Moroni's Preemptive War

Dan Campbell is a community organizer that writes about The Book of Mormon. His post about Amalickiah’s leadership had numerous problems. The major problems include improperly applied modern connotations, abused sources, improperly defined pivotal terms, insulting his readers, and ignoring Moroni’s pre-emptive strike against Amalickiah.

One of Campbell’s major critiques is Amalickiah’s use of propaganda. Campbell writes:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." These are the opening lines of Edward Bernays famous book Propaganda published in 1928. Bernays was part of the first official American state propaganda apparatus, The Committee on Public Information. This group played a crucial role in convincing the peace loving people of America to go to war in Europe in 1917 (WWI). The closing lines of the book are these: "Propaganda will never die out. Intelligent men must realize that propaganda is the modern instrument by which they can fight for productive ends and help to bring order out of chaos." What we must understand is that whether we feel it plausible or not, men in power are, and have been, and ever will be studying how to and attempting to manipulate the masses to achieve their corrupt goals or in other words their “order out of chaos.” (highlighting mine)

The problem with this is within his very quote. Propaganda is a modern term. It takes advantage of technology only available in the modern age. This included the use of radio, widespread newspapers, leaflets, (eventually television), and the structure of a totalitarian state to ensure the censorship of contrary information and dissemination of the party line. It also presumed a literate society that can read pamphlets and tracts mass produced by printing press. The pre-modern society in The Book of Mormon did not contain these elements. Theirs was an oral society with a small elite that could read and write. Central control was largely absent as seen by the inability of the Lamanite King to muster all of his forces. Written records were rare and relatively difficult to produce. There is a reason why the 1453 invention of the printing press was world altering. So of course the father of propaganda called this a uniquely modern phenomenon. Unfortunately Campbell copied his (apparently) favorite author without realizing how unworkable it is as a model for understanding The Book of Mormon.

I suspect the writer used this model because of his natural bias and radical libertarian, borderline conspiracy theories. This also led him to abuse sources. We all have bias but he seemed intent on attacking what he views as contemporary pro war propaganda. He did so by quoting a modern writer writing about the use of modern mediums in a modern society as seen above. He then advanced his conspiracy theories with an uncited quote from Ezra Benson. Even verified, he puts too much weight on the quote. Next, he admittedly “imagines” what Amalickiah says. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like GeorgeW. Bush’s rationale for his foreign policy. One of my publications comments that King Men who opposed Moroni may have called him warmongering fascist. But I qualify my statement and used a generic term. Here he admittedly imagined that Amalickiah used the same words as Bush. On top of using little facts to support his assertions of modern day propaganda, and preemptively defending against the charge of conspiracy, he does what many radical LDS libertarians do and condemned his opponents to Hell. (Alma 54:11)

Even worse than his unsupported assertions, Campbell’s definitions of military terms were extremely poor.  Terrorism is probably the most debated term in contemporary thought. Yet the author summarily defines it “in a nutshell”, as an “act against a non-military target, an assassination, or some other equivalent high-profile crime intended to provoke a massive public reaction.” Terrorism does seek to provoke a reaction, but that reaction is usually terror and not increased government control like he implied. Better definitions also include violent acts that seek to provoke terror. The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” But there is also a debate concerning if and how the various definitions might apply to state or liberation forces. While in this case Campbell implied that the threat of terrorism was an excuse for the state to expand its power.

Despite getting the definition wrong, he insulted those that disagreed with his analysis. “If you are unaware of the implications or the history of either of those terms, thank the public school system and being your research. (i.e. google).” As with many radical libertarians, he cannot simply stick to his argument but must insult the intelligence of his readers and pretend that he knows so much more than his opponents. But then he got those terms wrong and used very unscholarly terms such as “in a nutshell.” Maybe I haven’t arrived as a scholar on my way to getting a PhD in Chinese military history, but I don’t know any historians that would equate research with a google search.[1]


Most importantly, the author failed to cite the preemptive action of Moroni against Amalickiah. As I write in the upcoming volume on War and Peace in our Times: Mormon Perspectives:

[Moroni] adopted active and, dare I say, preemptive measures to protect their nation. Mormon records the first instance of this in Alma 43. As he prepared an ambush for Lamanite forces, Moroni “thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem” (v. 30). Moreover, Moroni preemptively “cut off” Amalickiah, based on the assumption that preventing his escape through military action would prevent a future war (46:30). As with the first instance, this action is presented without editorial dissent, and it is instead given as part of Moroni’s stellar resume. In the same chapter that described a period in their history that was “never happier,” Moroni “cut off” the Lamanites living in the east and west wildernesses (Alma 50:11). This occurs during a time of supposed peace, but it could also be described as a lull or “cold war” between the First and Second Amalickiahite War. In either case, while there were no active hostilities between the two nations, Moroni is lauded for his preemptive actions, ambushes, and active defense.

Thus, there is ample evidence that Moroni would have supported and led a preemptive war, because he did so before. Moroni was prevented from “cutting off” Amalickiah because the latter likely sacrificed the bulk of his army to save himself. (Alma 46:32-33) This does support the idea of Amalickiah as a scheming leader. But citing Moroni’s incomplete preemptive war undermined Campbell’s case. I make a preliminary argument which supports preemptive war here.


In conclusion, I don’t know why libertarians feel the need to pontificate on subjects about which they don’t know, and castigate fellow members of the church they have never met. Campbell valiantly attempted to apply Amalickiah’s actions to the modern day. But he improperly applied modern ideas to ancient scriptures, abused sources, provided poor definitions of pivotal terms, insulted his readers, and ignored Moroni’s pre-emptive strike against Amalickiah. Opponents of military intervention need to better use The Book of Mormon through strict application of terms and a more thorough understanding of military history.


Notes:
1. It is possible that the author was facetiously referencing what his dumb opponents would use, and not what he uses. But based on his previous mistakes I think that is giving him too much credit.

Fear and Hatred in Zarahemla

 

Nationalist Chinese WW2 Propaganda Poster 

    Kendal Anderson is a libertarian writer (I originally put thinker, but as you’ll see, I think that is too generous,) with a new blog called Book of Mormon Perspectives. I wasn’t expecting to find much, but I was curious about what he had to say and found an amazing series of poor arguments that turned out to be right in my wheelhouse. What follows is a brief review of his ideas and supporting evidence that shows how an author can use a string of faulty or vague statements to build an argument that appears compelling but falls apart upon cursory examination.

    The review begins in the section called “Fear and Hatred.” (That section plus the famous movie inspired the title of this post.) There is so much wrong is so little space my rebuttal goes mostly line by line, but I suggest you read a few paragraphs to get a gist of his argument and then read my breakdown.

    We don’t start out too bad. He starts by quoting Alma 48:1-2 and the use of towers by Lamanite leaders to disseminate anger inducing sermons that will eventually inspire the Lamanites to war. Those scriptures are important. Though propaganda is more easily disseminated in modern age so using a modern term without the distinction between ancient and modern isn’t the best foundation.  Moreover, as I was checking past writings about the use of modern concepts in an ancient book, I found a paragraph I wrote that is frighteningly like the argument Anderson is about to build:

He [builds his argument about propaganda] by quoting a modern writer [discussing] the use of modern mediums in a modern society.… He then advanced his conspiracy theories with an uncited quote from Ezra Benson [and] he admittedly ‘imagines’ what Amalickiah says. Unsurprisingly, it sounds like George W. Bush’s rationale for his foreign policy. 

