Patrick
Mason recently wrote an evocative piece for the Maxwell Institute as part
of the Mormon Theology Seminar. I was extremely interested because his topic of
political history was much closer to my area of study than the normal offerings
of (often obscure) philosophy.
Unfortunately, his interpretation left out key verses and twisted many
others that resulted in a heavily politicized interpretation of King Benjamin
who failed to live up to the modern political ideals of some.
Masons’ basic argument is that Benjamin’s speech was the
culmination of the Nephite state building started by Mosiah(1).
The Nephites arrived in the Land of Zarahemla
which featured different languages, belief systems, and political leaders.
Mason states that the integration and assumption of leadership under Mosiah(1)
became “heavy handed” under the rule of King Benjamin, his son (pg.6).
Mason blames Benjamin for the “serious war” (Omni 1:24) in
which the greedy Nephites, who already claimed Zarahemla as their land of
inheritance launched what morphed into an offensive war. According to Mason:
In the space of only about a generation, Nephites had
entered the land of Zarahemla as a minority, asserted their linguistic,
religious, and political dominance over the longtime inhabitants, and
eradicated the remainder of the native population that either refused to accept
their rule or which they deemed to be dangerously unassimilable. This pattern,
with variations, will be familiar to scholars of settler colonialism,
particularly as it played out in the modern history of the American West,
Canada, South Africa, and Australia (pg. 6.)
The problem, is that Mason makes similar mistakes to those
like John Sorenson, who has been accused of stretching parallels and restating
things in his own way to produces
correspondences.
There is little evidence of their being an internal war. Words of Mormon 1:12
says there were “somewhat contentions” among his own people. V. 13 then
transitions to external enemies, which is where the military conflict starts.
Moreover, that military conflict is explicitly labelled as a Lamanite offensive
that didn’t end until they were “driven out” of Zarahemla (v.14).
Mason seems to be inventing Nephite offensives. Its possible
the Nephites responded with tactically offensive maneuvers within a strategic
defensive like the campaign of Alma 43. This also resembles an argument I presented
at a conference hosted by Patrick Mason and Claremont.
There is an important difference, though, between meeting an aggressive enemy
invading your lands, and launching a strategic offensive on enemy lands. Mason
ignores that difference by at best, assuming there was a defensive counterattack
and mislabeling it, or at worst by inventing a Nephite offensive.
Nowhere in Mason’s summary of King Benjamin’s actions did he
acknowledge verse 14 which states that King Benjamin fought “in the strength of
the Lord” or verse 18 where he reigned “in righteousness.” Of course, it’s
possible that Mormon glossed over King Benjamin’s mistakes and we are getting
something closer to propaganda from the editor Mormon. But skipping by these
verses exhibits a tendency that many pacifist readings of the
Book of Mormon
must do,
in that they craft a “narrative” in the abstract only by ignoring specific
verses.
Given that Mason already invented
an offensive war, and ignored their refugee status (discussed below), I’m not
willing to make that leap. At best, these are crucial verses that make Mason’s
arguments hopelessly speculative.
Mason then goes on to argue that King Benjamin suppressed his
religious enemies (often with political undertones). Mason says these were
likely Mulekites that resented or refused to accept strange new Nephite
teachings. While the Mulekites were widely different than the Nephites at this
time, they shared a similar religious and ethnic heritage as the Nephites, and
thus likely weren’t as ethnically different as Mason contends. Mason is also
taking the most sinister interpretation of words like “sharpness” and “punished”
(Words of Mormon 1:17, 15).
While I agree there was some ethnic tension at this time, as
people like the Kingmen and the group led by Morianton continued to reject
Nephite leadership throughout the Book of Alma, I think Mason overstates his
case trying to make King Benjamin into some kind of Torquemada leading an
inquisition of Mulekite apostates. Mormon was much more likely referring to King
Benjamin the same way he described Alma’s statement of vigorous preaching. If
we accepted Mason’s analysis, we would conclude that Alma’s desire to “stir”, “pull
down,” “reclaim,” [and] “bear down” in his fight against pride and craftiness
were also heavy handed (Alma 4:19). Except we know that isn’t the case because
we have his speeches and actions. Unfortunately, Benjamin does not have the
same luxury and thus similar evocative verbs about his spiritual efforts are
transformed into “religious zeal” and “little tolerance” for such deviance (pg.
