Why is Visions of Glory Killing People?

 

         Visions of Glory is a controversial book that details the near-death experiences of a man named Spencer. The controversy comes from how people like doomsday mommy Lori Vallow Daybell relied, at least in part, on books like this to justify murder. The cousin of Lori Vallow, Megan Conner even said, “my family members are dead because of Visions of Glory, how is that okay?”

        I just happen to specialize in military history and ethics. To answer the question the book contributes to deaths because it provide a blueprint for a community of those who have near death experiences and arrogantly claim they have special spiritual powers, they can see the righteousness of people around them and the demonic forces influencing them, and then the book used opaque language that minimized killing in the name of God. The result is a perversion of spiritual language and ideas to justify murder.

        The general tone of this book reeked of arrogance. This person claimed that he was an elite member of a small group within the church. A member of the 144,000 mentioned in the Book of Revelation, he called himself a first citizen of Zion that received personal missions from the Lord from his office in the temple (194-195). These descriptions refer to a future event after he is translated and before the millennium, but as with everything discussed in this review, if someone believes they are eventually the first citizen of Zion with an office in the temple and ability to see the souls of those around them (161), it’s easy to feel a sense of superiority now. In addition to seeing the souls, he discussed how translated being used the portal that let them travel from Zion, healed the sick, and raised the dead. These gifts only worked according to the faith of those wielding them. Miracles based on faith is a safe Biblical principle, but the way Spencer was better at it, discussing the shortcomings of other translated beings reinforced a feeling of superiority I found emanating from him.

        His visions included seeing dark spirits roaming among the people of the world tempting them (23). The most dramatic moment was watching a young man view pornography and the misshapen minions and spirits working him into a frenzy of desire that Spencer likened to dogs fighting over a carcass (94). This incident left me questions. If he were in the room, and knew the individual was following the suggestion of the minions to look up more and more scintillating material, wouldn’t Spencer have scene pornography as well? Did his vision include special pixelating software? Wouldn’t seeing a man in a sexual act also have been porn? But that’s using critical thinking. I’m supposed to be impressed with his spirituality and anti porn crusade. Most importantly, given the way that convicted child abusers Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt created pornography groups that castigated men, and abused children in the name of fighting demons, this vision of pornography use seems more like an excuse to abuse porn users than a warning against evil spirits. 

        The final ingredient for murder is the casual way he talks about killings. As a translated being fully knowing the will of the Lord he felt “free to deliver men from mortality” (199). He said that “death was a divine blessing” because the wicked men “no longer added iniquity to their divine ledger.” Even though the Book of Mormon directly disagrees when it said that the Nephites were “sorry” top send “so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God” (Alma 48:23). Spencer said “they were rarely consumed by fire” (thanks?), the translated beings simply “started them on their immortal journey”… and they “just fell to the ground and slipped into the eternities.”

        That is an astounding use of language to minimize killing. This is where arrogance becomes important. It’s one thing to meet a Loran Blood type person online who judgmentally lectures you about judgment. Its another when you combine that arrogance, with a sense that you’re already the elect, who also has the (eventual) power to let people “slip into eternity.” Like I said, what originally becomes a promised power is warped into current power by the spiritually arrogant who share the near death experiences of Spencer.

        Lori Vallow had similar near death experiences to the person in this book that convinced her she had a connection to the spirit world, and ability to see spirits.[1] Chad Daybell, whom she married and in whose yard she buried her murdered children, said they were part of the 144,000, just like Spencer. Also like Spencer, Lori claimed she could see dark spirits in her children, and if she was already translated as she claimed, she likely felt enabled to “let the slip into eternity” lest they “add iniquity to their ledger.”

        So you take someone who is spiritually arrogant, claims a special connection to God and power to see the wicked, and then claims a license to KILL the wicked, while minimizing death, and it seems pretty obvious how Visions of Glory kills people. It’s not the book itself. The book was a fairly informative read that read like a mix between an extremely detailed dream and the Mormon version of The Stand. But the creepy deaths come this radical subculture of those who claim near death experiences and then arrogantly assert special powers as they murder those around them.

        A general rule to remember is that the scriptures should challenge our beliefs. As I said in the last chapter of my latest book, we might see the principled right of just war but should be wary of certainty and look for ways to avoid asserting the right to use force. The theorist Grotius pointed out that if a person can avail themselves of the legal system, then they still have recourse short of war or violence.[2] In other words, if we can rely on court orders, the legal system, and the police, we can safely abandon the need for force. And while Nephi relied on the word of the Lord to behead Laban. We are not Nephi, we’re unlikely to ever face such an exceptional event, and unlikely to ever hear the word of the Lord that requires us to abandon conventional morality. As a result, beware of those like Lori Vallow Daybell or Spencer form Visions of Glory, who claim such special insight and authority while using minimizing language around killing.

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. 

*********

---

[1] Did the article really have to quote Patrick Mason in four paragraphs? What special qualifications does he have besides being first on the reporter’s rolodex?

[2] if the attackers “formed a plot, prepar[ed] an ambuscade, poisoning, or readied a false accusation [the planner] cannot lawfully be killed either if the danger can in any other way be avoided, or if [the ruler] thought delays could afford remedies.” Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Stephen Neff trans., (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 83-84.

Podcast

 

        You might have noticed I don’t have a large online presence. I don’t have a podcast. You don’t hear about me. No one makes reaction videos to my material. I’ve simply operated a blog since 2009, which in itself is a bit of a time capsule from the late 2000s.

        With this background you might think I’m simply a dinosaur that can’t adapt to new technology. But I’ve seen the new landscape, and deliberately said no. The current podcast environment is reactive, inferior to writing, and backwards looking. To illustrate those points we might consider the controversy of the day (at least it was when I wrote this). A youtube personality, Jacob Hansen recently discussed Mormonism with a prominent atheist, Alex O’Conner. I didn’t watch the interview, but since then I have encountered half a dozen posts, reaction videos, and memes across the internet that in turn generated hundreds of comments. This includes the Mormon and ex-Mormon reddit, several facebook groups, Mormon Book Review podcast, and the ex-Mormon called Cultch (formerly cultural hall.) I’m sure there are more out there I haven’t seen but I only lurk around a few corners of the internet. (I only like Cultch for example, because he hate watches Jacob Hansen and that’s entertaining.) This controversy of the day crystallizes everything I hate about the podcast and reaction video culture.