    Using modern concepts and inventing quotes are tactics you will see Anderson commit as you read below. I don’t discuss it here, but Anderson also used a book from a close associate of Ezra Benson so my description of their playbook holds up well. All quotes are from his section on fear and hatred unless otherwise cited.

Group hate, based upon fear of a foreign enemy, can make murderers out of average citizens, who can be easily persuaded to support an unjust war when a ‘strong leader’ declares it.  

    Group hate can make people do those things, but the author mentions hatred as the only assumed reason for war. He ignores the long Christian tradition that war can be based in love. A long line of historic thinkers from Augustine all the way to the modern Catholic theologian Paul Ramsey talked about love and the latter used the story of the Good Samaritan as a justification for warfare that is directly opposed to hatred. Anderson also misquotes the term strong man and says strong leader. That may not seem like a big deal, but when a person is building an argument out of a house of cards it matters.  

We all saw this happen in 2003 when Bush declared an unconstitutional war on Iraq with no evidence of WMDs.

    There is no indication, primary source, or statement that shows hatred inspired the Iraq war. The United States was attacked on 9/11 and as a result they responded to Taliban that sponsored the terrorists, and Bush preemptively attacked a long-standing source of terror. People can debate the soundness of those reasons, especially in Iraq, but neither are necessarily derived from hatred. To support his contention Anderson needed to provide evidence.

    Also, it’s popular to complain that there was no declaration of war, but the authorization of force from congress was functionally the same. This ranks up there with “we’re a republic and not a democracy,” and “the civil war didn’t end at Appomattox” that are annoying, pettifogged facts people use to sound smart but don’t really mean anything. Finally, that congressional resolution which authorized the war listed many valid reasons beyond WMDs, though that was the one most focused on by the Bush administration. 

Even the supposed prophet of God, Gordon Hinckley, capitulated to government propaganda in a talk called War and Peace.   

    I highlighted the bold word and members of the church can assess if that is the proper way to speak about prophets. Propaganda is also a loaded term. I talk a great deal in my first book, and elsewhere, that many terms are used for their emotional value and not for their descriptive value. So, when I see an emotionally charged word it’s a clear signal that his argument is based upon emotion and not facts, which is supremely ironic considering the author’s main argument is that governments use fear inducing propaganda to inspire war. In my review of Anderson’ book I relied upon Richard Hofstader’s famous description of the Paranoid Style in American politics, and part of that style is becoming what you oppose. It shouldn’t surprise me that Anderson uses fear and hatred in building a case about how evil governments use fear and hatred.

    Moreover, he is on poor factual ground as well. My mentor when I was an undergraduate wrote a book about war time intelligence and his take, published shortly after the Iraq war, was that the administration presented the worst case, least likely scenario about WMDs, but that isn’t necessarily lying or propaganda.

[Hinckley] was wrong; the intelligence was faulty. He should've quoted the Book of Mormon and spoke out against unjust war.

    I again bolded his sustainment of the prophet. I would like to know which verses Hinckley should have quoted. In addition to Anderson being vague, President Hinckley did quote Alma 43:45-47 along with numerous other scriptures. I suspect Anderson wanted something more to his liking, but he should have been more specific.  As you’ll read in my review of a recent book on Mormon pacifism, there are verses in restoration scripture and the Bible that can be used to support both just war and nonviolence. (Mormon thought is so preliminary on the matter that many discuss and argue about the topic as though they alone have the answers or they’re the first ones to notice the tension between peace and war.) A vague denunciation of the prophet for not quoting “the Book of Mormon” is useless.

The Nephites were nationalists just like we Americans are. It is easy to hate the idea of a foreign people that you've been taught is an enemy.

    This is a broad statement that needs support, especially because there are verses that directly contradict this idea. Alma 48:23 says the Nephites were sorry to take up arms and send so many unprepared souls to meet God. That is the opposite of hatred and suggests a loving heart that wanted to avoid war. This is before we consider Ammon, the former crown prince who was so concerned about Lamanite salvation he evangelized to them. If this isn’t an ethno-centric exaggeration, it was the Lamanites that taught their children to hate (Mosiah 10:17). As I described at the beginning of this piece, nationalism, like large scale propaganda, is a modern concept. Thus, the author must provide specifics to show a premodern form of nationalistic propaganda that equals modern America.

This is why very few Americans care when drones kill foreign women and children; they are part of the abstraction, the collateral damage.

    Again, this follows the playbook I described at the top. Anderson provides pure fiction about the average American. If he relied on facts and not creative fiction to support his arguments he would know that Americans generally support drone strikes against terror targets, but that support drops a great deal if it causes civilian casualties. While any death is tragic, there is a robust body of thought that governs the morality of double effect, and this body of thought guides policy makers. The argument that Americans hate the world so much that they condone the indiscriminate killing of civilians is a lazy and wrong argument.

[Quoting Alma 25:26] Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

    This is a very important verse but not for the reasons the author thinks. First, let us consider that he ignores the Christ like love that Ammon had for the Lamanites which inspired his mission, but then he selectively uses Ammon’s words when they seem to support his theory that Nephites were hateful. Second, Ammon’s mission inspired a series of events that caused the death of innocent Nephites. A short summary of that post includes how Ammon’s mission was successful because of his martial skill. It caused the death of many of his converts, resulted in the Lamanite attack on Ammonihah (which was seen as God’s punishment of that wicked city), caused innocent civilians around Noah to be captured. And required a massive battle to recover them. That battle resulted in God’s punishment of the Amalekites, but also resulted in the death of many innocent soldiers.  All of which supports the idea that maybe Nephite policy makers that wanted to “take up arms…and destroy them” had some merit to their preemptive war.

Kill the abstraction before they kill us. We are better than them; they are savages and terrorists. We should just nuke the entire Middle East. They are little more than animals. They won't stop until we are all dead so we should kill them first. Don't let them practice their religion here. Every Mosque is a terrorist cell. Throw them all in Guantanamo and torture em. Go Murica!

    This is in quotes, but I’ve never heard any person or policy maker say anything remotely like this. It figures that the only direct quote from this author is a fictional straw man to show the platonic ideal of a fearful and hateful American. Once again it matches my description of libertarian arguments at the beginning of this piece. The author is vague or silent when it comes to citing scriptures and data to support his claims but suddenly verbose when inventing fictional American hatred.

The human mind is more powerful than the world's most advanced quantum computer. There are no limits to the amount of knowledge and data it can hold. Our potential to learn new concepts and store them in our brains is limitless.

    This is the merciful and massively ironic conclusion to his piece. The human mind is amazing, but significantly less so when filled with ideological blinders and lazy thinking.

