics.  This is the first part of a guest post partially inspired by my previous post about Amalickiah's Coup]

 

I have great respect for Mormon and for his great life's work, even if at times I wish he had included just a little more detail here and there, but I must recognize the already difficult task he had of compiling 1000 years of history into a coherent story with a central religious message. For the rest we must fill in the gaps with the best of our understanding. In that vein I offer these ideas as a way of understanding the Nephite-Lamanite wars in a different light so that we might consider the historical complexity that underlies the history of Mormon's Book.

Previously Morgan Deane has addressed the arguments that Amalickiah might have used to work his way into a position to become king of the Lamanites. It is in that context that we must consider the conditions among the Lamanites that made his rise to power, and the subsequent wars, not only a possibility but also something that must have seemed rational to all those involved. One general rule that I always try to apply when considering the motivations of others is that people, at least in the moment of their decisions, try to act in a way that seems rational to them. Thus while we may look at Mormon's account of Amalickiah's rise to power and wonder why the Lamanites were so easily taken in, if we were to know the full social, political and economic conditions at the time we may not be so quick to think the Lamanites were easily duped by a scheming Amalickiah.

It is easy for us to slip into an opinion that the Lamanites were a monolithic group who acted mindlessly, violently and vengefully to attack the peace loving Nephites without cause. But to do that would ignore the complexity that we find everywhere throughout history. Rarely (as in never) are large groups of people perfectly unified in a thought and common cause without a large measure of complexity behind their apparent unity. This is to say that political maneuverings do not stop just because a nation is at war, and in many cases the wars are a direct result of the political maneuverings.

To understand the complex landscape of the Lamanite people that Amalickiah entered into when he fled the land of Zarahemla we must go back several years and consider the mission of the sons of Mosiah to the Lamanites. Interestingly enough, their mission provides our best glimpse into the Lamanite political structure in addition to being the impetus that most likely prompted the Nephite-Lamanite wars recorded in the Book of Alma. Even though I am using the mission to the Lamanites as the starting point, in reality we are arriving in the middle of the story in the complex interaction of the Nephites, the Lamanites, and everyone else that Mormon refers to as Lamanites, despite not being descended from Lehi, Ishmael, Mulek or anyone else that came from Jerusalem.

The key date to remember is the year 72 BC, which is the year Amalickiah arrived in the land of Nephi. It is very important to pay attention to the dates since sometimes it is easy to lose sight of how interconnected certain events are when they are separated by several chapters in the Book of Alma. For example, Amalickiah arrives in the land of Nephi in chapter 47 while the destruction of the people of Ammonihah happens in chapter 16, but that only happened in 81 BC, nine years before Amalickiah arrived in Nephi. So sometimes we forget that events that are separated textually are very interconnected and directly related to each other.

So let us consider how the mission to the Lamanites, the destruction of the people of Ammonihah, and the flight of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis made it possible for Amalickiah to become king of the Lamanites.

The sons of Mosiah left the land of Zarahemla in about 91 BC, which is only 19 years before Amalickiah arrives in Nephi. When Ammon arrived at the land of Ishmael, which was ruled by king Lamoni, he unwittingly entered into a rather sticky political situation. As pointed out by Brant Gardner in a paper presented in 2004, the situation that Ammon and Lamoni found themselves in was more complex than we typically think of it.

"The king decides to place Ammon in a position where this condition of being outside the city’s political intrigues might be advantageous: He sends him to water the flocks at Sebus. The dumb thieves who don’t get much from their raids are actually getting everything they want. Key to understanding the story is that whatever ruse was employed to allow the fiction that they were robbers, the reality was that they were well-known to the servants and to the king. They were members of the rival lineage who were attempting to alter the balance of power. By scattering the king’s flocks they were embarrassing the king and therefore diminishing his appearance of total control. Because the rival lineage was sufficiently powerful, the king could not move against them directly without creating civil war. Therefore, the king could not send armed guards. If he killed the members of the competing lineage it would break whatever illusion of cooperation there was and instigate civil disorder. The guards cannot defend themselves for the same reason that the king could not send troops."

This story gives us an insight into the positions of power in Lamanite royalty. What we see here is that king Lamoni was in a situation where he might lose his kingship. His position was not necessarily secure and depended on how well he was able to drive away threats and defend his own land. There were also rival systems of power, or families, that were constantly vying for influence and power. For the king to fail to maintain his influence and power would most likely result in civil war. This insight will be important when we consider Amalickiah.

Later, we don't know how much later (months or maybe even a year), Ammon and Lamoni meet up with Lamoni's father. There are three things in this exchange that come up that give us insight into the power structures among the Lamanites. In the first place Lamoni offers to go with Ammon to Middoni, which was ruled by king Antiomno, because he thinks that he can help get Ammon's brethren out of prison due to the fact that Antiomno is a "friend" (Alma 20:4). This indicates that the king of Middoni is not a brother or even family member of Lamoni. When Ammon and Lamoni meet and confront Lamoni's father, Lamoni's father grants that Lamoni may rule the land of Ishmael without interference and that Ammon's brethren "may be cast out of prison" (Alma 20:26-27).  This indicates that both Lamoni and Antiomno were only semi-autonomous kings in their kingdoms and that both of them owed fealty to Lamoni's father. It also indicates that while Lamoni's father could maintain his hold on some cities by appointing his son(s) as kings of those cities, in other cities he relied on non-family members, or family members by marriage, to maintain control.