        The discussion is incredibly reactive to the point that if I did start a podcast I’d probably call it the reaction, to the reaction, to the reaction video. (Or I’d just call it Podcast.) Jacob’s single conversation video has inspired countless hours of commentary and hundreds of comments. But there is nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the original item to begin with. The major takeaway is that he wasn’t an effective apologist, and he’s an intellectual light weight. That isn’t news. He didn’t make my list of overrated scholars for example, because I’ve never considered him a scholar. I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned him on this blog before.

        You take an original copy that isn’t very informative, and every reaction video is simply a copy of a copy with the resulting loss in quality. So the hours of content, especially for the podcasts, seems like little more than a shiny new object to debate and way to vent negative emotions. They react, react to the reaction, and react to the reaction of a reaction, to the point that they it’s the definition of a tempest in a teapot. That is how someone writing a good, but relatively unimportant blog about Heartland theories can be transformed into the definition of Mormon perfidy.  

        In the process of reacting and doing so quickly enough to have their reaction matter, it is often thoughtless. In many cases it takes me longer to read and reflect on a single book about the topic in question than it takes them to make a video. I prefer texts because I can read about 60-100 pages an hour of dense academic text, while I’ve seen podcasts where I can summarize the first 20 minutes with a single sentence. Then I have to consider the question or idea carefully, and then it takes many more hours of writing and revisions, peer revisions, and publication schedule to have the piece published. That’s why I expect the online world to be arguing about something different by the time I publish this piece. I’m not writing this piece to gain clicks by commenting on a hot topic, so I don’t care about its timing.

        Podcasts have the advantage of being faster, but I have yet to see a video that provides the knowledge gained from a thoughtful article or book. Even when they say something approaching academic insight, like a recent podcast from Cultch which discussed divine command theory, they remain relatively superficial in their points and they spent a significant amount of time discussing a particularly petty tweet from Hansen. Their discussion mostly talked in generalities that didn’t include specific verses, philosophers that explained the concept, or careful revisions to hone their points. These are all features of a paper I wrote which addressed how the scriptures seem to have both deontological and utilitarian systems and discussed the safeguards in scripture that restrain divine command theory. The podcast was so long, two hours, that I could rewrite that paper or reread most of the academic sources in the time it took them to make a few hasty generalizations.

        Speaking of my academic work, reaction video culture looks backwards. It not only goes back in time to the most recent “event,” like Jacob’s video, a news article, a prominent excommunication, etc. But it argues about the same things over and over again. Various YouTube personalities and podcasters give their zingers and catch phrases. Then the various ex and anti-Mormons give theirs. They go on like this is a perpetually breathless cycle of action and reaction that doesn’t provoke any new, substantive ideas. When not discussing people, the content is only arguing about stale issues like changes to the temple ceremony, the necessity of tithing, or differences in first vision accounts. These are all issues I first encountered decades ago. I remember reading an article about the differing first vision accounts on my mission in 2002. Some people might think those issues are a silver bullet for or against the church, and they might like deeply polemic arguing. But I find it all so pedestrian.

        My favorite part of being a scholar is looking to the future. When I applied to grad school, I had to show schools that I could make the transition from simply being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. Reactive culture doesn’t produce anything. I’ve never seen a podcast that approached the quality of an academic text, let alone one that blows my mind. The reaction video crowd simply consume knowledge that already exists, and then like carrion birds they fight over the carcass of that knowledge with other consumers. I’ve never seen anything new or original from them except increasingly click bait worthy hot takes. That is how you get videos with two buffoons discussing how ex Mormons are morons that the church couldn’t work for because they wanted to do drugs and have orgies. That is outrageous enough that it drives clicks, and even I heard about it, yet that doesn’t produce new insights or knowledge. Like an overworked ad executive, they simply came up with a new gimmick to drive engagement.

        At best they have an author on their show that discusses their book. But even then it’s still reactive because the content is being driven by a semi substantive academic work. (Not every book is created equal.) So even at their best and most substantive, they are dependent on the work of academics to generate their content.

        In short, I might be relatively unknown, even after all of these years. I’m not the target of reaction videos. But I’m also not the subject of dramatic personal attacks. I may do some interviews based on my academic expertise and books because I’m happy to talk about my work, even if I don’t like the medium.

        Mostly, I spend my time writing to produce new insights with an eye for the future. I just released a book on Just War in the Book of Mormon that represents the first attempt to systematize Mormon thought on the subject. During that process, I found a master’s thesis from over 100 years ago.[1] I imagine that the author was less popular than the authors of dime novels and the hosts of radio programs. He might have even sighed a few times, sitting alone in the library, sad that his hard work seemed to be ignored. But a century later, his insights aided my analysis, enhanced my thinking, and produced new understanding that I shared to a world that also doesn’t seem to care that much. In as little as a few weeks from now, no one will remember the controversy of the week from a random youtube personality. In contrast, my books will influence writers for years and hopefully like the writer I found during my research, scholars in the centuries to come will find and appreciate mine. When you measure success by insights gained from decades of studying which can then be studied centuries from now, a podcast and podcasters that generates buzz for a few days or weeks just don’t seem attractive.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or buy one of my books in the top left. 

*********

---

[1] Chen Queh King, Doctrine of Military Necessity, master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1918.

Approaching Nephite Thought on Warfare

Military history is more than battles. The extensive war campaigns and drama surrounding those battles tend to promote a great deal of writing them. But warfare is also how societies conceptualize warfare, and leaders justify it. I was doing the Come Follow Me readings and found very interesting verses at the end of Jacob. I have already discussed Jacob’s futile victory before, but I think these two short verses in Jacob set a template for how later Nephite leaders justified warfare.

Jacob 7:24-25-

And it came to pass that many means were devised to reclaim and restore the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth; but it all was vain, for they delighted in wars and bloodshed, and they had an eternal hatred against us, their brethren. And they sought by the power of their arms to destroy us continually. 

Wherefore, the people of Nephi did fortify against them with their arms, and with all their might, trusting in the God and rock of their salvation; wherefore they became as yet, conquerors of their enemies.