    The author’s piece isn’t as revelatory as he would like us to believe. His piece shows how conspiracy theorists and posers can sound convincing without knowing or showing much. They take a bunch of vaguely familiar ideas without supporting evidence, mash them up, start stacking, and after a paragraph or two the argument starts to sound authoritative. But that’s only an illusion. When you take the time to examine each idea, as I did above, and then provide evidence for those rejoinders, the reader finds that strong man was incorrectly transposed as strong leader, the hatred of Americans and Nephites were invented, basic ideas of just war like the loving heart and doctrine of double effect ignored, the Iraq war was authorized by congress, President Hinckley did quote clear verses in the Book of Mormon that support just war, the author’s scriptural support is nonexistent or selectively used and so on. Truly, this author has an appearance of scholarship, but without the logical command of details to have the power of scholarship (2 Tim 3:5).

I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or you can buy one of my books using the link in the top left.) 

Peace, PR Statements, and Connor Boyack Attacks

Connor Boyack is a computer programmer and frequent political commenter in the state of Utah. I’ve previously critiqued his fallacious and unsound positions. In this article Boyack incorrectly attacks the church's PR statement based on the bias produced by his political leaning. This causes him, among other things, to sound an uncertain trumpet, seemingly sets himself as the church spokesmen, and violate Godwin’s Law.  (All quotes from Boyack's article)

“The events of 9/11 served as a catalyst for the neocolonial interventionist power brokers in government to advance their agenda.”

Radical libertarians have had many years to perfect their anti-Bush screeds, I’m fairly educated but I have little idea what this gobbledy gook means. I'm a big fan of using plain English with as few specialized terms and jargon as possible. This helps you stay clear and concise while being accessible to non specialists.  Jargon like this actually obscures more than it clarifies.  To borrow a phrase from scriptures about the importance of clarity, “if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?" First Corinthians 14:18-9  Ironically, the subject of Boyack’s attacks is the church PR statement and editorial in the church paper that clarified a talk from Elder Nelson.  I tend to think that God’s church has a right to clarify its statements, especially in a time of 24 hour news cycles and internet echo chambers that didn’t exist in Christ’s day. 

“The Church was quick to respond—perhaps anticipating a PR nightmare like the one that happened just five months later to the Dixie Chicks.”

Here Boyack mind reads.  As I stated above, most likely the church didn’t want false or misleading information to be spread about the church. Given that the church just recently invited a PR nightmare by excommunicating Kate Kelly and possible John Dehlin and Rock Waterman; and they faced massive protests, vandalism, and even anthrax scares at the temples over the marriage proposition in California, I don’t think the church is worried about a little blowback.  Instead, I think Boyack is projecting his interpretation onto the church to advance his political agenda at the expense of appointed church spokesmen.  

“I can’t help but feel that this was a missed opportunity to boldly stand on some of the most important doctrine we have.  Did Jesus back down when challenged? Charged with blasphemy—a “crime” for which capital punishment was mandated—the high priest demanded of him, “Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” Jesus’ response: “I am.” There was no mincing words here, nor walking back of Christ’s claims.”

Here Boyack is claiming to interpret what Jesus would do…for Christ’s chosen mouth pieces on this Earth.  While every member should be an active thinker that tries to faithfully apply the Spirit in their lives, I find this interpretation by Boyack rather unseemly, and an attempt to place himself ahead of the prophets and appointed church personnel that issued the clarifying statements.  As I stated above, I trust the appointed church spokesmen to sound the trumpet more than radical libertarians that claim that honor for themselves.  While many might complain that PR statements are not “official” doctrine, I happen to think that church newspapers and church issues are fairly authoritative, and that I don’t get to pick and choose which ideas I like (let alone insert what I would say instead) based on my political leanings as though I’m at a buffet.

“Of course, this was merely a successful implementation of a long-known strategy perhaps summed up best by Hermann Goering, one of the highest ranking Nazis who survived the war and who was well versed in propaganda. The people ‘can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders,’ he remarked. ‘That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.’”

No radical libertarian screed is complete with the violation of Godwin's Law.  To show how shallow this comparison is I want to briefly compare the leadership of Bush and Obama.  Sometimes a good leader has to drag the country along with them. They have to use their bully pulpit (a phrase first inspired by Teddy Roosevelt and his dynamic use of the presidency to accomplish his agenda), to change public opinion.  Bush did so. He presented evidence (though maligned by critics it was a fair assessment agreed upon by Clinton and British officials).  And he got authorization for the use of force from Congress. Obama on the other hand, leads from behind.  He makes tough sounding statements about red lines or bringing people to justice, even as dictators ignore those lines or those escaping justice live out in the open.  So instead of comparing Bush’s case for war to Nazi propaganda, you could simply call it leadership from a man that tried to convince the country of what he knew was just and necessary.  Of course many people have different interpretations and assessments of Bush's actions, but to immediately jump to Nazi propaganda is fallacious and insulting.

 “I suppose what I’m saying is that rather than shying away from the substance of what Elder Nelson said, it would have been great if the PR department doubled down, positioning Christ’s church as the leading voice of peace amid a cacophony of conspiring warmongers.”

This is heart of Boyack’s message. He may think he is sounding like a great peace advocate.  Yet I believe this reveals his duplicity. In fact, as I was reading my previous post on the matter, I think my analysis completely applies here. As I stated in September of 2012:

“A short time ago I wrote about the duplicity [in a different article than above] of the antiwar critic. I argued that when the prophet agrees with their political views the critics mistakenly attach too much weight to that statement. Then they use those words as a cudgel with which to beat their opponents. When a prophet does not agree with them, they use various qualifiers to negate their words. These include things such as speaking as a man, speaking under the cultural influence of the day, or simply giving their non-binding opinion. While this sounds disrespectful towards a prophet, the last reason is actually the correct one as outlined by the church. So critics proof text their favorite quotes which agree with their political leanings, and then apply an inappropriate amount of weight to them. They take their cherry picked arguments and beat their opponents over the head with them. And they cast aside their words when they don't."

 

I think we see that here. Boyack latched onto Nelson’s words because they fit his political agenda. Then he castigates approved means of church communications which places Nelson’s talk within the context of Mormon doctrine, both of which support just wars.  This is supremely ironic, because Nelson talked about renouncing war and proclaiming peace. In order to advance his agenda, Boayck lobbed grenades towards everything from the Deseret News to this author, by indirectly calling them Nazis, cowardly, and un Christ like (not to mention his use of Gadianton Robbers to describe his opponents elsewhere.)  I think if we were to start applying Elder Nelson's talk, we could start with our political discourse. I would add, we could also place more trust in the words of our leaders, even when it disagrees with our deeply held political beliefs.  And it doesn't take a PR statement to understand and apply those ideas.

Rethinking Mosiah 26 and the Conduct of Nephite Priests

              [To strengthen my reading comprehension I've been reading the Book of Mormon in Chinese. I came across Mosiah 26 and thought a re assessment of the chapter would aid my ideas that perhaps we might be getting a slightly white washed view of history from Nephite priests.  

             This applies to the paper I wrote about Gideon, which is now the first chapter of my second book. I'm also still annoyed at the anonymous peer reviewer that dismissed my argument out of hand, didn't like anything I wrote, and basically tossed my paper in the garbage. I think my argument is a good one that reassess the text, and I'm happy to provide additional support. Its still a work in progress so I welcome any comments, particular those that help me refine my main points.]   

