Broadening the Field

At the Juvenile Instructor Brant E. has discussed his current research project about Mormons that fought in the Civil War. You can read it for yourself here (sorry if the link is broken, I'm a historian not a techie):
http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/an-introduction-to-the-mormon-particpation-in-the-civil-war/


This is a great study that shows how warfare can help us understand more about the Church. Here is a study of participants of a war that could have used the Book of Mormon as an ideological guide. It also represents the limits of my focus. I choose to focus on the internal textual studies and how the Book of Mormon compares to other military books and ideas. His paper focuses on how 19th century Mormons used the book in their lives. Both approaches are important and I look forward to expanding my studies in the future. (See the last point in my post "Ancient models for modern ideas")
I look forward to reading more from Brant and wish him luck.

Military Cause for the problems in the Book of Helaman

As part of being done with grad school I am now reading many books that I had to rush through in my studies. In "The Introduction to Ancient Warfare" Harry Sidebottom describes what historians call the "Agrarian Crisis" in the Late Roman Republic. I touched upon this subject in my post called "Full Time Soldiers", here I will try to better describe the salient features of the crisis and how it applies to the Book of Helaman and Third Nephi.

In the second and first centuries B.C. Roman armies (1) fought increasingly longer wars farther from their borders. (2) These wars allowed many rich landowners to increase the size of their holdings and caused many citizen soldiers to lose their farms while they were away. (3) These wars also imported large amounts of slaves and booty, that made the rich richer and supplied labor for these larger farms. (4) The now landless soldiers did two things: they congregated in the cities and supplied a market for the goods deriving from the big farms, or they found steady employment in the army. (5) Generals and soldiers had mutual self interest in fighting more wars that continued the cycle. They cycle was broken by (6) resettling the soldiers in distant colonies.

This is a very basic outline that leaves many things unsaid. But it does provide a basic model for explaining many of the events in the Book of Helaman. We start with longer wars far from home that required a greater number of full time soldiers. Many people were dispossessed in this war (1) as evidenced by the "regulation" that Nephite leaders conducted after the war. Many Nephites became "exceedingly rich" and Nephite society contained a growing number of specialists (lawyers, priests etc.) that connote a rising standard of living and complex society. (2) Many of these people could have grown rich by evicting small land holders. (4) The now landless and disgruntled population could have lead to the rise of a band of thieves described in the Book of Mormon. (5) While the large landowners increasingly defied the central authority. (continuation of the King men resulting in the overthrow of the Judgeship in 33 AD) The soldiers could have been more interested in the promises of booty that the thieves or rich landowners could provide more than the interests of the central government whose wars often lost them their lands. (6) Sorensons denotes in several places that the overpopulation of the Nephite heartland caused a resettlement to the lands in the North, like Hagoth and his colonies. I think it was an increasing number of landless former soldiers that sought to own land. Since at least one of these re settlements led to the rise of "king" Jacob, and General Moroni came south to lead the armies of the Nephites, it is internally consistent that at least some of these settlements were soldiers seeking a better life and more political freedom (perhaps a little too much?) than provided in the heartland.

Conclusion: The move of the Nephites from a part time force into an increasingly full time force led to several societal changes that included all the salient problems the Nephite nation faced in the Book of Helaman and Third Nephi: overcrowding, a rise of strong landholders, an increasingly complex society, the resettlement of Nephites or Nephite soldiers, the rise of Gadianton robbers, the lack of government contorl over their armed forces, and eventual fall of the government. Historiographically this shows how scholars can use warfare to achieve the same purposes as anthropologists like John Sorenson. And it shows how warfare is an underutilized tool in studying the Book of Mormon (see Apologetic Implications for more)

This is a rough model. I am still reading the Book of Mormon and looking for disqualifying and more specific verses. In the mean time, I invite comments or suggestions that will improve this thesis and help us better understand the Book of Mormon.

New Apologetic Implications

Hugh Nibley once said that one third of the Book of Mormon is devoted to warfare. (Since Cumorah, 291) But my question remains: is one third of Book of Mormon research devoted to the study of warfare? Now there is no requirement that equal coverage be provided to each subject of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the book sets its own requirement by stating on the title page and many pages thereafter, that the book is devoted to providing an additional witness of Jesus Christ and his mission.

John Welch has given a few reasons why warfare is often neglected. We live in a culture where the effects of war are removed from most members. As modern rationalists we also separated success in war from spiritual matters. But the Book of Mormon often combined the spiritual and secular in a double helix where faithfulness in one determined success in the other. Thus a study of proper warfare can increase our devotion to Jesus Christ.

Critics of the Church also use warfare to contradict the message of the Book of Mormon. As I discussed in the post "The Past and The Future", warfare is generally brought up in an effort to display the absurd and false nature of the book. Critics point out steel swords, implausible numbers and other such "nonsense" in pointing out the fraudulent nature of the word, and ultimately how it is "another gospel" or a satanic counterfeit.

But defenders of the Book of Mormon are neglecting critical areas in their work. As military theorists Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz said, the ability to choose the location of the battlefield is a key advantage that one has over an opponent. As I detailed in my post: "But Ricky" there are numerous avenues of approach in defending the Book of Mormon that are never mentioned.