Verse 24 starts with a discussion of Nephite “means” to “reclaim and restore” the Lamanites. These are interesting verb choices that most likely reflect the difference between Aaron and Ammon’s missionary service. Compare Alma 17 where Ammon becomes a servant of the king, sets a good example, and then preaches; with Aaron’s attempt to preach in the synagogues of Jerusalem in chapter 21. It might also refer to activities like the prayer of Enos for the sake of his brethren. 

But those are futile because of the “eternal” hatred of the Lamanites. They rejected the preaching of the Nephites in favor of exercising their hatred through warfare. The “power of arms” at the end of the verse contrasts with the “knowledge of the truth” that the Nephites missionaries believed would reclaim and restore the Lamanites. (The apostle Paul also compared the spirit and word of God to a sword. Ephesians 6:17.)  The Lamanites then rejected the gospel, turned to hatred, and took literal swords instead of the figurative sword of truth.

The Nephites, after failing to convert the Lamanites, and being the subjects of eternal hatred then fortified against them.  This sounds purely defensive, but the fortifications refer to arms and not walls, and it led them to be conquerors so I wouldn’t read that quite so literally.  What is interesting, is that even though they resorted to arms, the proper place of warfare was to remind them to trust in God. 

Finally, the couple ends with, “wherefore, they became as yet, conquerors.”  The tentative declaration of that sentence is very poignant to me. Its not a final victory. After all, fighting only occurs because the preaching of the truth failed. The Nephites only succeeded in defending themselves by trusting in God. The victories thus hardly seem like it because a true victory would mean they never had to fight in the first place.  

These verses seem to have influenced later Nephite writers. Alma gave up political power to devote his full time and energy to preaching. His reasoning corresponds to the first part of Jacob’s couplet and the primacy of spiritual power over political power. 

Alma 4:19-

These verses from Jacob seem to have influenced later Nephite writers. Alma gave up political power to devote his full time and energy to preaching. His reasoning corresponds to the first part of Jacob’s couplet and the primacy of spiritual power over political power. 

This he did that he himself might go forth among his people, or among the people of Nephi, that he might preach the word of God unto them, to stir them up in remembrance of their duty, and that he might pull down, by the word of God, all the pride and craftiness and all the contentions which were among his people, seeing no way that he might reclaim them save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them.

Its interesting to note that those who rejected his spiritual teachings at Ammonihah nominally recognized Alma’s former political power, but it was the rejection of his spiritual teachings and the great wickedness of the city that got them killed (Alma 8:12; 16:2). Pahoran clearly echoes this thinking in response to Moroni. 

Alma 61:14:

Let us resist evil, and whatsoever evil we cannot resist with our words, yeah, such as rebellions and dissensions, let us resist them with our swords, that we may retain our freedom, that we may rejoice in the great privilege of our church, and in the cause of our Redeemer and our God. 

Again, spiritual teachings come first, and the resort to weapons comes second. In this case it’s interesting to note that he is referring to subduing internal rebellions while Jacob was referring to external invasion. Still though, the use of those weapons only occurs after the failure of preaching and must be connected back to God.

In Jacob’s time it simply refers to God and his salvation. But here the use of weapons here points towards their freedom to worship God and protect their church. Not every Nephite belonged to the church of God, so this could have been a more divisive point than modern readers understand. Those that didn’t belong to the church of God were subject to Nephite rulers, again, think of the people of Ammonihah.  In the case of the chief judge Nephihah, he was chosen from only among the elders of the church (Alma 4:19), but they still had to fight for that church’s right to worship at the threat of Moroni’s sword (Alma 51:17).  

Helaman 6:3, 37-

The final case is the most revealing as it shows how the Lamanites either incorporated Nephite thought, or Mormon crafted his narrative in such a way that the Lamanites conformed to it. After the Lamanites were converted in Helaman chapter 5 in chapter 6 they are recorded as being more righteous than the Nephites (Helaman 6:2-3). These righteous Lamanites used “every means” to destroy the Gadianton Robbers. These sounds like an aberration because preaching is supposed to come first according to Jacob. But verse 37 says that the Lamanites “did hunt the band of robbers; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them.” The printer’s manuscript may have meant the “less wicked” parts of the robbers, or more wicked parts of the Lamanites who, as Ammon and Aaron found out, would still be more receptive to the gospel than apostate Nephites. But the important part is that the Lamanites preached to those that would listen, and fought those that didn’t.  

Conclusion-

Jacob’s short verses were an incredibly powerful statement about the importance of spiritual teachings, it’s relation to warfare, and warfare’s ideal purpose leading to trust in God. Adhering to spiritual teaching was supposed to lead to peace, but the rejection of it often led to war. Warfare required warfare to combat it. Not pacifism as many modern readers mistakenly believe. But that warfare was supposed to be done with a trust in God, and it was supposed to lead to greater reliance on God as the ultimate guarantee of victory, and not the strength of arms as a temporary victory.  

It was so important I believe it influenced Nephite leaders and was possibly transmitted to Lamanite coverts or through the entirety of Nephite history down to its great (second to) last record keeper, Mormon. 

The Battle Pause in Alma 44

The battle account in Alma 44 always confused me a bit. In this chapter the Lamanites are caught in Captain Moroni’s trap and the battle is reported in Alma 43 as being incredibly intense. The Lamanites fought with such fury they were described as dragons that could spilt breast plates in two (Alma 43:44).  Yet a short time later the battle ended, Moroni gave a speech, Zarahemnah handed the weapons to Moroni, gives a counter speech, and Moroni hands the weapons back. 

This was very confusing to me because it suggests a level of command and control over the battlefield that seemed too great for Nephite armies. Once battles are joined, they aren’t paused and restarted multiple times like a stop watch.  Having some extra time at home on my hands I’ve been rereading my material from grad school, and I found a quote which suggests that battles could be paused or put into some sort of stasis. 

Speaking of Roman warfare Harry Sidebottom wrote: 

“That [hand to hand] fighting was physically exhausting- and we can estimate some battles like Cannae, lasted for hours- has led some modern scholars to hypothesize that at times such combat reverted to a ‘default state,’ where the two sides would draw back and hurl missiles and insults at each other as they got up their courage [and strength] for another short burst of hand to hand fighting.”[1]

There is certainly a great deal of this that applies to the Book of Mormon. This is the battle in which the Nephites debuted their heavier armor. (I say heavier instead of heavy because the Nephites armor was enough to scare their loin clad enemies, but not metal enough to be similar to heavy infantry throughout history as I explain here.)  The Nephite armor would have caused their fatigued. The Lamanite exertion would have caused their fatigue. And certainly, the exchange between the two leaders was testy so this matches up in some respects to Sidebottom’s quote.

