America Has Lost the War with Iran! A Case Study in Bad Analysis

 

        Every crisis produces a bevy of speculative analysis that is often untethered from facts on the ground and good reasoning.

        The popular claims from “Astrado” at LDS Freedom forum provide an excellent example. He claimed the United States and Israel are on the verge of running out of defensive missiles, Iran is unleashing thousands more with escalating capability, the Strait of Hormuz is closed, information is being censored, and unless there’s a ceasefire within days, we face total collapse—military defeat, economic ruin, or nuclear war.

        That sounds incredible dramatic. Material like this is very popular, often repeated, the center of attention, and it’s also wrong.

        The author started his click bait fear mongering with only partially true points about missiles. “They’ve fired thousands, they have tens of thousands more, therefore we’re about to be overwhelmed.” Yet that’s an example of straight line projections, one of the most common mistakes. When I was in grade school back in the 80s, my teachers warned that Japan and Germany had strong economies that would quickly overtake us. But both countries stagnated and struggled since then, with Japan experiencing “lost decades.” In the 90s I remember Time’s Magazine showing pictures of a Red China and warning of their ascendence. But among other factors, they had a real estate bubble and population collapse that suggest they won’t. (Note how Japan’s lost decades also started with a real estate bubble.) And every politician assumes the good times will always continue and they spend money instead of saving for disaster.

        Additionally, you might add a dose of common sense to the straight-line problem. Early in conflicts, you often see spikes in activity. Generally, a country doesn’t get stronger as a war continues, so they send large salvos to probe defenses, saturate systems, or create psychological shock. (As you’ll see below, Iran also had a use or it or lose it incentive.) Treating those spikes as a sustainable baseline is how you end up predicting collapse that never comes.

        More importantly, it ignores how missile capabilities can be degraded. While defending against launched missiles, the U.S. and Israel aggressively targeted the systems that launch them. Launchers, stockpiles, factories, and command-and-control nodes are all part of the battlefield. The US doesn’t have to worry about dwindling stockpiles of counter missiles when they actively and dramatically reduced Iran’s ability to launch them.

        There’s a historical analogy here. Alexander the Great didn’t defeat the Persian fleet in a decisive naval battle. He marched along the coast and captured the ports that sustained it. Without docking, resupply and repair the fleet quickly became a non-factor in the war.

        Once you account for straight line projections, initial burst, and America’s degradation strategy, you find the author’s confidently asserted claims of solid analysis are both shaky and paltry.  Their analysis is based on incomplete information, incorrect assumptions, and ignores dynamic interaction between offense and defense.

        Second, the supporting claims—like the Strait of Hormuz being closed or widespread censorship—are asserted but not meaningfully developed. Even if we take them seriously, they’re not one-directional in their effects. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would harm Iran’s own economic lifelines as much as anyone else’s. That doesn’t make it impossible, but it does make it far more complicated than a simple “checkmate” move. Except for higher gas prices, there doesn’t seem to be much impact from restricted traffic through the strait.

        At the lowest point, the author parenthetically claims AI agrees with him. But AI relies on a people pleasing and sycophantic design. Combined with bad inputs outlined above, AI becomes little more than a yes man for analysis no matter how incredulous it becomes.

        Speaking of incredulous, the author claimed that the lack of missiles would result in the use of the nuclear, or Samson Option. This is the classic fear escalator. When conventional arguments feel shaky analysts jump to the worst-case scenario. They expect the emotionally charged language and general unease to bypass arguments while commanding attention.

        But deterrence doctrines exist precisely to prevent their use. Israel has faced existential threats for decades, including from Iran and its proxies, and has not used nuclear weapons. That track record matters and it suggests the doctrine functions as intended. Nuclear weapons remain a last-resort deterrent, not a trigger waiting to be pulled because of an initial flurry of missiles.

        The final mistake is the cascading collapse scenario. The author claims “all U.S. bases will be destroyed, carriers sunk, the petrodollar gone, global economic ruin.” This is where the analysis fully detaches from reality. Iranian missile forces have demonstrated they can inflict some damage, but not at the scale required to produce that kind of systemic collapse. After the initial flurry Iran’s ability to damage their enemies has collapsed.

        As I’ve written in my book on modern Chinese strategy, missiles today are simply the newest version of technology that has been around since World War II. Regardless of the number of missiles or improvements fielded, counter defenses have also improved. AEGIS Destroyers have better radar, carriers increasingly employ rail guns and missiles, F35’s can actively seek out and destroy launchers from longer distances than ever before. That is why I wasn’t surprised when more reputable analysts concluded that the Iran showed us the threat of missile swarms are overblown.

        You didn’t have to be an analyst to see through most of the smoke and fear mongering. A simple browsing of recent history in the area shows we’ve seen versions of this before. During the Gulf War, there were similar fears about regional escalation and economic shock. Oil prices spiked but then they stabilized. Markets adjusted. The war was disruptive, but only for a short period of time and not automatically apocalyptic.

        To summarize, the bad analysis does the following things:

        They extrapolate linearly from peak data. Ignore counter reactions and adaption. They assert instead of demonstrating key claims. (This is frequently accompanied with various insults and posturing.) They lean on worst case scenarios and present them as likely outcomes.

