Mormon Theology Seminar: The Law and the Lord in Alma 34:7

    

What follows is my 750 word application to this year's Mormon Theology seminar. My job was to provide a creative theological reading of Alma 34:7. It is Amulek beginning his sermon to the Zoramites by saying: 

 My brother has called upon the words of Zenos, that redemption cometh through the Son of God, and also upon the words of Zenock; and also he has appealed unto Moses, to prove that these things are true.

    Alma 34:7 provides an interesting case of using witnesses to establish a precedent under the law. Amulek’s focus on fulfilling the law in his preaching is merely the beginning of a complex argument that adheres to ancient law, explains Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and tries to meld both temporal law and spiritual theology into a case for his listeners to return to Nephite political rule. Finally, this teaching contains important socio-political implications for traces of discontent among Nephite society. 

    The potential for the Zoramites to align with the Lamanites inspired Alma’s mission in the first place (Alma 31:4.) Alma thought that “as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just” (Alma 31:5) his preaching would have the desired effect. But exactly how preaching would serve an explicit end was never detailed. Upon first glance Alma’s belief could be similar to Augustine who hoped that the word might be able to slay war (Alma 31:5).  But the key word in Alma’s intent is that his preaching would convince them to “do [what] was just,” which implies the focus of Alma’s preaching would intersect law and religion. 

    Once Alma and Amulek start preaching to the Zoramites Alma 34 becomes a clever twist on obedience to the law. As Amulek emphasized how Christ’s atoning sacrifice fulfills eternal law, he explained that a key point of temporal law involves sacrifice. “Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for another” and “the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered” (Alma 34:11-12) both suggest a temporal death penalty that is still insufficient. 

    To the contemporary Zoramite listening to this, already suffering from unjust laws (Alma 32:3), could have been seen as a blessed relief from bloody revenge justice they likely saw every day and was common in the ancient world, including ancient Israel and the Book of Mormon. (Ammon was miraculously saved from a revenge killing in Alma 19:21-22.)  The bloody revenge killings demanded by law, and not just animal sacrifice likely undergird the Amulek’s statement that “it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood” (Alma 34:13) and likely enhanced the appeal of their message to indigent people that likely had less access to the courts and fewer resources with which to carry out their own self-help justice. 

    And the clinching part of Amulek’s preaching taught that the Son of God’s death is enough to stop the shedding of blood and satisfies humanity’s collective sins. Amulek began by honoring the law of witnesses in Nephite law, discussed the penalty for murders under  Nephite or Zoramite law, and then says that Christ’s atonement is “is the whole meaning of the law” and “intent of the last sacrifice” (Alma 34:14-15.) 

    That key argument is why Alma thought the word could make people do what was just. Their law was designed around the concept of sacrificing blood for blood. Christ was the center of both the temporal law and Nephite religion. Believing that religion would naturally make them more amenable to Nephite law, and presumably less so to Lamanite laws. 

    However, this becomes one more example of how those that weren’t Christians were outside of Nephite cultural and religious power and likely chafed at that idea. Alma 4:16 described how the elders of the church selected the chief judge to replace Alma. Outside of Morianton, (who was quickly subdued because of personal defects), the new lands in Alma 51 went to prominent military and political families and not outsiders. Possible discontent among ethic others can be seen in Ammonihah (where Amulek introduced himself as a Nephite) and the cities destruction was viewed as God’s wrath, and not a failure of the leaders to protect all of its people. And when Nephi was forced to give up the judgement seat, he blamed it on wickedness (Helaman 5:4), when the government seemed relatively lawful when Nephi preached, prophesied of, and was seized over the chief judges death (Helaman 8 and 9). In the case of Alma 34 then, the melding of Nephite law into Christian religion as a tool to regain political power among the Nephite could have further alienated Zoramite elites like Zerahemnah, who made sure to deny Nephite religion while admitting defeat (Alma 44:9). 

I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or you can buy one of my books links in the top left. 