7).
Regarding the punishments, Mason expands that to include “criminalized,
silenced, suppressed, and punished” (pg. 7).
It is worth nothing, however, that Mason praised the sons of Mosiah(2),
(King Benjamin’s grandsons) yet they and Alma the Younger caused a great deal
of damage, including plotting to “destroy” the church (Mosiah 27:10, Alma
26:18)) with legal impunity. They may have had had immunity as the sons of
prominent elites, though they would be powerful leaders with the ability to topple
the dynasty, the church, and the ruling class. All of which suggests Nephite
leaders would have been more sensitive to their shenanigans and not less.
Their impudence makes me believe that King Benjamin wasn’t as liberal in criminal
punishments as Mason would have us believe.
Finally, we must consider why the Nephites left the land of
Nephi in the first place. It would be difficult to imagine the Nephites under
Mosiah(1) left the land of their inheritance unless they were forced. They were
not a representative faction sent by the Nephites in the Land of Nephi. Unlike
Hernando Cortez, they didn’t claim the land for their absolute monarchial
patrons. The narrative in Omni 1:12-13 suggested they were the few righteous
inhabitants fleeing like their ancestor Nephi had to flee Jerusalem and could
reasonably be called refugees. In today’s political discourse, refugee status
would engender heartfelt sympathy, especially those that generally eschew state
power and seek items like “ethnoracial” inclusiveness and economic justice like
Mason (pg.4). But the Nephites and King Benjamin are the subject of attacks
here, so their status as refugees is transformed into imperialists conquering a
new land.
Conclusion
Thus, a close reading of the text suggests a vastly different
narrative than the one offered by Mason.
Mosiah(1) and the Nephites were refugees who
forged a new, mutually beneficial, consensus with the original inhabitants
based on cooperation and possibly intermarriage.
Those refugees and their new allies faced serious assaults from the determined
and aggressive enemies that forced them to leave in the first place. They
defended themselves “in righteousness” (Words of Mormon 1:17) to establish
“peace in the land” (v.18).
King
Benjamin, like his predecessor Alma, tended to the church by rebuking
apostates, and managed both civil and spiritual concerns by criminal
prosecution of the worst offenders. The latitude afforded the apostate Sons of
Mosiah(2) and Alma the Younger suggest these criminal punishments were applied
rarely to only the worst offenders and treasonous. Possible intermarriage would
have acted as a further deterrent on widespread excessive punishments. That is
far different than imperialist Nephite forces dominating ethnic and linguistic others
into submission, and then oppressively assaulting dissidents, criminalizing
ethnic minorities, and invading their Lamanite enemies for little reason beyond
asserting their own political power as Mason asserts.
I’m a proponent of more critical readings of the
Book of
Mormon. I have no problem with scouring the texts to produce new and even
critical insights. I endorse that approach so much it was the methodology of my
second
book. But Mason here seems to be ignoring stronger readings, plainly listed
in the text for more speculative material based on wild reinterpretations to
support a politicized message.
Sadly, this seems to reinforce perceptions of the new
direction Maxwell Institute. The 1998 Maxwell Institute called King Benjamin’s
speech a “
treasure trove of
inspiration, wisdom, eloquence, and spiritual insight.” The 2020 Maxwell
Institute solicits, sponsors, and advertises work that provides some
theological window dressing on the speech, but mostly calls King Benjamin a
colonialist inquisitor and warmonger to promote their ideology.
Most ironically of all, the Maxwell Institute
posted this on social media as a spiritual study aid. But I don’t know many
members that will find this a spiritual bonanza.
Thanks for reading! I work as a freelance author and military historian. Producing ad free research for over a decade takes a great deal of time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books using the link in the top left. Thanks again for reading!
********
Posts