        Good analysis is uncomfortable because it requires vast amounts of study along with uncertainty, tradeoffs, and competing variables. This makes it seem dry and is often lost in the noise. Bad analysis is confident, simple, and catastrophic which makes it as loud and popular as it is wrong. This example falls squarely into the second category.

Just War Theory in the Age of Political Violence

My recent article, Just War Theory in the Age of Political Violence has just been published at Public Square Magazine. I'm happy to take part in a very important conversation when so many people feel justified in taking the law into their own hands. The article is an edited version of this post from several months ago. 

I hope you enjoy reading it. If you like my ideas please consider purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

The Church Doesn't Need Your Panic: My Guest Post at Times and Seasons

      

  I wrote this piece in response to a pervasive pattern of despair. Since I was responding to a specific Times and Seasons post I submitted it to them as a guess post and they were gracious enough to post it. You can read it here and its republished below: 

        I read Johnathan Green’s post and because the underlying flaws have been repeated at least three times over the past year, I thought it was worth a substantive response, and it was too long for comments. There’s a lot of heat, hyperbole, and moral posturing in his post, but very little that holds up under scrutiny. I take strong exception to his exaggerations, false equivalence, and the assumption that his political lens should dictate the Church’s actions.

        Screaming “Nazi” louder is not an argument. He treated “warning signs” as functionally equivalent to moral certainty. Using German terms to dress up Nazi comparisons doesn’t make them more persuasive, it just adds rhetorical heat without light. As a result, much of his post rests on false equivalence and superficial similarities rather than serious analysis.

        He said in point three that the Church should “ignore the administration,” yet the post itself spends thousands of words obsessing over it. That contradiction matters, because point four revealed the underlying assumption: that the Church should function as an arm of his political views. I used to think that way too, that the Church should take a forceful position on every partisan controversy. That was twenty years ago and frankly, I grew up. The Church is not my political representative. It teaches principles that allow members to vote, persuade, and act in the public square on their own responsibility.

        He’ll probably respond that his post was a “strategic” argument about institutional survival rather than personal fixation. But strategy still reveals priorities. When every hypothetical risk is filtered through one political diagnosis, that diagnosis becomes the guiding authority, functionally replacing the Church’s own judgment with Green’s.

        The Church’s primary concern is ministering to the members it already has. We saw this in its restrained statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: as strong as possible while preserving its ability to support members and maintain its global mission. That same logic applies here.

        There’s also an implicit claim throughout that Green knows better than the prophets and apostles. If God had a direct, binding political message about Donald Trump, I assume we would have heard it from them. He defined “threats to the Church’s mission” in a way that mirrored his political hysteria.

        He appealed to Abinadi and Bonhoeffer to argue that prophets speak in principle rather than names. I can name a half dozen instances in the Bible where prophets directly name the wicked ruler but let’s go with his point. He went further and treated his interpretation of those principles as if it carries the same moral authority as prophetic judgment. That’s the move I’m rejecting.

        Points five and six repeated the same demand in softer language: he wanted the Church to endorse his position. It hasn’t, because its mission is ministering, not issuing grand political declarations that satisfy a political minority from a single country within a global church. He might claim he only wanted the church to act when faced with a clear red line, but that red line just happened to be what Green’s political beliefs say it was.

        He framed this as setting “red lines,” not seeking endorsement. But those red lines did not come from institutional revelation, global consensus, measurable harm, or even a consensus of LDS national security professionals—they came from his own political risk model. Calling that a moral threshold doesn’t make it one.

        Phrases like “surveillance by a corrupt, vindictive, unchecked personalist autocracy” read less like analysis and more like a political Gish gallop. Voters clearly weren’t persuaded by that framing. Yelling it louder won’t change that.

        He correctly noted that “getting upset over someone else’s silence is actively harmful,” yet most of the post is a sustained complaint about the Church’s silence. That tension ran through the whole piece.

        Point seven genuinely made me laugh. My life is fine under this government. I voted for border security, strict immigration enforcement, and a strong foreign policy. Inflation has stabilized, gas prices are reasonable, and I have the sense that someone is finally in charge. That calm is not a luxury based on my race, gender, or class. Unless a person lets it through their own hysteria or misdeeds, the government doesn’t affect much of your life.

        The discomfort Green described felt less like lived reality and more like a self-reinforcing media spiral: every action is filtered as sinister, which heightens anxiety, which then seeks out more bad news.

        His Gish gallop in the comments about there only being “one side” shows the harm of that cycle. Screaming “concentration camp”, “starving children”, and “torture”, might feel morally righteous or advance a partisan case, but it also heightens anxiety and escalates conflict. In short, it hurts as much as it helps.

        The healthier response is simple: consume less political media, touch grass, respect differing views, and count your blessings—basic Church principles. Screaming, “but he’s a nazi” when you’re asked to calm down and show respect is a ludicrous substitute for reasoned engagement and more of the problem.

        Green insisted that the Church shouldn’t threaten its own mission but repeatedly argue that it should adopt his political mission. “You should be appalled” isn’t a neutral principle—its Green’s emotional filter presented as moral obligation. To people who don’t share it, this comes off as unhinged, and even deranged, not persuasive.

        Green’s Trump–King Noah comparison is another false equivalence. Noah wasn’t elected. He raised taxes to intolerable levels; Trump reduced them and talks about tariff rebates. Noah imprisoned and tortured dissidents; Trump enforces immigration law, including against violent criminals. You can oppose that policy, and perhaps think it’s immoral, but calling it tyranny by analogy doesn’t make it so.