The Nazi's Veto

 

    Murray Rothbard was the father of modern libertarianism and in turn inspires many Latter Day Saint views of war, including this horrendous reading of the Book of Mormon. But the libertarian’s elevation of the individual at the expense of the state ends up creating what I call the “Nazi’s veto” that disallows any state war, and as a result, leaves the state and individuals with no real power to stop abuses.

    Rothbard’s fundamental axiom of libertarian theory “is that no one may threaten or commit violence (‘aggress’) against another man’s person or property.”[1] He explains this by using a private example that person A has no right to aggress against B because C is threatening. Rothbard claims that “give me liberty or give them death is a far less noble battle cry” and that simplistic theory sounds convincing.

    Those are nice ideas that falls apart upon even a cursory examination. Let’s go back to the fictional examples of people A, B, and C. There are moral differences that immediately make this far more complicated, and unworkable in practice. For example, lets say that person A is a police officer or sheriff, and he is responding to a bank robbery. The robber is doing what libertarians complain about the state, robbing the people of their money. But in stopping the robber, person C, maybe the police officer, person A, causes the robber to crash into another car, killing an innocent lady, person B. In this case, A was stopping C from violating rights, but did so at the expense of person B. That proves the libertarian case, right?

    The libertarian fear of an innocent third person having their rights aggressed would mean that almost no force could be used ever. But the bank robber, rapist, murder (or genocidal dictator below) must be stopped. Sometimes force is required and yet innocent people, (hypothetical person B) could still be hurt, or “aggressed” against. Instead of disallowing force, most people would still consider the actions of the police in this case just, if extremely tragic and regrettable. They might carefully monitor the use of force and ask if other tactics might have been more appropriate, but their use of force would still be just. (Before we continue, notice how this is the distinction between just cause and just conduct regarding warfare. The police can have every right to stop a robber, but not by any means necessary.)

    Now think of the same example, a bank robbery, but maybe the robber intentionally puts someone else in danger. They take a hostage. This would largely shift the immorality of the third person being hurt to the robber (though we would always hope that the robbery can be stopped without the loss of innocent life.) That still requires force, with even more risk to innocents, but if the innocents are hurt, that means the criminal and not the police are at fault.

    There are many different permutations we could do in this situation to assess morality and rights in stopping the criminal. But the point is clear, while the ideal is that no innocent third party should die in defense of your rights. If practiced to the libertarian extreme, it restricts the use of force to such a point that no force can be used. In this fictional example, the police would be so restricted by the danger of aggressing against other’s rights (and since he is government funded official, according to libertarians he is already aggressing against the citizen by living off of taxpayer money),[2] he couldn’t stop the robber.

    The difficulties in morality only get more complicated in war. The state, like the police, is empowered by the people it represents to protect the rights of its citizens under its care by using force. This is the basic contract in the constitution that promises to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, and in return they have the power to tax, print money, make laws, jail citizens, and conscript and fight wars.

    Once that right is recognized, it becomes necessary to determine which strategies are employed so that they don’t create new victims. That is the fundamental reason because justice in war. Because even if the cause of the war is just, it can’t be fought in a way that creates more victims of injustice. Libertarians would deny the state’s power and morality to send soldiers into war. But their ideas would leave much of the world impotent in the face, as the Book of Mormon would say, the “barbarous cruelty” of terrorists (Alma 48:24).

    Libertarians would argue for a limited right to self-defense, and if living under a tyrannical government that they should encourage rebellion in those unjust states. But the oppressed minorities often don’t have the means to resist. Forgot about possessing firearms or having the freedom to organize a rebellion, simply existing as a Bosnian Muslim, Volga German, or a Tutsi in Rwanda would be enough to warrant arrest and execution for many regimes. Much like the actual Warsaw uprising in 1944, Rothbard’s fictional example of Waldavia (225) would say good luck, and then like the Soviets, but because libertarians dislike the state, would stand by and watch them get slaughtered. That isn’t a good moral position to take.