But this quote is not completely satisfactory. This battle includes some sort of ceremonial element when Moroni demanded his opponent’s weapons and a covenant (Alma 44:7-10). Thus, the description of battle as a free for all that eludes any ability to pause the battle, but then is so exhausting that it produces a stalemate isn’t completely satisfactory. I suspect these ritual elements hold the key. They represent the paused elements in the battle and there seems to be some sort of mixture between formal rules to battle and the lack of it. After all, this was a pivotal battle that first displayed Moroni's heavier armor, and he seems to defensive about his ambush (Alma 43:29-30), which makes sense if one is to be believe there is a ritualistic element to the battle.  I believe that research more into such items as flower wars, mourning wars, desecrecation ceremonies and similar conflicts that limited warfare to find a better answer. I’ll just have to wait for the libraries to open again.  

---

[1] Harry Sidebottom, Ancient Warfare: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2004, pg. 88.

Enos and the Trickster God: Mormon Theology Seminar 2020

Huehecoyotl from Codex Telleriano-Remensis

Enos knew that “God could not lie” (Enos 1:6) and therefore his guilt over his sins was swept away. Bearing testimony of a God that doesn’t lie suggests the possibility of gods that did lie. Assuming the possibility of trickster gods that Enos encountered in society at large, or maybe believed in during a rebellious phase, and which would make him want a remission of his sins when he came back, brings additional insights the life of Enos, his encounter with God, and provides insights in Nephite and Lamanite societies as well.

Because trickster gods are common throughout different cultures in different times it possible that Nephite culture responded to and interacted with these belief systems. Enos’ initial impulse was seeking forgiveness for his sins. Understanding the trickster gods might help us understand what sins bothered him. The Aztec god Huehuecóyotl for example was often a symbol for indulgence and male sexuality which suggests the sins of Enos could have been sexual in nature. It’s possible that Enos indulged in his youth in sexual proclivities much like Corianton from later in Nephite history (Alma 39).[1]

In another text, much like the Greek gods Huehuecoyotl fomented wars between humans to relieve his boredom.[2] This is rather insightful because as the faith of Enos increased, or “began to be unshaken” (Enos 1:11), the God who couldn’t lie explained his just reasons for blessing the Nephites with protection, and God then explained the reasons they would forfeit that right. Both reasons are based on the people adhering to covenants in contrast to the capriciousness of a trickster God. Perhaps during his sojourn among other gods or disbelief in God Enos started to think, like the fictional character Romeo, that they were simple fools of fortune or a trickster god (Romeo and Juliet III.1). The desire for God’s promised protection of the Nephites suggests the possibly precarious state of Nephite affairs in this period and the seeds for their eventual exit from the land of Nephi.

The Navajo Coyoteway ceremony is particularly insightful as well. In the ceremony the ritual singer acts as a mediator between the trickster God and the people who offended him.[3] During his prayer Enos acted as a mediator for his people, praying for their welfare (1:9) and the perseveration of their records (1:16) from the hatred of the Lamanites. The Nephites had a knowledge of Moses, and presumably his intercession for the children of Israel which could mean that Enos was applying one or both of several traditions to his specific circumstances. 

The Lamanite behavior also has some possible relation to the trickster god. In the usual ethno centric description given by the Nephites of a wild people dwelling in tents and eating the flesh of wild beasts, Enos mentions that they were a short “skin girdle” (Enos 1:20). While not explicitly mentioned, the visual image of wearing the skins of creatures could recall the priests of trickster gods that often wore animal pelts that represented their gods and who were both feared and revered among ancient people.  

The Ekeko character from South Ande tribes and Kokopeilli from  North American South West tribes both represented trickster gods from afar that came bearing important messages. The importance of this trait could be that Enos used the concept of messages from the trickster gods, as something that was familiar to him and would make an easier transition back to praying to the God who couldn’t lie.[4] Kokopelli is often depicted with a prominent phallus which again connects to the possible sexual sin of Enos which would have created strong motivation and desire for the remission of his sins. Kokopelli’s petroglyphs as a hunchback flute player remains in many caves today which provide vivid physical reminders of locations where ancients would tell stories or perhaps pray all night around a camp fire.

Examining the Book of Enos and the God who couldn’t lie as a response to trickster gods seen throughout ancient societies gives us tantalizing hints into the sins of Enos, the way God interacts with his people through righteous judgement, possible Nephite politics and Lamanite material culture, and the way trickster beliefs like intercession and messages from afar may have influenced Nephite religious leaders. 

Thanks for reading. Providing ad free research for the last decade is difficult and time consuming. If you liked this research please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Codex Telleriano-Remensis http://www.famsi.org/research/loubat/Telleriano-Remensis/thumbs0.html

[2] Codex Borbonicus http://www.famsi.org/research/graz/borbonicus/thumbs_0.html

[3] Karl W. Luckert and Johnny C. Cooke, Navajo Interpreter, COYOTEWAY: A Navajo Holyway Healing Ceremonial, University of Arizona Press, 1979.

[4] Young, John V. Kokopelli: Casanova of the Cliff Dwellers: The Hunchbacked Flute Player. Palmer Lake, Colorado: Filter Press 1990.

Forts, Resorts and Nephite Military Strategy

The Tower of London in the 12th century, they often painted it white. 