        Green claimed Trump and his supporters “rejoice in bloodshed.” As a former Marine and military analyst, I find that condescending—and a reflection of the privilege of living in peace and security. Wanting a strong defense and feeling pride in providing it is not rejoicing in bloodshed; it’s more like Captain Moroni rejoicing in the welfare and protection of his people.

        You might claim some of Trumps military actions are fascistic. But debates over presidential war powers found in Article II Section II of the constitution have been a feature of our government since Thomas Jefferson. Not part of a fascist dictatorship.

        When Green invoked Abinadi, he placed himself in the role of calling both fellow saints and Church leaders to repentance for not opposing Trump as he thinks they should. That circles back to the same contradiction: he says the Church isn’t political but then condemns it for not being political in the right way.

        He’ll say this is about obedience versus resistance under tyranny, not about Trump. But that only works if the premise, that we are already living under something functionally equivalent to tyranny, is established. He assumed the premise; he didn’t demonstrate it.

        Point 15 mentioned many recent, good talks. But scriptures should be used to examine our own conduct, not to bludgeon fellow members. If we’re staying in the Book of Mormon, Alma’s work of knitting hearts together in unity, even with love towards our fellow enemies, seems the better model.

        I agreed with one line in point sixteen: “Anticipatory despair is not a form of resistance.” That’s the clearest and strongest sentence in the entire post. The answer to despair is more time with family, friends, and neighbors, not arrogantly browbeating them into repentance for voting differently than you.

        Finally, the insider language such as “cringe resist libs” and “MWEG moms” doesn’t clarify anything. That insider framing is telling. It signaled that his argument was aimed less at persuading a broad body of saints and more at rallying a politically fluent in-group that already shared his sense of impending catastrophe.

        The Church has survived lynch mobs, federal invasion, disincorporation, KGB surveillance, and Hitler—it will survive this political moment too, without Green’s help. His post amplifies anxiety, casts fellow members and leaders as moral failures for not sharing his political conclusions and confuses personal panic with institutional necessity. Inflating warning signs into moral certainties and treating his interpretation as Church directive does nothing to build unity, influence policy responsibly, or foster understanding—it is simply noise. If we are serious about clarity, faithful witness, and real community, we need charity and reason, not labels, hysteria, or overreach. 

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

Newest Book on Just War Released, Ten Year Anniversary of my First Book!

 

    I’m excited to announce that my new book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon is published and available on Amazon! Those of you that read this blog already have a good sense of the material that is in it. You might remember posts about the importance ofthe heart, preemptive war, and the Nephite wars at the end of their nation. Here is the back cover blurb:

    In a world filled with what seems like "one continual round of bloodshed and murder" (Mormon 8:8) the debates in how to stop that slaughter are filled with partisan talking points, competing vociferous voices, unexamined assumptions about the use of force, fearful hot takes, and self-serving politicians and media narratives that only serve to increase the tension.

    In this the war of words and tumult of opinions (JS History 1:10) acclaimed military historian Morgan Deane applies a Hugh Nibley like command of numerous Christian and Chinese philosophers to engage the rich, intellectual debates from history, and apply them to the ethics of war and peace within the Book of Mormon. The result shows that Book of Mormon offers robust comments on such pertinent topics as the paramount importance of the heart, when and how a nation should use force, the limits of the word and the sword, the intent of people making war, preemptive war, insurgency, and a resolution between, instead of cross talk and proof text citations of oft cited pacifist and isolationist verses and those that support the use of force. This book amplifies the clarion call of the Book of Mormon to love your neighbor enough to be like the Nephites, reluctantly compelled to use arms to stop their slaughter (Alma 48:21-23).

    I’ve sent the book out for reviews, and if you’re interested in a review copy feel free to send me a message. 

    My first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon has reached its ten year anniversary! I just received a message the other day about how it has helped strengthen testimonies. As I wait for new reviews to come in, here are some more over the years:

    Deane’s work is well-written and thought provoking, required reading for those interested in warfare in the Book of Mormon as warfare, rather than just spiritual analogy. David Spencer, author of Captain Moroni’s Command.

    Hugh Nibley’s understudy. …an absolute must for anyone studying the Book of Mormon... [ties] wide ranging examples from the ancient world in remarkable efficiency. Deane's personal experience also gives a strong eye to military aspects so often neglected... This is a book that will be talked about for years to come by any serious student of the Book of Mormon...” David West, award winning author of Heroes of the Fallen

    Deane is an excellent scholar with fresh ideas and is always worth reading. Matthew Roper, Scripture Central.

    [Deane helps provide analysis] equal of any rabbinical quarrel or Jesuitical casuistry…[and] a fitting springboard for robust and lively debates.” Robert Wood, Chester M. Nimitz Chair Emeritus, U.S. Naval War College.

    The book successfully uses the battles as a means to understand the evolution of Chinese military culture, doctrine, and tactics. The battle maps are well drawn and helpful for those who are not familiar with China’s geography and history. The author has designed the book for general readers, including high school seniors and college freshman, so they can quickly grasp the complex security concerns and strategic calculations often underlying China’s decision-making process. Li Xiaobing, Journal of Chinese Military History

    China’s increased presence on the global stage has attracted greater interest in its long military history. With five millennia behind it, East Asia’s dominant power is certainly no stranger to armed conflict. While that immense scope may seem daunting, author Morgan Deane offers a highly accessible survey with Decisive Battles in Chinese History. Army History

    This astute history clearly reveals the development of China’s military and martial spirit. Military Officer

    I look forward to reading more positive reviews of my latest book and I’ll share them as they come in.