    The idea of rebellion from citizens denied their rights also contradicts the Book of Mormon which taught that if people are oppressed it is because of their wickedness and the Lord will deliver them in his own time. Mosiah 21:15 explains:

15 And now the Lord was slow to hear their cry because of their iniquities; nevertheless the Lord did hear their cries, and began to soften the hearts of the Lamanites that they began to ease their burdens; yet the Lord did not see fit to deliver them out of bondage.

    This is in part because the people would only be slaughtered. (Think of the three failed attacks from the people of Limhi [Mosiah 21:6-12], or the Melian Dialogue.) Philosophers were also wary of rebellion because the chaos and slaughter from a rebellion had a good chance of being worse than the injustice that caused the rebellion!! (It is no surprise that the person who witnessed these blood drenched revolts, Martin Luther, didn’t give any right for the people to revolt. See his text, The Murderous Thieving Hordes of Peasants.) The Salamanca school scholar Francisco Suarez wrote, revolt is just “if essential for liberty…always provided that there is no danger of the same or worse evils falling on community as result of the tyrants death.”[3]  Hugo Grotius, often called the founder of international law, wrote about the same right to revolt if the king alienates his people, but also placed limits on potential usurpers because it would lead to fighting among various factions.[4] From a libertarian standpoint then, the advice for citizens to revolt, not only caused their own deaths in futile revolts, but could result in even more bloodshed, and aggressing against rights, than the always condemned “state war.” 

    Even saying that, America rains death from above which is still horrible right? Let us go back to the A, B, Cs from earlier. Killing a civilian by accident is different than deliberately targeting him or her. If they happen in the course of legitimate acts of war (similar to legitimate police functions designed to save people from our earlier example) and the direct intention is a morally acceptable military target, then unintentionally killing civilians is within the realm of just war. That probably sounds like lame justifications to many libertarians. Those deaths are still tragic and a horrible loss of life and unless you’re okay with genocide and mass murder it doesn’t forbid war.[5] Like the police stopping the robber, the public should reasonably ask if the military should have been more cautious and use better judgement (not to mention aim) during the situation. But disallowing any state use of force is a poor strategy against groups that have far more power than individuals and is often state sponsored themselves.

    To conclude, let us get even more specific about the damning consequences of the fundamental libertarian axion. The ideas that “it is impermissible to violate the rights of other innocent people and war “only proper…when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals,” lead to the conclusion, “State wars are always to be condemned (220, 222).” (Notice how libertarian ideology elevates personal rights but excludes the collective rights of people represented and expressed by their government.)  Libertarian theory then would have the rights of the most ardent Nazi sympathizer staffing the German war machine veto any moral, humane, just, and even righteous impulse to stop massive slaughter and genocide of innocents. 

    J. Reuben Clark, often quoted by libertarians because of his staunch isolationism displayed the Nazi's veto during World War II. He was so isolationist that he repeatedly advocated for a negotiated peace with Germany that would have left them in control of much of Europe.[6] He did so after multiple reports from death camps such as Auschwitz. According to libertarian philosophy, the United States could not wage war because it might aggress against the rights of innocent third parties, and those third parties should sponsor their own revolt. But it is ridiculous to think that German libertarians would have any collective power against the Gestapo, let alone European Jews already in concentration camps.  It was only state power that could stop the genocide of a totalitarian government. Libertarians, so concerned about being violated by taxes, would ensure that so many others get slaughtered by disallowing any intervention by another state.

    That isn’t a moral or workable philosophy for the evil in the world. In fact, their philosophy only marginal works for individuals in relatively isolated areas like the American mountain west, long ago tamed by agents of the state, such as sheriffs, and protected actions of the state such as defeating Nazi Germany. I kind of wish libertarians would take the same passion they have for hating the government and taxes and spare at least some dislike for the massive slaughter of Ukrainians. If they did, then maybe they would have some Christlike compassion for their brothers and try to stop their slaughter, instead of an ideological zealotry against the state that gives Nazis a veto against that impulse.  