              

             The idea that what was recorded, Gideon’s innocent death by Nehor, might be suspect is increasingly support by research and a careful reading of Mosiah. Noel Reynolds argued that Nephi’s text had political overtones designed to strengthen his claim to leadership.[1]  And Biblical scholar David Bokovoy went a step further and argued that Nephi’s account is propaganda that read like a classic Hebrew folktale designed to make him look like a hero. (And conversely, presented Laman and his descendants as villains.)[2]   

                Mosiah 26 in particular gives an account that could easily have been manipulated by record keepers or rulers to enhance their political power. Verse one details those that were two young to have heard and understood King Benjamin’s words. As King Benjamin was the one to initiate the covenant with his people and act as a mediator between them and God, their refusing to listen represents a break with this covenant.  They are then portrayed as a villainous other in verse six, since they flatter, deceive, and draw the people into wickedness. The political importance is first revealed in verse 10, where Alma is hesitant to use his power as High Priest. He is so hesitant and troubled at the thought of using his power (v.10), that he refers the case to King Mosiah, who again sends it back to Alma (v. 12). Alma then receives a long answer to his prayer that blesses him, recounts their foundational narrative at the Waters of Mormon and captivity, and God gives him authority to expel those from the church (v.15-20). Alma wrote this down, creating a new precedent for later generations, and “went and judged” those sinners (v. 32-33).

                At first reading this sounds like a heartwarming story of somebody who leads the church with such humility that he delays punishment as much as possible. While Alma the Elder and other Nephite leaders may indeed have been sincere, the account in Mosiah 26 is ripe for abuse. In less than ten years for example, Alma the Younger said the people of Zarahemla were in an “awful dilemma” (Alma 7:3). And this doesn’t include the almost complete wickedness seen increasingly in the books of Helaman and 3 Nephi. Those that wished to expel their brethren for political or financial gain could point to the precedent established by Alma in Mosiah 26. With that text in hand they could claim to be conscientious of God’s will, reluctant to use its power, but forced to expel them from the church (and its associated political and financial privileges in being among the Nephite elite.) Few people in history willingly usurp power, it is always done humbly and with great reluctance.  Reading Julius Ceasar’s account for example, we are forced to conclude that if only certain senators (who just happened to be his opponents) left him alone, he wouldn’t have had to illegally cross the Rubicon and make himself emperor. 

                To cite another example, the Venetians in the Fourth Crusade had prepared a large fleet to sail to the Middle East. Yet they hadn’t been paid and faced a difficult bind. If they disbanded the coalition army in Venice they faced significant economic disruption and hostile intent. They attacked the port of Zara which was on their way, a convenient hold over for the winter away from Venice, and economically beneficially to them (since it flanked their trade routes.). But the ruler of Hungary had given lip service to the same crusade, wasn’t doing anything to fight in it, but managed to get the Venetians excommunicated for their conduct in actual fulfillment of the crusade.  Not to mention that the crusades themselves were often done for power and money as much as spiritual enlightenment. Hence, religion is often intertwined with politics, strategy, and money. 

                Going back to Gideon’s dispute with Nehor.  Power, even reluctantly procured, is very dangerous and often justified after the fact and its often used inappropriately for political and financial reasons. Its possible that church leaders were not as innocent as claimed, but that they sometimes abused their authority (perhaps the awful dilemma that Alma cited), and acted violently (Gideon against King Noah and possibly Nehor), or encouraged political leaders to incite violence (Moroni’s Title of Liberty- see below), all of which makes us pause and reassess the text as written.

***

---

[1] Noel Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991) 220-230.

[2] David Bokovoy, “1 Nephi as Propaganda”, When Gods Were Men, February, 6^th 2015. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidbokovoy/2015/02/1-nephi-as-propaganda/ (Accessed July 8^th, 2015.) 

Plundering the Narrative: Gadianton Robbers and First Nephi 1:2-3

[I wrote the following in application to the upcoming Mormon Theology Seminar.  I faced tough competition and wasn't selected, but I hope to pursue these ideas in the future.  I was limited to 750 words and had to be incredibly brief.]

            

           Hugh Nibley and John Tvedtness described the colophon in First Nephi 1:2-3.[1] These colophons served as ancient seal of approval or copyright. Noel Reynolds argued persuasively that Nephi’s record is the beginning of a political text that justified Nephi’s rule over his brothers, and Nephite supremacy over the Lamanites.[2]  Conversely, then, colophon like statements from Nephite dissenters and opponents reveal counter and subversive political narratives. The letter from the Gadianton Robber, Giddianhi, in Third Nephi 3: 9-10 is particularly revealing.  His entire letter, in addition to having a colophon similar to Nephi’s, used and subverted the Nephite foundational narrative to enhance the power of his pre-invasion propaganda.

 Nephi says that his words are true, and that he makes them according to the “learning of his father, [consisting] of the learning of the Jews and language of the Egyptians.” (1 Nephi 1: 3) Giddianhi references his position as governor of his society, “which society and works thereof I know to be good, and they are of an ancient date and have been handed down to us.” (3 Nephi 3: 9) So both writers recognized their position in society, testified of its truth or goodness, and referenced the heritage that influenced their writings.   

But a detailed comparison of the two chapters reveals even deeper connections.  An often quoted modern phrase is based on the “tender mercies” found in First Nephi 1:20. In contrast to the tender mercies of the Lord described by Nephi, Giddianhi claimed that he wrote his letter and sealed it with his own hand, “feeling for your welfare, because of the firmness in that which you believe to be right, and your noble spirit in the field of battle.”(3 Nephi 3:5) The leader Giddianhi claimed that the Nephite’s firm faith moved him to offer mercy, and the Gadianton leader will grant them a reprieve, or deliver them from their impending destruction.  So it is possible that Giddianhi recalled the Nephite’s foundational narrative with a twist to enhance his claim to leadership. The robber offered his tender mercies instead of God’s. Many ancient rulers cast themselves as God, part God, or the only approved conduit for God’s power. So what seemed like fake empathy from a slimy politician instead reads more like an exchange between Themistocles and Xerxes during the second Persian Invasion. 

The verses before the tender mercies described the preaching of Lehi to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In that preaching Lehi “plainly” warned of their destruction and described their means of their escape.  (First Nephi 1:18-19)  In contrast, the Nephites were offered a chance to know their secret works, and if accepted, Giddianhi offered an oath that they wouldn’t be destroyed but accepted as brothers. (3 Nephi 3: 8)  Again, this is a slight twist of the Nephite belief system. As modern members repeatedly hear, the “strict heed” a member gives to their oaths and covenants prevents their destruction. Thus, entering into an oath with the robbers would prevent the Nephite destruction; just as the inhabitants of Jerusalem could escape destruction from the Babylonians by obeying God’s word given to Lehi. The chief Governor reinforced the concept of deliverance through honoring covenants after Lachoneus rejected Giddanhi’s offer and instead commanded the Nephites to pray, and prophesied to them until they repented. (3 Nephi 3: 12, 16).