Outrage and Fighting for Life: Insights from Brad Wilcox to Abortion, via Ukraine

 

    When the war in the Ukraine started it was mere weeks after Brad Wilcox gave a controversial speech. I noted with irony and anger that many commentors wrote more often and more passionately about the supposed racism and sexism of Brad Wilcox than the actual deaths in Ukraine. Here you see at least five articles, from February 8th to the 15th, attacking Wilcox in strong terms. Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, and you see two tepid articles about the war in Ukraine. Both are rather generic that talk about food storage and the impact on missionaries, and another that reposted the church’s statement on peace followed by some grousing about the church’s position. Eventually, they talked about refugees, and the church in a time of troubles. Even over a longer time frame they produced fewer articles with none of the emotion that Wilcox inspired.

    I sardonically noted at the time, maybe if Putin gave a speech about "the blacks" and "the gays" then American liberals and isolationists will start to give a damn about his slaughtering innocents. In a moment of dark humor, after I noticed the inconsistent pattern to Wheat and Tare bloggers they posted a three part series about the dangers faced by homosexuals in Eastern Europe!!!!!

    Fast forward a few months and no one really cares about Ukraine anymore. Even though this week the Russians targeted a shopping mall filled with innocent people we already read many that question the need for continued aid.  The controversy of the day is the abortion ruling, but I have a long memory and can compare different reactions. With the tepid fight for Ukrainian life in my mind I read with interest this person's thoughts who seems ready to join the fight...to defend abortion.

    The author of the article tried to summon their inner Churchill and used the word "fight" a zillion times in addition to rather vivid imagery about battle wounds. The use of the word “fight” is odd coming from the same crowd that calls excommunication spiritual violence and barbaric. Putting aside the hypocritical use of violent rhetoric when it suits them, we should consider the ends that rhetoric is used for.

    Looking at their history on the blog, the author of fighting for abortion had nothing to say about the slaughter of innocents in Ukraine. Just a couple weeks after the war started, she did a three-part post on domestic violence. That is important, but I think the wide scale violence of war might be worth mentioning too. The author did say that "silence is violence" regarding LGBT issues. Overall, they have lots of passion and "fight" for the right to slaughter babies but very little fight against the wide scale suffering in Ukraine.

    To summarize from what I’ve learned in the Brad Wilcox fiasco through the Russian invasion of Ukraine and overturning of Roe v. Wade: gay people, “the blacks,” domestic violence, and the right to kill babies: Those are fighting words, except when fighting words are used to excommunicate liberals. The actual slaughter of innocent men, women, and children, including babies in the womb: shrug. Lets talk about the impact on missionaries in Eastern Europe or my pet passion for gay people.

    Lives are important. (You might even say all lives matter if that hadn’t been cancelled.) And when people being slaughtered through war or slaughtered as a means of convenience to a better life and back up birth control, it is wrong. (You’ll notice I left out cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. As a military ethicist I recognize that while killing is wrong, sometimes, while still regrettable[Alma 48:23], it is necessary and just.)  

    The outrage that people show reveals their true intentions. Brad Wilcox inspired outrage because he touched upon items that are vitally important to some groups. Even though Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was the most aggressive military action I’ve seen since World War II, very few felt passionate about it, and fewer had those feelings long term. Though as I pointed out at the time, the problems that led to war don't vanish in a just a few weeks because there is something new and shiny to argue about. The potential conflict requires more than your standard talking points but thoughtful and sustained study that challenges your assumptions and demands your time even if it’s not click bait in your news feed. The recent supreme court decision has become the new shiny thing. But we must maintain moral perspective for all life and recognize that some people have skewed priorities that make them care about a poor speech from a church and killing babies more than truly Hitler like invasion and slaughter.

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

Trump as Moroni?

[I shared this on facebook and though it deserved a more permanent place. As someone who specializes in military history and published extensively about Moroni and the Book of Mormon, I am uniquely qualified to comment.] 

People are spazzing out about Mike Lee's comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni when I think it was pretty good. Lee's comparison was pretty narrow to begin with, by pointing to a specific scripture that Trump is not seeking power but to tear it down. 

Trump has been a disruptive outsider against the Washington establishment. That word was used so much in 2016 that I thought I should start a restaurant called the establishment. I don't like the phrase deep state as it sounds fairly conspiratorial, but entrenched bureaucracy is what I use. We just had a Homeland security official come out as this deep throat type member of the resistance. The phrase resistance itself is rather arrogant as these people somehow thing that their intransigence is part of a noble effort to stop a dictator when they are really partisan hacks undermining the people's elected representative.  Even though he worked for Trump who was elected by the people, he bragged that he was part of this noble resistance. Nikki Haley wrote that people as high up as the Secretary of State thought it was their duty to contain and control Trump, as though the people were too dumb to choose a President and executive policy.  

Trump is draining a swamp that fights back on a constant basis, so comparing him to a stronger fighter figure and using a specific scripture where he is fighting the elites of his day is a good comparison. 