I work as a free lance author. Producing ad free research takes time and effort. If you found value in this work, please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Murray Rothbard, “War, Peace and the State,” We Who Dared Say No To War: American Anti War Writing from 1812 to Now, Murray Polner, Thomas Woods Eds., (Basic Books, 2009,) 217-226.

[2] 222 “Any war against another State, therefore, involves the increase and extension of taxation-aggression over its own people.”

[3] Andre Azevedo Alves, Jose Moreira, John Meadowcroft, The Salamanca School, (Bloomsbury Academic Pro, 2013), 53. Suarez.

[4] Grotius said on page, 73 “if king alienates the people, he invites retributions.” But places limits on usurpers, 76. Stephen Neff trans., Grotius on the Laws of War and Peace, (Cambridge University Press, 2012).

[5] Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, A Moral Argument with Historical Examples, (Basic Books, 2015,) 153-155.

[6]  D. Michael Quinn, “Pacifist Counselor in the First Presidency: J Reuben Clark Jr., 1933-196” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, J. David Pulsipher, Richard Bushman eds. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012), 153-154.  

Sunzi and the Moral Low Ground

    

    Whenever I'm not working and have some free time I like to read. I love to engage ideas and usually I engage enough to make a post out of it. In this case I couldn't make it to page 3 of this book (The Choice of War: Iraq and the Just War Tradition) before I found a howler. This author claims that Sunzi "laid great stress on moral aspects of war" as proof the author cites the claim of Sunzi (using an old translation), “to win without fighting.”

    I was so ready to pounce on this incorrect statement I reminded myself of the Office character Dwight Schrute yelling “false.” Sunzi's admonition wasn't out of some moral, pacifistic desire to avoid war. But an amoral desire to avoid costly conflict. His amoral teachings were one reason why Confucians really didn’t like him. His desire to avoid battle was somewhat similar to the legalists in worrying about the productivity of the soon to be conquered province. Dead men don’t pay taxes, burnt farms can’t supply soldiers, and thus the cost of men and material spent in even a victorious battle was astounding and the legalists wanted to avoid costly battle for that reason.

    Sunzi did advise the invading army to seek profit as a way to entice the enemy into battle,[1] (or hopeless prebattle position), and take provisions from invaded territory to lower the cost of war. But these measures were mostly applied to lowering the cost of the invading army. He didn’t talk about ways to incorporate the province and quickly it make it a profitable part of the empire. For example, one of the lesser-known writers of the Seven Military Classics said of the conquered territory: “do not destroy material profits nor agricultural seasons, be magnanimous towards his government officials, stabilize people’s occupations, and provide relief for the impoverished.”[2]  

    Notice the last line that seems in almost direct contradiction of Sunzi. It said to provide relief to the impoverished, while Sunzi advised armies to literally plunder them. The treatment of the people is a huge factor that distinguishes Sunzi from others. My book had three chapters on this subject because it was visited so often and in so many variations by classical Chinese theorists. But outside of a perfunctory statement about winning the people, Sunzi’s writing often relied on pure calculation, force, profit, and throwing soldiers into places which they cannot fleet to stimulate the greatest effort.

    His first line is that warfare is the greatest affair of state, which ignores the second part quoted by most Confucians about protecting the altars of the ancestors.[3] As one writer said, “When a state loses its priorities, the altars of soil and grain will be wronged.” [4] Sunzi instead spoke mostly about tactical positional advantage (designed to produce victory without battle) and not about the Mandate of Heaven, righteousness, or benevolence. He discussed calculations in the temple, but only to assess the prospects of victory, not to pray or invoke Heaven's favor.