In conclusion, Giddanhi subverted the Nephite political narrative from First Nephi 1 to enhance the pre-invasion propaganda within his letter.  He sounded merciful in response to Nephite firmness in battle, by suggesting that he instead of God was the source of tender mercies. He prophesied of their destruction in 30 days, which recalled Lehi’s fulfilled prophecy Jerusalem’s destruction. (Nephite prophets used this fulfilled prophecy to bolster their case on other occasions. see Helaman 8:21.) Finally he argued the Nephite’s only escape was to accept his oath and be initiated into his society. Subverting Nephi’s political narrative 600 years later begins to show how Nephi’s colophon and remaining writing established a ruling ideology. This subversion adds sophistication and power to Giddianhi’s arguments, and suggests one reason why his threat remained so potent and seductive.  

You may read an expanded version of this argument in my Reassessing the Book of Mormon.

*****

---

[1] Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 17-9.  John A. Tvedtnes, "Colophons in the Book of Mormon," in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991), 32-37.

[2]Noel Reynolds, “Nephi’s Political Testament,” in John Sorenson and Melvin Thorne, eds., Rediscovering the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1991).

 

 

 

Record Keeping Magic

[I'm starting a new position as a permablogger at Wheat and Tares. I've gusted posted there on and off over the years and they are trying to expand their offering. I've found they are a receptive and mostly positive audience to my ideas. As a result, most of these posts are also cross posted over there and they might add some background you've already heard.]

I’ve been operating a blog, Warfare in the Book of Mormon for the better part of a decade now. The most fruitful approach I’ve taken over the last several years is to read the text a bit more critically. This is only a blog so I won’t get into the methodological weeds, but I think the good guys aren’t as good as we think, and the bad guys aren’t’ always as bad.  There is a FAIR conference talk about ten years ago that talked about not having a testimony of the history of the church. This means that while the gospel is true, the history of the church is complicated, nuanced, grey, and not nearly as black and white as many members assume.  As I’ve taken this same approach to the Book of Mormon and tried to examine how the Nephites might not have been as noble and pure as the narrative implies, I’ve noticed that the Nephite record keepers are great magicians.

As Grant Hardy intimated in his book, Understanding the Book of Mormon, sometimes the text omits key material, or includes other material that essentially distracts from uncomfortable implications. He points out Nephi’s return with the brass plates. The narrative skips over’s Lehi’s reaction to instead include a rather rare example of a women speaking and complaining in the text. (1 Nephi 5:1-9) Hardy’s analysis uses that unusual inclusion plus the resulting peace offering to suggest that Lehi didn’t approve of Nephi slaying Laban. The Nephite record keepers use emotionally based language such as this to make the reader see what they want you to see, and ignore the context, implications, and unintended consequences detailed within the text.  This post briefly (as possible) looks at three examples that illustrate these magic tricks.

The burning of Sanjo Palace in Medieval Japan. I like this picture because the Samurai are often viewed as these noble Knight like individuals and even became the basis for the Jedi. But in this battle they burned the palace, and then killed all of the survivors as they fled. You can see a decapitation in the center of the picture. Historical reality is different than the often idealized views of the past. 

This land is my land 

The first example might sound a bit familiar. Last time I posted a dramatized account of Moroni’s army sweeping out the Lamanites in Alma 50:9.  They likely didn’t issue a 30 day eviction notice and do so with a regard for Lamanite civil liberties. In fact, while it’s not recorded in the text I bet they used many of their ethnocentric descriptions of Lamanites to justify their action (see the next section).  The Lamanites are dark, loathsome, bloodthirsty, and wild people while the Nephites will bring the light of Christ and civilization to the region.

In fact, the magic trick then becomes the very long discussion of how happy and secure this made the Nephites. Instead of considering how the Nephites may not have been Christlike to their neighbors, how they exercised naked power against their ethnic rivals, and how those refugees likely enhanced Amalickiah’s arguments about Nephite perfidy the chapter discusses how secure they were. Verse 12 discussed “the assurance of protection” offered by new lands, and waxed eloquent about how happy and blessed the people were until finally in v 23. the text says that there “was never a happier time” among the people.

Yet, just a few verses later, in the same chapter, Morianton does the same thing as Moroni and is defeated by Moroni (v.26-36)!  Instead of receiving praise, Morianton’s people taking up arms is presented in stark and dangerous terms. There was a “warm contention,” and Moroni was afraid the people of Bountiful would side with Morianton in the dispute (Alma 50:32.)  But instead of concentrating how the people of Lehi likely presented a one sided account of the conflict, and how naturally fearful anybody would be of Moroni, the text instead becomes a morality tale as Morianton beat one his servants. Morianton didn’t immediately chase his servant which suggests the possibility that she often ran away and then came back.  But this time she went to Moroni who then found significant moral authority to deal with Morianton.

This moral authority was needed because Morianton was simply doing the same thing that Moroni did a few verses earlier. But Morianton had the negatives of possible being an ethnic minority (because of the Jaredite root ending in his name), driving out Nephite settlers instead of Lamanites, and having the survivors flee to Moroni’s camp.  This is the second magic trick in this story.  In addition to ignoring the consequences of preemptive action seizing land and creating refugees, Morianton couldn’t do the same thing because he was morally corrupt and seditious.

Praiseworthy Bloodthirstiness

The next piece of magic again comes squeezed within a good deal of happy talk. After Nephi and Lehi preach to Lamanites, are encircled by fire, and have massive conversions, there is a stunning change in affairs. Suddenly there is peace, harmony, increased trade, and righteousness throughout the first part of Helaman chapter 6. Yet not all is good because the Gadianton robbers are still active (and we’ll get to that part of the story in a minute.)  

From a spiritual standpoint this is a great story, but conversion also results in societal changes as well. I discuss the historical incidents using examples from European history where I describe how conversion is crown deep. There are numerous benefits that range from added political power, top down government control, additional tools of statecraft, diplomatic benefits that include being part of the Christian club of nations. The conversion of Lithuania is a good case study for seeing all of these trends but for brevity I will focus on the diplomatic benefits.

In Helaman 6:20 the Lamanites are praised for using “every means” to “destroy” the Gadianton Robbers, which might be the only time in the scriptures their martial activities are praised. When the Lamanites are not part of the club they are described a wild, ferocious, bloodthirsty, barbarous, cruel, hardened and a plundering people (Enos 1:20, Mosiah 10:12 Alma 17:14 Alma 48:24). These are typical ethnic stereotypes of the other, but amazingly they disappeared when the Lamanites convert and fought the Gadianton Robbers. When the Lamanite Christians later became Nephites in order to fight the robbers in 3^rd Nephi 2:12-16 their kids also became white!  Fighting satanic pagans under the banner of Christ gets you a good amount of praise from the recording historian (Mormon) as those fighters suddenly become part of the club. This piece of magic is consistent with historical practice and particularly prominent when the historian has a religious background.  

Wicked Chief Judge- Worst thing ever or minor inconvenience?