A particular discussion of forts and strategy prompted an interesting reexamination of what I thought I knew. Arthur Ferrill writes about the Late Roman Empire:

In a situation in which the enemy can almost certainly pierce the defensive perimeter, defense in depth and elastic defense are the two most likely military responses. The idea of elastic defense is simply to seek out the enemy’s attacking force and defeat it whenever possible. But defense in depth permits limited retention of frontier territory in forts manned by small forces…Defense in depth is based on the assumption that the frontiers cannot be made impenetrable (at least not at a reasonable cost), and that attackers will inevitably succeed in piercing the defensive perimeters. Such invasions can be thwarted, however, by maintaining relatively strong forts in a fairly deep band along the frontiers and a mobile army (or several scattered regionally) within the Empire. The forts must be strong enough to withstand attack and yet not so strongly defended as to become a drain on manpower weakening the mobile army. Since the barbarian invaders of the Roman period normally knew little about the techniques of siege warfare and could not place forts under blockade for fear of being caught by the mobile army, defense was in some respects theoretically realistic. During an invasion the forts served as pockets of resistance for storing food and fodder. Later, as the mobile army coordinated its efforts against the enemy with the small defending frontier forces, supplies could be denied to the invader while they were made available to the central reserve. When situated at strategic points such forts might also hold river crossings and passes thereby impeding the enemy’s movements.[1]

What interested me about this is that everything I’ve read tends to support the Nephite strategy of a defense in depth. For example, here is Nibley’s discussion of the practice:

Moroni’s defenses were based on a series of strong points, being a defense in depth, as modern defense-lines are; beside specially placed ‘small forts, or places of resort,’ towns and cities on the line were also converted into strong points (Alma 48:8). Such an arrangement can take the momentum out of any military steamroller and slow down or stop any attacking force, no matter how formidable, by forcing it to reduce one strong place after another or else bypass the fortifications and thereby leave dangerous enemy forces in its rear to disrupt communications and launch harassing counter-attacks on invading units.[2]

Me and my daughter, Tower of London 2017. 

So far so good, Nibley provided a decent description of the chapter and compares nicely to Ferrill’s definition of defense in depth. But the only problem is that the verse that talks about a system of forts and resorts, is never really mentioned again. The strength of fortifications for some major cities such as Bountiful, and Nephihah, and Mulek are mentioned. Moroni wrote his angry letter to the government because he felt it was easier to keep those fortified cities than take them. He tried to entice Jacob out onto the plains, and needed some extracurricular climbing to secure Nephihah.

But the vast majority of the war chapters suggest something different. When the Lamanites invaded with their “wonderfully great” army in Alma 51:11, they quickly seized most of the new cities along the seashore: Moroni, Lehi, Morianton, Omner, Gid, Mulek, and in an apparent typo or a narrative that got ahead of itself, Nephihah is listed here as well (Alma 51:26, compare Alma 51:24; 59:7.) There is little strategic depth here as Teancum searched out and “met” the Lamanite army. The Nephites didn’t hold key river crossings, or have fortifications with “limited retention of territory” behind enemy lines and definitely didn’t have a “fairly deep band” of forts throughout their territory. They were relatively close to Lamanite territory, (they did call it the “narrow strip of wilderness” after all, Alma 22:27) and they had little strategic depth. In the vast majority of cases it was Nephite armies that advanced to meet an invading foe in battle. This suggests the elastic defense more than defense in depth.

There were several times that what could be described as mobile armies operated with fortresses to attack and kill armies. But the limited Nephite geography combined with lack of institutional difference between the mobile army and garrison forces (that became rather prominent in late Roman history) makes this less persuasive for the defense in depth theory.

Moreover, I’ve read that there are actually differences between refuges, strongholds (Alma 50:6), and strategic defense. What we have in Nephite society is the first two, but it’s very unlikely they had the third.[3] As David Jones wrote:

Refuges function as short-term defense and only work against an enemy without the means to linger in an area for long periods. Refuges simply have to deter an enemy from organizing an assault. A stronghold, on the other hand, must be able to withstand attackers who can maintain supply lines to the siege site. Strongholds must be large enough to protect and house a garrison when under attack. They typically possess walls, towers, and some sort of moat—wet or dry. In the “strategic systems” type of fortification, multiple strongholds connect, much like a wall, to deny enemies access over a wide offensive front…Refuges are most likely found in small-scale societies of the band or tribal type, whereas strongholds are a product of small or divided sovereignties; they proliferate when central authority has not been established or is struggling to secure itself or has broken down…Strategic defenses are the most expensive form of fortification to construct, to maintain and to garrison, and their existence is always a mark of the wealth and advanced political development of the people who build them.[4]

In short then, based on a variety of factors that include a broader examination of the war chapters, and proposed Nephite geography, and the level of society necessary to produce wide spread fortifications, the Nephites practiced something closer to what Ferrill called the elastic defense and what I called the offensive defensive. In Mormon Perspectives on War I wrote:

This strategy was used by the Confederacy during the American Civil War, permitting them to choose the locations where critical military confrontations should occur: “Then the confederacy might muster adequate numbers and resources at critical places despite overall inferiority of strength.”[5] I contend that the Nephites were successful when they adopted this strategy. They were numerically inferior and, for much of their history, “nearly surrounded” by the Lamanites (Alma 22:29). Strategically they would receive the Lamanite attack. Once the attack entered Nephite territory they would then move offensively to force a battle at the time and location of their choosing. These tactical advantages would offset their numerical deficiency and result in victory.

So What

This might seem like an insignificant detail to many people, many others might have their eyes glaze over by trying to see the difference between elastic defense and defense in depth, or the differences between a refuge and stronghold. But being precise is important. Too often people, church members, conservatives, liberals, critics, and defenders, use labels such as war monger, terrorist, and snowflake, and let those labels do the heavy lifting in the argument. Without beating up on Hugh Nibley too much, (though I do have a project that offers a much needed critique of his military arguments), he and many others used the wrong term in this case that has obscured the debate. Apologist arguments in many cases have accepted Nibley’s writings as gospel truth when those writings really needed to be critically assessed.

Old Roman Wall and statue of Caesar with a medieval wall built on top of it. Tower Station London. 

More importantly than being precise is how the fortifications can tell us about Nephite society. Armies don’t simply float down from the imagination of historians, but are raised, equipped, fed, and trained by the societies that field them. A stronghold defense, (the second kind of forts mentioned by Jones), correctly implies a small, struggling central authority trying to establish itself against external and internal threats.

In my next book, From Sinners to Saints: Reassessing the Book of Mormon, I often criticized Nephite leadership. One of the biggest critiques comes from the expense of maintaining fortifications and garrisons after the great war. In short, the fortifications were decisive in the war, but very few have looked at the unintended consequences of those forts. My chapter and the quote from Jones above suggest that cost of building and maintaining their strongholds led to a rapacious need for taxation and an abusive, self interested class of soldiers and government officials which fueled an insurgency and societal unrest. In plain language, the dysfunction in Nephite society seen in the Book of Helaman was caused by the reforms of Moroni during the war chapters. Jones’ analysis builds on that by providing a general rule which states that a society building extensive fortifications must be wealthy and politically complex.