Forcing critics of the Book of Mormon to answer our points has several advantages:
1. It forces critics to think- Some readers may think that is mean, but in my experience the various groups and individuals that attack the church often have their gun loaded with a few pre arranged talking points. These points are not based on their own analysis of the book, but simply repeat what their pastor/book/website has pointed out. Bringing up original and often un cited research (like the material on this blog) will reveal their lack of intimate knowledge of the source material, or their lack of thinking if you will. In short, when you quickly unload the bullets in their gun, they have nothing to fire at you.
2. Increase our knowledge- Knowledge is important, but having the skills to acquire knowledge is more important. Doing our own research into the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon helps us develop the analytical and reasoning skills that will help us in debating those with different ideas. Thus by studying one of the dominant features of the book -warfare- our minds will be better able to understand its key concepts and we can better engage our critics with an unlimited amount of ammunition. Because we have learned how to fish instead of just being handed a fish.
3. The Book of Mormon will be a part of the give and take that often accompanies ancient primary sources. By this I mean that the history written by Herodatus is used in conjunction with other primary sources, such as epigraphy, iconography, and archeology. In the Book of Mormon's case, it is one way. When the book deviates from the accepted orthodoxy of mesoamerican scholarship, it is assumed that the Book of Mormon is wrong. But perhaps the orthodoxy is wrong, and scholars should be using it as an extremely valuable primary source. This is the end result of where apologetics should lead -where the Book of Mormon can be used in a secular classroom (albeit with its spiritual elements probably stripped) because its historicity is beyond question, just as the bible is used today. Of course, I am fine with simply having a testimony of the Book, but my interests often lie in a scholarly study of it as well. And taking away the historicity case will undermine one of the larger critiques against the Book of Mormon. (See fairlds.org's bible vs. book of mormon articles for example)

These goals are far beyond the mere trench warfare that apologetics often contain. The study of warfare can broaden our mind, deflect pin prick criticisms by forcing attackers onto the territory of our choosing and ultimately gain the book acceptance as a historical document. In at least my speciality of warfare in the Book of Mormon we have the high ground inherent in a stronger position, its time we claim it.

The Bad Emperor

The great thing about being done with grad school is the fact that now I can actually slow down and enjoy all of my reading. Instead of doing 100 pages a day, I can now slow down and do about 20. My first re-reading is Medieval Chinese Warfare 300-900 by David Graff. In my readings I came across Graff's description of the "bad last Emperor". On page 62 Graff describes how Chinese historians, mainly civil bureaucrats, would depict the "bad last Emperor" that would forfeit the Mandate of Heaven. The biased historian described the ruler Shi Hu as:

a man of enormous sensual appetites, addicted to the pleasure of the harem...[and his] 'actions were harsh and cruel'...He put vast numbers of peasant labor conscripts to work on his palace complexes...imposing great hardships on the people...[he] dug up the tombs [of ancient rulers] to find treasures that had been buried with them...When he quarreled with the heir apparent, he had the young man, his consort, and his 26 children killed and buried together in a single coffin.

There are several general traits that are associated with a "bad Emperor:"

1. the person loves sensual appetites. 2. Builds multiple and implied unnecessary palaces. 3. By doing 1 and 2 he imposes a great burden on his people, through taxes and labor. 4. He kills any possible threat to his rule, often in cruel fashion. Graff argues that historians may have exaggerated his "sins" in order to justify the violent rise of a new dynasty. This leads to point 5. That a historian's account of a bad ruler will take special pains to highlight the sins of the ruler.

In the case of the Book of Mormon, a sinful ruler also forfeited his right to rule. Mormon acting as a historian would also take time to justify the Lords punishment of the individual and their loss of power. The case that jumped to my mind was that of King Noah. Mosiah Chapter 11 verse 2 starts the account:

2 For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but he did walk after the desires of his own heart. And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. Yea, and they did commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness.
3 And he laid a tax of one fifth part of all they possessed...
4 And all this did he take to support himself, and his wives and his concubines; and also his priests, and their wives and their concubines; thus he had changed the affairs of the kingdom...
8 And it came to pass that king Noah built many elegant and spacious buildings; and he ornamented them with fine work of wood, and of all manner of precious things, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of brass, and of ziff, and of copper;
9 And he also built him a spacious palace, and a throne in the midst thereof...
12 And it came to pass that he built a tower near the temple...
13 And it came to pass that he caused many buildings to be built in the land Shilom; and he caused a great tower to be built on the hill north of the land Shilom...
14 And it came to pass that he placed his heart upon his riches, and he spent his time in riotous living with his wives and his concubines; and so did also his priests spend their time with harlots.
15 And it came to pass that he planted vineyards round about in the land; and he built wine-presses, and made wine in abundance; and therefore he became a wine-bibber, and also his people....

As we can see in Chapter 11 of Mosiah, King Noah is depicted by Mormon as a "bad Emperor." He uses stark language to describe the sins of King Noah. These sins match many of those that fit the "bad Emperor" Shi Hu in Chinese history- love of concubines, love of riches, grandiose building projects, and an insecure ruler who had any threat killed- and just as Shi Hu lost the divine sanction for his realm, so did Noah. Noah lived in "riotous" fashion, he had the threat to his ruler, the prophet Abinadi, burned at the stake, he chased out one of his priests that listened to him, he built many "spacious building" and a tower in a place of "resort."

In summary:

The account of Mosiah matches the literary conventions of other ancient historians who sought to insert a particular moral lesson into their account. There are differences in the particulars of each account, and this doesn't mean that Chinese historians influenced the Book of Mormon, but it means the salient points are incredibly similar and can help us understand the event better. This does not cast into serious question the historicity of the event (since Noah could still have been all those things) but the bias of Mormon in his description of Noah adds authenticity to his status as an ancient historian and to the Book of Mormon.