The final example comes from involves the Chief Judge. In Alma 46 changing a few laws is presented as a grave threat to liberty and resulted in rather passionate prayer, prophecy (and militarization) by Moroni. The Title of Liberty is praised in the most heroic terms. Nonviolent advocates like Jana Reiss and Joshua Madsen have called him a military “stud muffin” and “action hero”. His words helped me get through Marine Corps boot camp and many uncomfortable nights in the field, (at the risk of confirming stereotypes) during my mission in Texas I went to military compounds that quoted and framed the Title of Liberty on their gate, and the Frieberg painting was prominently displayed in my step dad’s office when he was company commander of the 82^nd Airborne. This action was seen as a valiant defense of liberty but the magical description of the powerful Moroni obscures unintended consequences and contrasts with Helaman 6:39 and the trial of where Nephites lost control of the government with little more than a shrug and a whimper.

Just like the refugees created in Alma 50, after the Title of Libety the fleeing men of Amalickiah likely had much more ammunition to spin a tale in front of the Lamanites. He likely didn’t have to exaggerate much to imply that Moroni was an aggressive and dangerous leader.  Nothing says freedom for example like forcing people to support it at sword point (Alma 46:36). Historically failed revolts lands resulted in confiscated lands that were then distributed. Considering the high cost of equipping Nephites with new game changing armor,[1] I wonder if lands were taken or very least a heavy tax levied to support this move. Not only were Kingmen forced to support liberty at sword point, but they likely had to literally pay for it too. This seems like a good case of blowback if there ever was one, and it happened without anybody noticing because we get such warm fuzzies reading about the Title of Liberty.   

Moreover, when the Gadianton Robbers did obtain “sole management” of the government in Helaman 6:39, they were described in the worst terms. Mormon claims the Robbers did “no justice” in the land. They punished the poor because they were poor and allowed the rich to go free so they could go on whore mongering and killing (Helaman 7:4-5). 

Yet, one of the few detailed examples of their justice we have is actually fairly evenhanded. After Nephi prophesied of the murder of another chief judge he was arrested as part of the conspiracy.  They managed to arrest Nephi, an extremely vocal critic of the government, conduct an investigation, and then release him without any indication from the record that he was mistreated.  Nephi didn’t have his lands seized (like the Nephites did to the Lamanites in Alma 50 or possibly the Kingmen in Alma 46), as Nephi apparently maintained his residence in the capital city. Nephi wasn’t indefinitely detained before finally being executed like the Nephites did to their vocal critics during the great war (Alma 51:19; Alma 62:9).  Despite being a vociferous critic of an evil government that he says is inspired by Satan, Nephi received a fair amount of what we would call due process.  Of course, Nephi’s son did have an execution date set. And as a leader of a major or dominant religion, Nephi may have been too big to jail.  Yet this example is still illustrative of how losing control of the government wasn’t the world ending result, especially when we might infer even worse about the supposedly righteous rule of Nephites.

Nephite leaders preemptively seized a perceived threat against the government in Helaman 1, where the person’s sole crime seemed to be just thinking about flattering the people. That could have seemed like a decent reaction based on the chaos caused by other dissenters. But even King Mosiah had to plead to the people that they had no right to “destroy” his son Aaron should he reassert his right to the throne and spark a civil war (Mosiah 29:8), so it seems like a pretty common response that even applied to repentant missionaries. Reading John Welch’s, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon, shows us that Alma the Younger had to be very creative in his sentence and execution of Nehor, which still inflamed sectarian conflict.^[2]  There are many more examples we could infer about the injustice of the Nephites. Daniel Belnap for example, wrote a very good article detailing the strife and “stumbling block” that unrighteous and unjust actions of Nephites caused in the 18^th year of the reign of the judges.^[3] 

Helaman’s servant stabbed an assassin after nighttime spying (Helaman 2:6), and Nephi exposed another killer in Helaman 9:6. Lawyers and leaders within the Nephite nation were known to beat confessions out of criminals (Alma 14:17-22), and both Lamanites and Nephties attempted to poison each other with wine (Alma 55:13). Of course the beatings to get confessions were committed by unrighteous figures from the wicked city of Ammonihah. Though its important to note that no beatings were recorded during the period the robbers had “sole management” of the government. The Nephites even tested the wine on their prisoners first (Alma 55: 31-32)! Jailing the prophet for a bit in connection to a murder that he just predicated, hardly seems like the government of Satan, and seems comparatively better than some of the actions by righteous figures. Yet again, few readers notice because the Title of Liberty and preaching and prophecy of Nephi distract from that comparison and contrast.

Conclusion

The Book of Mormon is a complex book. Suggesting that the Nephites are unrighteous might be upsetting to some people. After I gave presented at the FAIR conference I got some strong rebukes by people quoting scripture suggesting that I was completely wrong in my reading. This analysis is admittedly speculative, but it’s no less so than the Heartland kooks that probably dominate your Sunday School.  This approach gives us the benefit of treating Mormon as a real person and historian with tension between the spiritual and history in his book. As Michael Austin said the last time this controversy arose, many members insist the book is historical, but then read the text as though it’s a bad novel or propaganda. If the Nephites were real people then they were self-interested just like everybody else in history, and particularly the children of Israel. As a result their record keeping shows the same techniques used by other ancient historians. They liked power and prosperity, and they wrote their history the same way others did. So their culture was seen as better, the “others” were seen as wicked, losing power to wicked individuals was the worst, and making smart moves to consolidate their power was wise. The Nephites were not cardboard cut outs, but acted like people throughout history, moving through a fallen and difficult world the best they can.

Thanks for reading. I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this piece please consider donating using one of the pay pal buttons at the bottom of the page. 

*************

---

[1] Alma 43:19-21 suggest the armor was enough to scare away the Lamanites, and they blame their defeat on it 44:9). We don’t know the exact material. Large metal was not feasible in Mesoamerica at this time, and the Limhites brought back a large piece of armor because apparently it was rare. But it was heavier and enough to tip the balance of power.

[2] John Welch, Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon (Provo: Maxwell Institute, 2008), The Trial of Nehor.  

[3] Dan Belnap “And it came to pass . . .”: The Sociopolitical Events in the Book of Mormon Leading to the Eighteenth Year of the Reign of the Judges Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, 2014 (23): 101-139

Thucydides in the Book of Mormon

I haven’t read Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian War since I was an undergraduate. Because I’m a military historian I thought it would be valuable to go through it again. What follows is a peak into what I describe to my students as “active reading.” As I go through it I’m not just trying to follow the narrative, but I’m engaging the material, questioning it, seeing how it might apply, and generally making notes in the margins and brain storming as I read. I’ve mainly applied it to the Book of Mormon (with a click bate title of course), though as you might have seen in my articles at W&T, I also include notes on comparison to Chinese history, and current events. What eventually happens is this information remains in the back of my mind until I have some kind of ah ha moment, start a new project, and I’ve had to spend a good deal of time searching and even have to re-read these books to find the mental note I took. (I should really take better notes.) Without further ado, here is a peak behind the curtain as passages that inspired additional thoughts.

i.22 “What particular people said in their speeches, either just before or during the war, was hard to recall exactly, whether they were speeches I heard myself or those that were reported to me at second hand. I have made each speaker says what I thought the situation demanded, keeping as near as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.”