This should add a great deal of poignancy and nuance to the prophetic denunciations about “getting gain” in the Book of Helaman. War is expensive, and preparing to defend against a Lamanite attack seemed to break Nephite society. (Recall the need to provide “defense at a reasonable cost” mentioned by Ferrill.) War seems like good business for some, Nephite society didn’t have ammunition supplies like World War I, but they likely had local elites that got rich off of the Nephite building programs and garrisons. The government needed more money to pay locals, or to use a modern phrase, pay their contractors. This required more taxes which could seem rapacious enough to fuel an insurgency. The soldiers benefited from the plunder associated with warfare. And the people suffered and there are many more effects. I have hundreds of pages in my book that discuss these items in further detail, but in short, the denunciations against “getting gain” likely refer to what was the ancient Nephite version of a military industrial complex.

[Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer, if you found value in this work please consider donating using the pay pal button below. Thanks!] 

**********

[1] Arthur Ferrill, The Fall of the Roman Empire, The Military Explanation, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986,) 31, 45.

[2] Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Books, 1986.) Chapter 11. Please note Nibley’s use of “as modern defenses lines go”, this is quite ironic as Ferrill says most scholars accept certain arguments about Roman defense because it has a modern ring to it.

[3] Though I write in my new book that the consequences of the war chapters were expensive forts and garrisons for them that had negative effects on Nephite society, so I feel some vindication based on this quote.

[4] David Jones, Native North American Arms and Armor, (UT Austin Press, 2004), viii-ix.

[5] Russel Weigley, The American Way of War, (Bloomington, Indiana University Press), 97. Found in, Morgan Deane, “Preemptive Warfare in the Book of Mormon,” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, (Draper, Greg Kofford Books, 2012,) chapter 2.

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.] 

A special post about Memorial Day and Freedom

[I write about three articles a week for Opslens magazine. I wrote this one for the upcoming holiday and re-post it there in full because I think its worth reading.] 

The three day weekend seems to be the new American tradition and I and my daughter have very special plans. Unfortunately, the tradition seems to be accompanied by a new one that calls for lots of social media shaming. In various encounters I’ve seen individuals attacked for wishing a “happy” holiday, which doesn’t properly honor or comfort the fallen. (Its never affects me directly, as a Marine veteran from a double gold star family I’ve got enough street cred to avoid that crap.) While the desire to remember veterans on Memorial Day is good, public shaming on social media is a very shallow way to do it and misses a very important point about freedom.

As I’ve discussed, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the continued efforts in the War on Terror increasingly fall on small number of people and families. Unlike the immediate aftermath of the mass draft in World War II and Vietnam, according to sources less than one percent of Americans currently serve in the military.  This relatively heavy burden on a relatively small population means that many Americans want to honor service men and women, but don’t know how. This disconnect often forces people beyond praise into un critical hero worship. Combined with a culture that often involves hi tech lynchings, venting rants, and skewed realities based on social media, this sometimes lead to people policing and shaming others for their apparent disrespect for the military. 

A true respect and value for the military would mean a person researches and works hard to ensure service men and women are properly trained, equipped, and deployed across the world. This true respect requires a good deal of reading, research and thought, but very little social media use.  Facebook posts shaming others for barbecuing on Memorial Day is a shallow and frankly pathetic attempt to honor the troops. It’s like trying to fight terrorism by putting a French flag filter on your Instagram profile, or trying to save kidnapped women by tweeting a hast tag. More important than how somebody honors the troops, is having an appreciation of the fundamental freedom for which the military fights.  America is so amazing that it even grants the freedom to its citizens to burn its flag. That freedom also includes not honoring veterans on Memorial Day Weekend.  That is not particularly grateful behavior, but true freedom doesn’t force people into honoring it or the soldiers that sacrificed for it.    

With the holiday weekend arriving, I would remind those tempted to shame others on social media for not showing sufficient respect, that barbecuing and enjoying the holiday with family is a perfectly acceptable way to use the freedom that so many fought for.  So feel free to celebrate the holiday weekend however you would like. Personally, I enjoy the free hot dogs and soda at the local furniture store.  I hope your celebration includes remembering the fallen servicemen and women, but I hope even more that you take the time to appreciate the freedom they fought for by spending time with your family in peace.  

[Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider making a small donation using one of the paypal buttons at the bottom of the page.]

3 Posts and a Cover

Greetings! This is a quick post showing some of the recent success I've had. I write full time for Opslens magazine, but I often have articles that are picked up by the Washington Examiner, and sometimes by Fox News.  I was always a bit worried about writing articles that are overtly political. I don't like to be a partisan hack. But I think you'll notice that I focus more on explaining concepts clearly and applying more reason and thought to the articles. In fact, one of my articles explicitly attacks the reliance upon emotion and the need for more thought, so even though these posts are political, I think they are more thoughtful and less shrill than much of the material out there.

Could China Sink a US Carrier? : A fun post that summarizes much of the research I've done into missile defense. In fact, my very first article for Strategy and Tactics Magazine discussed the so called "carrier killing missile,"so I have a ample experience and a good foundation and tool box of knowledge for discussing this topic.

Fighting Obama Care doesn't mean you wish death upon those in need:  This was an article inspired by Debbi Wassermen Schultz's defense of Obama Care by citing her cancer stricken mother. (It was for the now defunct Arsenal of Venice, when I tried to launch my own free lance website.) Of course this was from several years ago, but Jimmy Kimmel ended up doing the same thing when he talked about his son's emergency medical treatment. All of the points I made still applied, so I simply changed a few sentences specific to Schultz.

Revisiting the Axis of Evil 15 Years Later: I remember Bush being mocked for this phrase 15 years ago, but here we facing problems and near war with the two thirds of that axis 15 years later. The benefits of being a historian means that you have additional context with which to judge. Unfortunately, most people get bogged down in the debates of the day and don't pause to consider how the past might apply to the present. (Even more egregiously, the shallow perception of the past is often manipulated to support the present. But that is a historian's lecture I'll save for another day.)