Most who object to the comparison do so because of their political opposition to Trump. But they are doing so by ignoring the narrow comparison above, and instead use the hagiographic depiction of him as a military stud muffin that ignores the real critiques of Moroni. 

The political opponents of Trump should realize that the political opponents of Moroni could credibly make even worse arguments against the latter. They could say he was an angry individual that preemptively seized territory in a time of peace, relied upon deception to win his battles, rejected peace offers to instead call his interlocuter a child of Hell and then threaten to arm child soldiers and pursue a war of extermination against that opponent. He threatened a coup against the government when it suited him and before he figured out all of the facts and seemed like a warmonger. While its not written down, my knowledge of military culture makes me suspect if we were on campaign with him we might find him laughing at the locker room humor similar to an Access Hollywood tape.   

We rightly revere Captain Moroni as a spiritual hero. But like Jessica Rabbit, he was written that way. A sober examination of his life and critical assessment of his policies, and most importantly, his fighter attitude against the entrenched opposition to his single minded goals, suggest that Trump is a fighter comparable to Captain Moroni.

Reclaiming King Benjamin: A Response to Patrick Mason and King Benjamin's Statebuilding

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).[1]

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.[2] 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,[3] 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.[4] 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! 

********

---

[1] The exact phrase is “heavier hand.” All page numbers are from Patrick Mason, “King Benjamin’s Statebuilding Project and the Limits of Statist Religion.”

[2] 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), 29-40. See also, Karl Von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret Eds., (Princeton University Press, 1984,) Book six, chapter one.

[3] See for example, Joshua Madsen, “A Non-Violent Reading of the Book of Mormon,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015,) 13-28.

[4] The Ammon that found Zeniff referred to those individuals as “his brethren” (Mosiah 9:1) but was also described as a descendent of Zarahemla (Mosiah 7:3), implying dual origin. King Benjamin named two of his sons with Jaredite name ending, possibly filtered through the Mulekites, suggesting a Mulekite wife. Mosiah 1:2. Plus, marriage is how political alliances were sealed in premodern times.

Game of Thrones, History, and Details in the Book of Mormon

Game of Thrones ended on what I thought was a funny and thoughtful note. All the survivors serving under the new king gather to discuss how to rebuild the kingdom. It was so charming in fact I wouldn’t mind seeing a spin off series about these meetings as they combine many of the fan favorites. One of the major complaints from this scene though is when the events of the show get put into a book. It turns out that Tyrion, the dwarf who was part of most of the major events was not even listed. One youtube scholar wrote:

That "Song of Ice and Fire" joke was dumb; Tyrion, not mentioned? His arrest caused the War of Five Kings, he served as hand to three (Joffrey, Dany and Bran) monarchs, he lead part of the vanguard at Green Fork and organized and lead the entire defense at Kings Landing. But sure, hack writers needed a cheap laugh.

But with a knowledge of how historians write, it is possible to conceive of a Game of Thrones history that doesn’t include Tyrion Lannister.

Tyrion is arrested by Catlin Stark:

This event was monumental because it caused Tywin Lannister to order his forces to attack Catlin’s ancestral lands. The king was incapacitated from a hunting accident (really an arranged murder from his wife Circe Lannister), and couldn’t keep the peace between his wife’s family (Lannisters), and the family of his biggest supporters (the Starks).  The average historian has a great deal to cover, and the dwarf was merely the catalyst for larger events and thus could have been summarized as, “Tywin Lannister attacked to avenge his wrongly implicated and arrested relative.” Or if the historian is pro Lannister, since the Ned Stark took advantage of the king’s absence from court to order a punitive expedition and was later executed for treason, the historian would write, “Tywin defended himself against the wrongful arrest of his son and malicious attack ordered by the traitor Ned Stark.” 

Tyrion as Hand of the King: 

The Hand is the Game of Thrones equivalent of palace or prime minister. Throughout history, some are inconsequential, while others like Pepin the Short inaugurate new dynasties.  Chinese legal scholars warned that not every conquest resulted from armies scaling the walls and breaking down the gates. Moreover, Tyrion was sent to Kings Landing to act as Hand in the name of his father. His last stint as Hand was largely ineffectual. He governed the city of Mereen quite well, but that is a distant city in the East that Westeros historians wouldn’t know or care about. By the time the Dragon Queen came to Westeros he was often ignored and eventually he quit and was imprisoned by her. His time as Hand of the king or queen could be described as, “Tywin Lannister, governing through proxies…” or simply, “The Dragon Queen ignored her ineffectual advisors.”

Tyrion leading several key attacks:

The show put a lamp shade on this one. After he led a key counterattack at the Mud Gate during the Battle of Blackwater Bay, he was horribly wounded but the counter attacked succeeded and saved the city at a critical moment. One of his visitors was the spymaster, who thanked him for saving the city, but warned that the people thought he was the imp and Tyrion won’t get credit for it.  

Tyrion’s counterattack was simply one of many twists and turns to the battle. The use of a fictional version of Greek Fire, called wildfire, destroyed much of the opposing fleet. During the Muslim siege of Constantinople in 678, the Greek Fire is often mentioned but not the ministers  or even leaders that employed it. Tyrion was only one player in this event out of many. The historian would write something like, “The king, Joffrey Baratheon oversaw the battle from his central position on the parapets. He would likely have seen the counter attack led by his grandfather, Tywin Lannister. The ladder secretly marched his army away from the usurper Rob Stark to defend the capital and attack Stannis from behind. The ghost of Stannis’ brother attacked from the west. This was Loras Tyrell, in a new alliance with the Lannister’s forming yet another flank attack in the king’s great victory.”  