This is a good discussion of the kind of questions people ask about historical sources. There seems to be three options that he has which are : actual words (this is more likely for public speechs like Pericles funeral oration), paraphrase (which might apply to things like the Melian dialogue that happened in private), and historical fiction, which is Thuycdides basically having people say what he thinks they would say.

I’ve thought about this a good deal in the Book of Mormon. John Gee pointed out how Limhi’s speeches all occurred in events where a scribe would be present. Amalickiah in 47 is particularly revealing though. Alma 55:5 suggests that at least one of the servants of the Lamanite king served in the army, he (or they) could provide a source for the killing of the king and at least second hand political knowledge of the Lamanties. But the direct speeches and tactics of Amalickiah are more complicated. It could be propaganda, or like the Book of Judges in the Bible, a collection of folk tales about the figure eventually written down. But the way he ruthlessly maneuvered into the kingship suggests something a little more organized than a collection of tales. It could be a genre of Mesoamerican literature that highlight great or infamous deeds of leaders. Regardless of the exact nature of the record, I find an intriguing insight from Thucydides about the difficulty of reconstructing speeches exactly, which should inform our understanding of the text.

i.10 He does, however, show that all the rowers in Philoctetes’ ships were also fighters, for he writes that all the oarsmen were archers. As for passengers on the ships, it is not likely that there were many, aside from the kings and other top people, especially since they had to cross the sea with military equipment on board, and in ships without the protection of upper decks, built in the old pirate fashion. So if we take the mean between the largest and smallest ships, we find that not many went to Troy…

I thought it was very interesting that Thucydides analyzed the numbers of Homer. As I’ve discussed before, questioning numbers is one of the first things that professional historians did. Unreliable eye witnesses, deliberately or accidental corruption of the text, numbers as a colloquial or symbolic use (I’ve told you a thousand times, 666), and historians use of battle for a didactic or moral point can change the numbers. As usual, when historians do these techniques to assess other texts, it’s seen as good scholarship. When the same thing is done to assess the text of the Book of Mormon, it is attacked as mental gymnastics and dismissed with a snide and condescending, “we know the book is false anyway.” (As a reminder, I delete comments like that on my posts.)

i.23 “ I believe the truest reason for the quarrel, though least evident in what was said at the time, was the growth of Athenian power, which put fear into the Lacedaemonians and so [they felt] compelled… into war.”

The war chapters inspire a good deal of writing, but it is mainly a good deal of speculation and inappropriate and superficial analogies. What I’ve tried to do in all of my research is look beyond battle to see it a culmination of tactics, strategy, history, culture, material culture, and geography. In doing that I’ve tried to look for the causes of the war chapters. There are a few models I’ve suggested such as the anthropological or great person model. The former sees the war as a competition for resources, trade routes, prime farm land, and the control of tax bases. The latter looks at the role that great people like Moroni and Amalickiah had in leading to war.

But the third model comes from Thucydides account of the Peloponnesian war which is a classic tale of interstate rivalries. After leading the Greeks to victory against the Persians, Athens and Sparta split and competed for the leadership of Greece. Athens started in the much more dominant positions with a fleet and eventually a lucrative empire . But the Spartans were powerful as well and they continued to vie for influence in Greece with a fearsome land army and set of allies opposing Athens. This competition for leadership in the political sphere led to armed competition as Athens tried to maintain its preeminent status and deny Sparta any more strength. So I’m kind of impressed that I could remember what Thucydides thought was the main driver of the war.

The shift of the Zoramites into the Lamanite sphere of influence (Alma 31:4; 43:4), the shift of the Anti Nephi Lehis into the Nephite sphere of influence (Alma 27:22-23), the expansion of the Nephites into the wilderness after expelling the Lamanites, the quick strike at Ammonihah (a city that only tacitly acknowledge Nephite rule, Alma 49: 6) in order to bolster Lamanite claims to Kingship (keep in mind that was the first city they attacked several times) point to the geo political factors of expanding and contracting spheres that cause conflict. This happens in particular during times of rapid growth or decay of one power against another and definitely recalls the “fear” that drove compelled them to conflict.

iii.82 Civil war ran through the cities…and they reversed the usual way of using words to evaluate activities. Ill-considered boldness was counted as loyal manliness; prudent hesitation was held to be cowardice in disguise, and moderation merely the cloak of an unmanly nature. A mind that could grasp the good of the whole was considered wholly lazy. Sudden fury was accepted as part of manly valor, while plotting for one’s own security was though a reasonable excuse for delaying action. A man who started a quarrel was always to be trusted, while one who opposed him was under suspicion…

Sounds like an average day online. I’ve seen this a good deal and its one of the most frustrating aspect of being a writer. Angry clowns seem to get all of the attention, while reasoned assessments get ignored. In fact, I’ve lost writing positions because I wasn’t angry enough or angry at the right people. You could also look at the counter puncher in Trump, the incivility of twitter, those for whom cuck is their favorite and frequent insult, and bomb throwers who sling warmonger, racist, and sexist with reckless abandon.

I used to teach a class on Pakistan, and my students often reacted with shock and a sense of smug superiority at the number of Pakistanis that riot over false rumors of desecrating a Quran, or those that believe the CIA and not terrorists are behind plots. But before you pat yourself on the back for not being one of those people, and confidently attack Trump and his supporters, realize that there are people who lose their jobs before they get off the plane, and consider how many of you have reposted an inflammatory memes and news without knowing the whole story. In the upside down word described by Thucydides you can be part of the problem while simultaneously thinking you are better than everybody.

vii.44 Battles are easier to understand in daylight, but even then soldiers who are present scarcely know more than their own particular experiences. So in a night battle-and this the only one in the war to involve large armies- how could anyone know anything for certain. Though the moon was bright, they saw each other as you’d expect in the moonlight: bodies were visible, but there was no way to know whether they were friends or enemies.

I wrote something about the experience of battle in the BoM. Thucydides account above would have been a pithy quote to share. Here is the relevant material from my article:

“logic insists that battle amongst thousands of people would be a noisy affair — and the early battle sounds would be quickly added to by thousands of clashing weapons and the screams of the wounded and dying. Moreover, the rush of adrenaline triggers physical reactions that make battle notoriously difficult to understand for those participating in it.
‘Studies have found at least half of participants [in battle] will experience the event in slow motion, a fifth in faster-than-normal time; two-thirds will hear at ‘diminished volume’ … a fifth at amplified levels; about half will see … with tunnel vision and black out everything not directly ahead and the other half with amazingly heightened clarity. Most individuals will suffer memory loss, while others will ‘remember’ events that never occurred.’ Alexander Rose, Men of War: The American Soldier in Combat at Bunker Hill, Gettysburg, and Iwo Jima (New York: Random House Books, 2015), 72–73.

Back to Thucydides:

vii.50 Then most of the Athenians took the eclipse to heart and called on the generals to stop, while Nicias- who put too much faith in divination and such practices- said he would not even consider moving now until they had waited the twenty-seven days prescribed by soothsayers.