Those are three published articles with the Washington Examinter in a single week, so I think my stock is rising at Opslens haha.  On top of that, I received the preliminary cover for my book:

I really enjoy the cover, the publisher had difficulty getting the rights to the other image and a high quality version of it.  This was a pretty good week for my writing and I'm happy to share it with you. Ironically enough, on facebook last year I wrote a pretty frustrated post about nobody giving me time of day and ignoring my work.  But here I am a year later with a regular freelance writing gig, another book coming out, and regularly being picked up by the Washington Examiner. Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoy the articles and buy my book when it comes out! 

[I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal buttons at the bottom of the page. Thank you.] 

From Hudson Bay to Montenegro: Research Round Up

Greetings everybody. I wanted to give you some updates on my research. The major blog By Common Consent started a new press. This is very exciting news as the Mormon publishing world is very small. I've been waiting to hear back from the major publishers, but another one sounds like a great place to publish my second text on warfare in the Book of Mormon. You can read more about it here. (Though I've added an extra chapter since then based on this material.)  I understand BCC is not the most academic venue, but I'm not trying to get tenure or please those in the Ivory Tower. I want to publish something that I think is of great worth to readers and I'm having a devil of a time finding a Mormon publishing outlet.

In fact, if BCC doesn't want to publish with me I will make a pitch to Westholme Press. I signed a contract with them last November and my book, Decisive Battles in Chinese History, should be coming out in the fall. I've come up with a few potential cover pictures and a book blurb:

The study of Chinese battles faces many hurdles that include hard to pronounce names, different spelling systems, and a haze of impenetrable names, places, and ideas. Indigenous Chinese histories written by Confucians with an anti-military bias used rather laconic phrases to describe the battles that were then transmitted to Jesuit missionaries that shared the Confucian disdain for martial matters. The modern discipline of history developed in the West during a time of particular Chinese weakness and political division that lasted through many of the tumultuous events in the 20^th century. This book overcomes those hurdles by covering the wide span of Chinese history from their semi mythical beginnings to the 21^st century Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. Using the best of modern scholarship, with a keen eye for military history and strategy, the text penetrates the fog of Chinese history using an accessible writing style. Each chapter highlights an engaging battle that selectively focusing on unique Chinese characteristics including their major belief systems, ruling ideology, connection between technology and warfare, Chinese military theory, major political events and key rulers, their foreign policy with their neighbors, cultural developments, and their interaction with the West. The text pushes back on a variety of ideas and stereotypes ranging from the Chinese use of gunpowder, their supposedly weak reaction to the West, the viability of the Dynastic Cycle in studying history, the context of their military theory, the exclusivity of martial and cultural spheres,  and the uniqueness of Western imperialism.  It offers a groundbreaking reassessment of Mao Zedong’s leadership and his impact on the development of guerrilla warfare. In world filled with disturbing reports of conflict and potential warfare, Decisive Battles in Chinese History offers a unique addition to students, historians, and anybody wishing to better understand Chinese history. 

Nationalist propaganda 1937

I continue to publish with Opslens. My articles there have been picked up by Fox News  and Washington Examiner . Combined with writing for Strategy and Tactics Magazine as well as Strategy Bridge, I'm excited for my writing future.

On that note, I want to briefly introduce my next book. In a future post I might provide a book blurb or preview of a sample chapter.  I am writing a book that discusses a World History of Battle at 400AD. The genesis of the project came from something I noticed.  378AD  witnessed Tikal being overrun by Teotihuacan. In Book of Mormon chronology 378 covered the final Nephite battles for survival.  In 378 the Romans lost at the Battle of Adrianople, which inaugurated the final chapter of their history.  I started to look further and I thought the Battle of Badon Hill in the late 5th century was close enough to be considered, especially when it gives me the chance to examine what many think is the historical King Arthur. (If you read my first book you know that I used the words of British historian Gildas in discussing the behavior of Gadianton Robbers. So I'm already familiar with the sources of this age.) Speaking of being familiar, I have a whole book on Chinese battles, so its not difficult to re-purpose the chapter that covered the Battle of Fei River (383AD).  I've been working on a sample Japanese chapter, and their history is rather sparse before the mid 6th century or so, except you can line up general trends with the Gwanggaeto Stele, which just happens to detail a war right at 400 AD!  As you can see, this book provides a good chance to cover a variety of cultures and regions that aren't normally examined at all, let alone together in a volume. I'm particularly proud of my inclusion of Cree warfare, which I had to reconstruct from various sources. Each chapters looks at a particular battle and then considers the role of geography, technology, and culture in how they created armies and fought.

Thanks for reading and I hope you get a chance to read my research!!

[I work as a free lance writer. If you enjoyed this post and found it useful please consider making a donation using the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page.] 

Approaching the War Chapters Part Three: How to Grade on a Curve

This is part three of a series describing how I would approach the war chapters. You can find part one here, which discussed some models examining the causes of the war. You can find part two here, which asked some hard questions about Captain Moroni and the consequences of victory seen within the Book of Helaman. Part three finishes the series by looking at cultural attitudes and ancient practices that warn against simple applications.

Cultural Attitudes:

Probably the most important point at the end of the war chapters is to try applying this. Latter Day Saints are good at making applications to their life, but not all comparisons and applications are equal in quality and application.  The utility of ancient history to modern application is one of the important factors. For example, modern Democracy is far different than a premodern tribal based society.  There is the separation of church and state, and foreign policy is based on things different than a cosmological worldview. That means that Latter Day Saints living in a modern liberal Democracy don’t have the same amount of power over foreign policy as the Nephite Chief Judge. 

Returning to part one, Henry Kissinger described two views concerning foreign policy.[1] These models show us a way we might tentatively apply modern principles to help understand some of the lessons the text might offer.   One is a realist view based on balance of power considerations. As part one discussed, the rising powers of Germany and Sparta threatened the sphere of influence with the dominant powers of Great Britain and Athens.  This unbalance created tension that led to war.  The second kind of foreign policy is based on democratic ideals and an almost crusading concept of intervening to support democracy and greater humanitarianism.  The most vivid example of this would be Woodrow Wilson’s War to End All Wars, 14 Points, support for the League of Nations, and his intervention in World War I. While this is also a modern concept, it helps the reader consider how ancient moral ideas, such as God punishing the wicked Nephites using wicked Lamanites,[2] might be inappropriately applied and morphed into a crusading foreign policy.  Latter Day Saints have a responsibility to consider God’s will concerning warfare, but it isn’t quite as simple as a taking a verse or two and then making sweeping pronouncements in support of warfare. As Sunzi famously said, warfare is the greatest affair of state, the way to life and death, and it must be thoroughly examined.[3]  Considering the justifications for war, both modern foreign policy models and ancient scripture, requires an extensive consideration and application of both.  