As you can tell, there was so much going on in this battle and so many important players, a minor counter attack from an unpopular person wouldn’t be missed. Tyrion’s attack at the Green Wood was more conspicuous. (In the budget challenged first season though, Tyrion gets conked on the head and both he and the viewer completely miss it.) In the books he does a good job of commanding the left flank.  But that battle was only a diversion for Rob Stark to fight at Whispering Woods, where they captured the very important Jaime Lannister. Thus, the history could be, “Lannister forces defeated a diversionary force from Rob Stark, while the latter counter-marched and captured Jaime Lannister.” 

Tyrion kills Tywin Lannister:

Tyrion is blamed for the poisoning of King Joffrey and is sentenced to death. The spymaster frees him and before he goes, he killed his father and eventually makes his way to the Dragon Queen. Given that Tywin was shot while he was in the privy with his pants down, and there was a dead prostitute in his bed (also murdered by Tyrion), this could have been glossed over by historians. (Though not forgotten by the bawdy Game of Thrones version of a theater troupe.) 

Historians had several easy scapegoats in contrast to tawdry family drama.  Sansa Stark was the daughter of the traitor and disappeared on the day that Joffrey was killed. The Sand Snakes killed or disfigured (tv or book respectively) the queen’s daughter and could also be blamed for the Tywin’s death around the same time. Religious fanatics quickly overran the city after Tywin’s death. They installed a reign of terror and they eventually arrested Circe and King Tommen’s wife. With plentiful rumors at their disposal, and a dead body on the privy, historians could say it was various traitors fulfilling the wrath of the gods while leaving out the details or focusing on the post Tywin mistakes and subsequent downfall of the kingdom. 

The Book of Mormon:

This clearly shows the limits of being a historian. Ancient historians often had a lack of primary sources to create their narrative. Thucydides, for example relied on a combination of personal knowledge, and contemporary events to craft his narrative. He plainly said that in his speeches he wrote what he “thought the situation demanded.” They had to sift through mountains of rumors. They often had their own biases. Many religious writers such as Gregory of Tours wrote to show God’s hand impacted history. They could change the narrative slightly to enhance that effect.  

The Book of Mormon itself reveals several of these interesting glosses that could be covering up important people or events like Tyrion was left out of Westeros history books. The war chapters describe “some intrigue, which caused dissensions amongst the [the Nephites], [so the Lamanites] gained some ground over the Nephites. (Alma 53:8).” We don’t know if these were factions of cities rebelling against Nephites and installing Lamanite friendly governors. (Which happened in Zarahemla Alma 61:8) We don’t know if it was a dispute between cities as described in Alma 50. We just don’t know much except it happened. We know how Amalickiah gained the throne through treachery and deceit but not Tubaloth or Lachoneous for that matter.

For example, I find it suspicious we have a long line of no name but generally wicked leaders, many of them kill each other to gain power, and we are even told at one point the Gadianton Robbers have “sole management” of the government (Helaman 6:39), but then here comes Lachoneus and tells them to repent (3 Nephi 3:12).  What was his backstory and how did he keep power when so many other rulers were being assassinated?  Perhaps like Helaman (Helaman 2:6), Lachoneus had servants willing to infiltrate factions and kill potential assassins and enemy’s before they carried out their quest. This would be very inconvenient for a story about God saving the Nephites because they prayed.

This is not some radical retelling of the story but simply a careful reading of the text based on what other documents, and the text itself tells us. For example, Mormon selectively edited his narrative in many places. In the most notable instance he wrote that the Lamanites captured some of the people of Noah (Alma 16:3), but when portraying the event as the wrath of God and desolation of Ammonihah, he left it out (Alma 49:3). Presumably the people of Noah were not wicked and didn’t deserve God’s punishment. So Mormon the historian included those details, but Mormon the prophet, pronouncing God’s judgment, did not. This particular detail was first noted by Grant Hardy in a FARMS volume almost 30 years ago.

The Book of Mormon is an excellent spiritual text that has historical value. Mormon as the historian had the same habits of other historians with limited sources and space to advance his objective for the book. We can see some of those methods but using a fictional example from pop culture. I hope we can dive deeper into some of the little noticed details that hint at much larger events or people.

Reassessing History on Columbus Day

This is the my most recent publication from Opslens. I published between two and four articles a week on that site so if you like my writing make sure to check it regularly. I reprint items of particular importance here. 

Politicians and activists complain that Columbus Day celebrates the genocide of Native Americans. This evokes a good deal of emotion and the idea of genocide is often discussed around Columbus Day and Thanksgiving, but it’s also brought up in various contemporary political debates. Yet the use of the term genocide is not accurate. It contorts the definition of genocide, uses it for its emotional value, and obscures the historical nature of European and Native American interaction.

The death of so many Native American was tragic, and certainly judging by today’s standards the Europeans who killed them were racist. That reasoning uses the presentism fallacy, which judges past figures based on modern notions of morality. I like to remind liberals that the Barack Obama of 2013 held a position on gay marriage that the modern left would find incredibly offensive and homophobic.