Upon his conversion Lamoni's father proclaims that Ammon and his brethren are to be given free access "throughout all the land" (Alma 23:1-3). The phrase "all the land" apparently applied to at least seven cities that we assume were directly under the control of Lamoni's father (the cities are listed in Alma 23:9-12). Mormon also states that Lamoni's father "and all his household" were converted, which would indicate that the conversions happened along familial and social lines. Based on our prior insights we can assume that the conversions spread to the other cities under the control of the king through family lines, and other lines of influence and power. Just as Lamoni was a king over one of the seven cities, Lamoni's brother, whose post conversion name is Anti-Nephi-Lehi, may have also been the king in one of the seven cities and helped the conversion of people in positions of influence and power.

We cannot assume that everyone in the seven cities listed were converted since there would be those who for political or economic reasons would not wish to associate with the political structure controlled by Lamoni's father. Plus we must consider the presence of the Amalekites (possibly the Amlicites from Alma chapters 2 and 3?) and Amulonites who by this time were exerting considerable force in Lamanite society. These two groups were the ones who led the attacks on the newly named Anti-Nephi-Lehis, and as we read in chapter 24 the Amalekites waited until the king, Lamoni's father, had died before they began their attacks (v. 4). Thus these attacks would have been the first major challenge to the power and influence of the new king, Anti-Nephi-Lehi.

Even if the new king had not converted he may have had to face these challenges anyway. The seven allied cities, and possibly more, were under the direct control of Lamoni's father and the new king, Anti-Nephi-Lehi, would have had to exert his influence over these cities to maintain control. There were most certainly some of the subject kings who were willing to try to toss off the yoke that had been imposed on them by Lamoni's father. This challenge would have been expedited by the fact that the king's recent conversion would have signaled an alliance with the Nephites (as noted in Alma 23:18), an alliance which some of the kings in the seven cities would not have been too keen on making for political, cultural, historical, linguistic, or economic reasons.

We do not know when the attacks began, but it must have been shortly before the Lamanite armies, led by the Amalekites and Amulonites, attacked and destroyed the city of Ammonihah, a Nephite allied city, in 81 BC. The result of the attack on Ammonihah destroyed the influence of the Amulonites (see Alma 25:7-9), but the influence of the Amalekites continued unabated. We also learn that the Lamanites who were converted by their experience in that brief war "came over to dwell in the land of Ishmael and the land of Nephi" (Alma 25:13). What we see here is an indication that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were consolidating into those two cities and lands, most likely for safety. This may also indicate that the sphere of influence of the new king was greatly diminished from that maintained by his father. That is, he may have lost the allegiance of five (and possibly more) cities.

After four years, Ammon, Lamoni and Anti-Nephi-Lehi realized that their situation was very precarious and organized their people and left the land of Nephi and Ishmael. When the people of Ammon left there must have been a general power vacuum in Lamanite society since the old king (Lamoni's father) and new king (Lamoni's brother) and all their relatives/allies left. The new power base that took over when they left must have been concerned about Lamoni and his brother returning since they sent an army to follow them and try to kill them (Alma 28:1-2), but were defeated by the Nephites. All this happened or finished up in 77 or 76 BC, just a few years before Amalickiah arrived.

The power vacuum that remained must have been tremendous. The alliance of seven, or more, cities that had been maintained by Lamoni's father, which had been breaking down since before his death, was thrown into disarray. The traditional power base, or those that remained, in the city of Nephi must have been threatened on all sides. The new power base would have been moving in, but due to recent defeats the Amalekites would still be powerful, but not enough to seize control. Those who wished to ensure that the Anti-Nephi-Lehis would never return had lost significant influence and power due to their military defeats. So who was in control in the land of Nephi, and in the six other cities, may have been an open question.

This brings us to four years before Amalickiah arrives in Nephi. The Lamanite alliance is weak and ready to break. There is no clear king, the Amulonites, and all their influence, had just been driven from the land, and the Amalekites were weakened but not defeated and still influential.

It is in this context that in 74 BC the Zoramites entered into an alliance with the Lamanites and a new Lamanite leader named Zerahemnah. If Zerahemnah was king then he would have been still consolidating his power since he had only been king for a maximum of three years. But if we reread Alma chapters 43 and 44 carefully we see that it never actually says that Zerahemnah was the king of the Lamanites. He did rely on the Amalekites and the Zoramites to form his power base so we can infer that he may not have been king over all the Lamanites. That is, the question of who was king over all the Lamanites (the seven cities) may not have been a settled question three years after the people of Ammon left.

So Zerahemnah may have been one of the contenders to be king of the Lamanites, with the backing of the Amalekites and the Zoramites. There is no word on how many Lamanite cities supported him so we cannot know how many of the seven cities he controlled, if any. I think we can assume that he did not control the city of Nephi because if he did then he most likely would have been referred to as king of the Lamanites, but Mormon does not refer to him as the king. Zerahemnah was never heard of again after being defeated spectacularly by Moroni so I don't think he lasted very long as king, if he was a king. At any rate his defeat ended his chance at controlling the seven allied Lamanite cities.

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.)