For example, the concept of sheltering civilians from the horrors of war developed in the modern Western world largely after the 30 years war ended in 1648.  The humanist movement in Europe reacted against this carnage by trying to regulate conduct on the battlefield, and the discrimination between military targets and those that were off limits. (Though every culture and time has a back and forth struggle and conversation with what is acceptable in war and what isn’t.)  Thus modern Western readers come with a very specific version of what people can and can’t do based upon a series of cultural assumptions that have grown for hundreds of years and are fully expressed in documents like the  Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Geneva Convention.  This is why we might suggest that Moroni is not as righteous for things like indefinite detention and his use of prisoners to test poisoned food. Conversely, judging Moroni solely based on modern standards is a fallacy called presentism. Its most extreme form means that anybody judged racist or sexist by today’s standards, which is pretty much everybody, can be discarded. The best way to use our modern sensibilities is to be aware of them, note the differences, and using a phrase, to assess Moroni’s actions and “grade on a curve.” This means the modern expectations and standards are useful guides, but not necessarily a final determination of his righteous, as even God declared that he teaches men according to their state (2 Nephi 31:3).  

Destructiveness of War:

On top of that, the modern world makes it more difficult to directly cut and paste ancient tactics and strategy.  Pre-modern battle consisted of face-to-face encounters. The armies that traveled to these battles were limited by the primitive logistics of that age. Their logistical limits were compounded by an apparent lack of wheeled transport in pre-Colombian Mesoamerica. But even with an army’s damage limited to what they could personally smash or kill, and a nation’s limitations in supplying its troops, the Lamanites could quickly desolate many cities before the Nephites “could raise a sufficient army.” (Alma 16:2-3).  In Helaman 1:19, the Lamanites marched “with such great speed” they and captured the capital city and ultimately they enacted genocide with these primitive means.

                Today’s battlefields stretch over many miles. The personal weapon of American infantrymen, the M-16, has an effective range of roughly a third of a mile. Jet fighters, stealth bombers, and cruise missiles can launch from one location and strike a thousand miles away. And Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles live up to their name, attacking and strike from continents away. Worldwide airline and naval travel easily transport dangerous people and materials. During the Cold War the United States could nominally count on the international order to restrain the actions of the enemy.  Now, the United States faces regimes that explicitly reject that world order, support terrorism as an arm of foreign policy, and seek the most devastating weapons known to man.

Case Study: Nuclear Weapons

It was this triad (rogue regimes, seeking WMDs, and supporting terror) that George W. Bush presented as justification for the attack on Iraq.  This section presents a brief case study that suggests how me might take ancient scriptures that didn’t know about nuclear weapons, and apply them in the modern world, and I adapt it from my work in War and Peace In Our Time: Mormon Perspectives.

In Alma 46 we read how Amalickiah presented a threat to the liberty of the Nephites. The actual results of his behavior could not be seen until his treachery and murder in chapter 47, his agitation of the Lamanites in Alma 48, his devastating offensive in Alma 50, and his brother’s hellish letter in Alma 54. While it is possible Moroni acted with incomplete intelligence, I believe he correctly identified Amalickiah’s intent and latent evil, and followed a righteous course of action in Alma 46:30-32. In these verses Moroni did “according to his desires” and sought to “cut off” Amalickiah. Thus Moroni saw Amalickiah (using George W. Bush terminology) as a “gathering storm.”  Precise details of Moroni’s specific military campaign are scarce. But the reason for his pre-emptive action is not far removed from George W. Bush’s removal of Saddam Hussein. And it is not at all unlikely that the kingmen who opposed Moroni did so by labeling him as a war-mongering fascist (or its ancient equivalent).

It is always hard to justify offensive action based on possible future events or simply latent evil, but from the actions of Moroni in Alma 46 and several other places, it is clear that offensive, proactive, and even pre-emptive attacks are morally sanctioned from the righteous actors in the Book of Mormon. For example, as already noted, the Nephites at times adopted a vigorous counterinsurgency campaign, meaning they actively sought to search and destroy their enemies.  And on another occasion, the Nephite government established a military outpost in enemy territory to try and strengthen their position. 

Conclusion:

You’ll notice I’ve provided many ideas such as the way that treatment of civilians has changed, or the changes brought by nuclear weapons. But I haven’t provided many firm and dogmatic answers.  As the development of the barges in Ether showed, true growth comes from having a pertinent question without any clear answers (Ether 2:18-20, 22-23). I believe reading the text should be a demanding experience.  Sacred scripture gives us answers to questions that potentially affect the lives and deaths of millions of individuals.   The individual must thoughtfully examine and reassess their preconceptions, dive thoughtfully into the text, and then develop a foreign policy vision consistent with the scriptures.[4] Sacred scripture that deals with potentially millions of lives and deaths should be a challenging experience that pushes, engages, strengthens, and radically changes our will and understanding towards God’s. We have amazing modern tools such as foreign policy models that can help us understand the scriptures.  But we also have a different world view from ancient writers, and we are separated from God.  We need all the help we can get in understanding warfare, what it means in understanding the Book of Mormon, and how it applies in the world. I hope this series helped.

**********

---

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

[2] Hugh Nibley, “Warfare in the Book of Mormon,” Warfare in the Book of Mormon, William Hamblin and Stephen Ricks eds, (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991).   Though as Duane Boyce pointed out, this model has significant exceptions within the Book of Mormon and does not account for every war. Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015) 73-80.

[3] Sunzi, “The Art of War,” Ralph Sawyer trans., The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, (New York: Westview Press, 1993,) 157.

[4] I was incredibly disheartened for example when I praised an author’s work for examining those assumptions, and almost immediately an anti-war proponent copy and pasted a long list of proof texts with no analysis whatsoever. See Jeremy Orb Smith’s comment here:  http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-vital-resource-for-understanding-lds-perspectives-on-war/#comments