If one of the primary leaders of the left held a position just five years ago that is considered wrong today, it can be expected that people from 500 years ago certainly did. But it was the introduction of deadly diseases into Native American cultures that killed far more natives in a quicker time than most other causes, yet this was not a deliberate and diabolical plan of Europeans. There was no germ warfare against the natives, just tragic cross-cultural contact.

The natives didn’t have the same political race consciousness that modern people do. Many Native American tribes actually fought on the side of Europeans against other tribes. The Aztec practice of human sacrifice both angered and frightened their neighbors who quickly joined Cortez. In fact, not only did natives join European fights, but some scholars such as Ross Hassig posit that the natives actually used the Europeans to settle their political scores. The Five Nations of the Iroquois joined the British to fight the Americans, and the French and Indian War featured natives allied with the French.

If we are to believe the modern political arguments, these were race traitors serving foreign masters in their own destruction. In reality, each tribe acted independently according to their best interests, which sometimes meant allying with Europeans and exterminating bordering native tribes. Many tribes such as the Plains Cree and Comanche established their own empires in the West by subjugating, killing, and enslaving their Indian neighbors. The concept of noble Native Americans fighting the rapacious white men is a modern invention, often used to inspire guilt in political opponents (like the mayor of San Juan did last week), but doesn’t accurately reflect history.

In addition to the Europeans having native allies and vice versa, the Europeans themselves were not a monolithic whole. The Conquistadors just happened to be the most fanatic religionists from Europe that encountered an empire with some of the continent’s bloodiest rituals. Their reaction doesn’t mean every other European power acted the same way. In fact, the Spanish rulers outlawed slavery, and there were many Spanish monks that spent their entire lives ministering to the Indians, learning their ways, providing medical care, and writing down their customs.

The actions of the 16th century Spanish should be separated from 19thcentury Americans. There was not an organized and systematic campaign that called for their extermination similar to Hitler or Milosevic. In contrast to Nazis and Serbian killing squads, the fall of natives in America was a series of sad events over 500 years that resulted in their current situation.

The Spanish were religious zealots, different from the French whose search for furs led to excessive hunting, and both were different from the English who wanted valuable farming lands. Whenever two people come into contact they have a series of mutually inspired changes and responses. The Europeans established missions or trading posts, or planted new crops. Some groups of natives adopted horses and used gunpowder (and often used those items to exterminate neighboring tribes). Different groups of people interacted with others differently depending on their wants and needs.

Unfortunately, the loss of population from disease and the superior numbers of sedentary farmers compared to semi nomadic hunters meant that the Europeans pushed out native cultures. This trend accelerated in the North American West after the American Civil War due to the railroad. But even then it was not a monolithic and organized campaign of extermination, just the extension and sad conclusion of centuries of interaction.

All of these reasons mean that term genocide is used because of its emotional value and not because of its accuracy. Many of the modern users of the word have a much politicized version of history that generally views dead white men as the villains. This over-politicization is misguided on several fronts. In addition to the needless simplification of history described above, the concept of whiteness is extremely fluid.

For example, when Southern and Eastern Europeans migrated in large numbers in the late 19th century, Americans reacted with fear and horror that their country was being taken over by dark skinned Italians, Spaniards, and Poles who had values that were not compatible with Western ideals. But Columbus the Italian and Cortez the Spaniard are the individuals that first started this supposed genocide. In other words, they weren’t white enough to settle in the USA during the late 19th century, but liberal academics believe the 16th century Spanish and Italians were the epitome of white when they supposedly started the genocide against the natives.

The Native Americans can point to a long list of unfortunate events and even abuses. Their plight throughout the years has often been incredibly tragic. They lost huge numbers of people to disease the first few generations after contact with the Europeans. They were also part of a competition between and among nations that included natives allying with the Europeans and vice versa. The attacks on the natives were part of a rather common pattern of warfare that Europeans used against each other, and that the natives used among and between each other.

So, on the next Columbus day, call for indigenous day, or politicized racial attack on white people, it’s important not to be afraid of the political cudgel of misused history, but to respond with a nuanced and thorough understanding of it that says this was not genocide against Native Americans and that there is plenty to celebrate about Columbus.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using one of the pay pal buttons below.

Conversion is Crown Deep: Reassessing Helaman 4-6

Helaman 5 includes a long discussion of the preaching of Nephi and Lehi, and a rather remarkable vision and story. This includes a pillar of fire and ministering angels. Between Helaman 5:17-19 and 51-52 over 8,000 Lamanites around Zarahemla are converted, and they gave back all of the territory they conquered in chapter 4. The most perplexing to me is why did baptism result in major territorial change? It’s basically covered in one perfunctory verse yet there must have been some intense celebration and political wrangling. The current elites and governor would have to share or give power to the returning elites, and the sudden recovery of territory would have propelled Nephi and Lehi into stratospheres of popularity. Yet it gets a single verse, about half a chapter of happy talk, and then lots more talk about Gadianton Robbers. Nephi and Lehi remain somewhat aloof and even leave the land for many years (and chapters). Obviously there is something more going on here.

Why Convert In History

Luckily, we have plenty of historical precedent for mass conversions. In the space of about 100 years the Roman Empire went from persecuting them to having an Emperor convert and declares it the state religion. The German tribes that invaded often converted to a heretical version of Christianity which limited their influence with the people they ruled.[1] The Mongol rulers were surprisingly tolerant of Nestorian Christianity and a significant minority of them converted. Rising European states like Ukraine essentially held try outs between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, and the personality of the missionaries and heads of church influenced the outcome a good deal.