    Sunzi's theories were criticized by thee Confucian Xunzi as tactics for a bandit army and day laborers, or like stirring boiling water with a finger.[5] Even Wuzi, a fellow military writer often lumped in with Sunzi thought bandit armies that pursued profits were a weakness that could be exploited. He said that armies based on rewards ‘’scatter and individually” engage in combat, and when enticed with profit “will [greedily] abandon their generals to pursue it.”[6]

    Sunzi’s statement about avoiding the loss of life was not a moral high ground. But the results of base temporal concerns like profit and greed. It was disheartening to read such a major mistake so early in the book, and in print which means it got by an editor. But quoting Sunzi is an easy way to spice up a piece and few people know better so everyone from editors, to readers, and generals just go with it. I’ve seen bad quotes and interpretations from the financial review a Master’s thesis, and even General Petraeus. His terse writing and simple profundity lend itself to a wide variety of interpretations. But when compared to dozens of other classical writers a reader can better understand his theories and eliminate the bad interpretations such as Sunzi having some kind of moral objection to slaughter.

I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this ad free, high quality, research please consider donating using the pay pal button below, or buying one of my books linked in the top left, particularly Beyond Sunzi: Classical Chinese Debates on War and Statecraft. 

**********

---

[1] “Thus what [motivates men] to slay the enemy is anger; what [stimulates them] to seize profits from the enemy is material goods.” And, “With profit [the general] moves them” Ralph Sawyer trans., The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China: Sunzi (Westview Press, 1993), 160, 165.

[2] Sawyer, Wei Liaozi, 273.

[3] Sawyer, Tai Kong, 64-65.

[4] Five Lost Classics: Tao, Huanglao, and YingYang in Han China, Robin Yates trans., New York City, Ballantine Books, 1997.

[5] Basic Writings of Xunzi, Burton Watson trans., (Columbia University Press, 1963,) 64.

[6] Sawyer, Wuzi, 210.

Research Update: Isolationism, First Strike, Sacrifice, Ambushes Oh My!

Hey everyone. I haven't been able to post here, but that doesn't mean I don't have any great writing out there. Here is a list of current projects in various stages of publication: 

To Stop a Slaughter: The Book of Mormon and Just War: This is being considered by a publisher right now. I've heard that JK Rowling and Frank Herbert's Dune both went through many publishers before getting picked up. So I know its a good manuscript and it will get its day...just some day. 

Am I My Brothers Keeper: This is a piece that discusses the continuing isolationism from American analysts regarding Ukraine. I argue that many people are sadly like Cain, and dismissing the problem in Ukraine as someone else's problem because they aren't their brother's keeper. Its submitted to the same place that published my piece at the beginning of the war so I think it has a good shot. 

Kiskkumen's Dagger: I thought this blogpost was so good I took that skeleton, cut the fat, strengthened some arguments, added more, and submitted it for publication. The concept of first strike is an important modern concern and Helaman 2 probably has the most detailed and applicable account. Its currently at Square Two, since I thought national security professionals might appreciate this the most. 

Maxwell Institute Theology Seminar: This great seminar is back and in Harvard's Divinity School this year. I've applied in the past and this year is on Alma 34, which just happens to be part of my book, and an article for Public Square I've already written. So I think I have a good shot at this, but I say that every year, so yeah. If I'm not one of the participants I'll post my application, consisting of a creative reading of Alma 34:7, here as soon as possible. It is about the use of ancient law regarding witnesses and penal sacrifice in Amulek's sermon about Christ's atonement. (That sounds complicated, but they give me one verse to work with and ask for a creative reading so that's what I do.) 

Moroni's Letter: I've got this one pretty close to journal ready. Its about some of the unique arguments that Moroni makes and addresses in his letter. This includes the proper military strategy that interprets waiting on the Lord for deliverance, interpreting military defeat, and the use of sinfulness of ambushes. Moroni's strategy was much more active, for example, which I contend was a rebuke of previously more passive Nephite strategy. I'm still working on a better title and debating who I should submit to. 

As you can see I have some great things in the works. None of them make a great blog post which is why the blog has been fairly quiet for the past little while. But I've been writing like crazy. If all goes well I'll be announcing many publications soon. They are all pretty connected as well, so even if just a few are published I can still build buzz for my book.

Thanks for reading. What are you most looking forward to?

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