There was more than sincere conversion that played a role. The political rulers could unify the realm under a central religious system. Though there was also some potential political division in the short term. Many of the Ukrainian nobles rebelled for example over their king’s conversion but were crushed or converted. The title of king was incredibly important in helping rulers overcome reluctant pagans and overcome revolts. From the Kingdom of Sicily to Poland all the way to the Holy Roman Emperor in 800 AD, a ruler often went to great lengths and made many concessions to get their crown sanctioned by the church. Being a Christian king allowed the ruler to consolidate his rule against his noble rivals who refused to convert.  Sadly, considering the message of love, it became another club that the rulers could use to beat their pagan subjects. Christian institutions such as churches and monasteries became important centers of revenue for the budding state.

The baptism of Clovis in 496 AD. Notice the combination of warrior like pose, crown, and spiritual ceremony. This was part of the beginning of early medieval France and the European community. 

Diplomatically the new Christian kingdom became part of the club. They often had closer relationships with other Christian kingdoms and diplomacy was easier. Baltic States that converted not only found new allies in defense, but they also received justification for crusades against their pagan neighbors.  The conversion of Lithuania shows many of these trends. The ruler vacillated between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism, lobbied for a crown, sought marriage alliances that included conversion, thought conversion would help them rule their Eastern Orthodox subjects in their Russian territories, and viewed conversion as a way to end the crusade of Teutonic Knights against them.

The final benefit had to do with tools of statecraft. The new kings had to organize, equip, and feed armies as well as tax the nation.  The first alphabets for many Eastern Europeans languages were written by missionaries and the first written documents were translated Bibles. The Venerable Bede of Great Britain provided one of the first histories of that region. So the church ended up providing some of the most important tools of statecraft that expanded central power, provided for added administrative controls, and even wrote down their legends and founding myths that are important to every country.

Book of Mormon Conversion

Helaman 6 describes a brief period of peace after the mass Lamanite conversion. Given that most of the chapter shifts to discussing the Gadianton Robbers, I doubt the peace and prosperity was as widespread as it seems but the benefits are real. Politically, Helaman 4:4 discussed dissenters from the Nephites stir up Lamanites to battle, so it’s not surprising that some Lamanites might have resented the usurpation of power and think joining the Nephites was a better option.  Remember that Amalickiah and his brother and Nephew recently ruled the Lamanites. Ammoron’s son invaded the Nephites in Helaman 1, in the same time frame as Moronihah’s command in Helaman 4.  The contemporary leaders aren’t mentioned, but it’s likely that existing dissenters and the new ones in Helaman 4:4 likely assumed leadership positions in the Lamanite army, politics, and church.  

But with their conversion the Lamanites became part of the Nephite power and trading  structure.  Helaman 6:3 and 8 record “they did fellowship…[and] did have free intercourse one with another, to buy and to sell, and to get gain. They also became extremely “rich (Helaman 6:9.)” In fact, this is a great series of verses that discusses the many trades and crafts that exist from gold and silver mining to weaving and ranching.  This is a period of prosperity that likely discusses the strengthened Nephite position with the new converts. There is no word on leadership positions, but the chief judges are rarely mentioned by name, and when they are there is no backstory, and a distinct separation from the traditional centers of power that dominated in the book of Alma. This is very speculative but there is evidence of a political realignment that allows the possibility of power sharing with the Lamanites converts.  

At other points in the text, a rapprochement between the two sides led to greater written correspondence, which suggests a greater emphasis cultural communication and the tools of state craft mentioned above.[2]  The Lamanites are actually praised for using “every means” to “destroy” the Gadianton Robbers, which might be the only time in the scriptures their martial activities are praised. Talk about being part of the club and receiving justification for their actions! When the Lamanites are not part of the club they are described a warlike, bloodthirsty and plundering people.

In the church the Lamanites were respected by Mormon for their steadfast conversion, and they had positions of authority and influence as Samuel the Lamanite preachers in Helaman 6:4 came to Zarahemla.  and in military affairs the Lamanites received benefits for their conversion.

In matters of politics, statecraft, trade, the military and spiritual matters, the Lamanites benefited from their conversion.  They were no longer the indolent and violent outsider, but a part of the club. Even though the Lamanites participated in many of the same political wrangling and military maneuvers as before their conversion.

It’s true that Helaman chapter 6 says the Lamanites became more righteous in this period. The overall arch of the chapter which discussed wickedness and Gadianton Robbers for most of it, and the wickedness replete in Helaman and 3^rd Nephi, combined with a more nuanced view of the benefits of conversion, suggest there is more to this conversion than a heartwarming story which included many benefits that enhanced their status within Nephite society.  I can’t help but wonder if the quick pride cycle and falling away by many church members throughout the Book of Helaman was because their conversion was only crown deep (Helaman 6:31).  

What do you think?

*********

---

[1] Which I discuss in a chapter of my new book.

[2] I couldn’t find the specific verse. If somebody wants to mention it in the comments I’ll give you a million imaginary bonus points. 

[Thanks for reading. Many of you might not know, but I was in the hospital for a brief period last month. I'm okay now, but I have a good deal of medical debt and work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using one of the paypal buttons below. It is especially helpful at this time.] 

LDS Stance on War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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