This is an interesting passage. It seems to go against what I typically believe about ancients, that most of the practices were believed, but often discarded or changed when they conflicted with military realities. Despite the ancient’s belief in the super natural, rituals that harm the warrior’s efficacy in battle usually don’t last long or became heavily modified, symbolic, or placed on monuments without being practiced extensively. Losing blood and fasting would produce a weakened state that would make combat difficult. It’s possible the noncombatants fasted, or this was posted on monuments to please the masses of people (who wanted righteous rulers), but not actually done in private. We could see this passage as an example of how Thucydides did not put much stock in divination rituals as this superstition prevented the Athenians from escaping Sicily.

Conclusion:

This was a very enjoyable read and I’m moving to the portable Greek reader for more insights. Some passages reinforced previous points, some provide a new angle, others points provided trenchant reminders about human nature, the speeches are electrifying, even if they might be historical fiction more than history, and overall I’m reminded of why his book is required reading for college students. And I still shake my head at the foolishness of the Sicilian Expedition. What have you read recently that you really enjoy?

Thanks for reading. I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. 

The Butchers' Apostle: Context for the Anti War Quotes of J. Reuben Clark

In repeated discussions of LDS positions on war there is an inevitable quotation from J. Reuben Clark.[1]  But non violent proponents and radical libertarians do not know the life and times of this man, which in turn undermine his positions and any use they may have in advancing an anti war agenda.  Isolated quotes from J. Reuben Clark fail to account for his inconsistent views, his pro Nazi positions, and his demotion and minority voice within church leadership.

                Before I cover those three points I must point out several things. It may shock an average church member to read a critique of a former apostle.  This is a valid concern based on an abundance of love and respect for those leaders.  Yet I should remind readers that binding church doctrine is not found in isolated statements of church leaders.[2]  (And as I point out below, even contemporaries leaders disagreed with and prevented the publication of his statements.)  Church doctrine is found in the standard works, and in the consistent pronunciations of the First Presidency and the Quorum the Twelve. A single statement represents a well thought out opinion and is not considered binding on church members.

Furthermore, it is disingenuous to introduce a prophet’s words to bolster a political argument, but then expect an uncritical acceptance of those words. In essence radical libertarians and anti war critics introduce a piece of evidence in a court room, and then deny a proper cross examination of it. If they are so sensitive to possible mistreatment of a prophet’s image or legacy, perhaps they shouldn’t introduce his words to bolster their political arguments and castigate brothers who disagree with them.[3]    So with as much respect that I have for the prophets’ words, they are used to support arguments with which I disagree, and used in opposition to the context in which they originated. So a faithful member of the church can and should examine the historical context and logical implications of teachings often presented in isolation to support an agenda.

Tossed About With Every Wind of Politics

                His shifting positions hardly represent a stable moral view of war, but rather a position that changes with the politics of the time.  He started his young adult life with his family barely convincing him not to enlist in the Spanish American War.[4]  This is particularly insightful as it is considered one of the most Imperialistic of America’s Wars and resulted in a brutal counter insurgency campaign in the Philippines.  He then worked for State Department and wrote was sounded like the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine.[5] The Monroe Doctrine was a policy that told Europeans to keep their hands off North or South America. While the Roosevelt Corollary added that America could and would be hands on in that region.   This doctrine expanded America’s involvement in unofficial wars, gunboat diplomacy, and even quasi annexation of Caribbean and Central American countries until the start of WWII. At the start of WWI he enlisted in the Army Reserves and even argued that German nationals should be imprisoned.[6]

                A person might argue that he was impassioned by later abuses and ennobled by the course of his life so he would eventually become a pacifist.  But he said during this period that:

The older I get, the more I see, the more experience I obtain, the more I become convinced that the peace propaganda and the present peace propagandists are both equally impractical and illusory, as also inimical to the interests of the this nation. If we get into war…we shall have to put some of them in jail, and personally I should like to begin with [prominent progressive and anti imperialist, William Jennings] Bryan.[7]     

Pro Nazi

                In that statement, Clark essentially agreed with George Orwell, who later commented during WWII that,

In so far as it hampers the British war effort, British pacifism is on the side of the Nazis and German pacifism, if it exists, is on the side of Britain and the USSR. Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively the pacifist is pro Nazi.

A year later he said:

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'[8]

Clark’s words and actions after his anti war shift exemplify this quote.  In sharp contrast to his earlier statements about interning Germans, Clark had effusive praise for Hitler and the society he was creating. This is in spite of the numerous reports he had concerning Nazi death camps.[9]  He even “suppressed” the anti Nazi writings of a former mission president to Czechoslovakia which contained pictures of prisoners in a German concentration camp.     

He repeatedly advocated for a negotiated peace with Germany that would have left them in control of much of Europe.[10] He did so after there yet more reports from death camps such as Auschwitz. The FBI had secret files which detailed how Nazi agents received the private encouragement of J. Reuben Clark.[11]  After a fireside given by Clark one member publicly wrote that is was “the most reactionary, critical, and near seditious ever delivered in a country during a time of war.”[12]

After the war was over he condemned the Nuremburg trials while also accusing the Allies of seeking to destroy the German people. Historian D. Michael Quinn recorded that in over 600 boxes of personal papers there is not one criticism of Nazi conduct during the war.  “Clarks only accusation of war crimes was against his own nation’s leaders and armed forces.”[13]

Overruled

These comments didn’t escape the notice of fellow church leaders and the rank and file members.  The title of this piece reflected one opinion of Clark’s pro Nazi views and the above section also included the “near seditious” nature of Clark’s words.  After the attack at Pearl Harbor President Grant disregarded Clark’s description of the war as “jungle law of beasts” and published a more cautious message.[14]  The First Presidency message in April 1942 did not contain any of Clark’s positions on conscientious objectors, though a later letter seemed to be influenced by Clark. In 1945 the First Presidency against softened a message he wrote.[15]   

On the ascension of President David O. McKay he was demoted to second counselor in the First Presidency. McKay also forcefully ordered him to speak in support of military service during the Korean War.[16]  Many of his most strident remarks were made in unofficial capacities or remained in his private papers as he seemed out of step with many of his church colleagues, like Harold B. Lee and McKay, but also his professional colleagues, where he was the only former or current U.S. ambassador to reject creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; his opinions also elicited severe opposition from rank and file church members.  While morality is not a popularity contest, establishing church doctrine does require the consistent proclamation of all 15 people in the Presidency and Quorum of the 12.  Because of the deference for past and present leaders it is also extremely rare to be overturned in such conspicuous ways and reinforces the idea that Clark was not speaking for the Lord’s church but stating his opinion.

Conclusion

It is tempting and easy to say you are anti war.  With the horrors of death and a humanistic concern for the individual welfare, not to mention the often naked use of power we see around the world, it is understandable.  But many anti war advocates don’t consider the logical outcomes of their actions. Thus somebody who was anti war during WWII, inevitably became pro Nazi. 

J. Reuben Clark was not consistent in his positions. He supported imperialistic endeavors through his youth and even defended them and attacked pacifists as he advanced in his career.  He abruptly shifted without explanation and consistently defended Nazis and attacked any form of warfare.  He was so strident that he often didn’t garner the support of other church leaders and was overruled on more than one occasion. 

Using out of context quotes from J. Reuben Clark might satisfy the pacifist looking for support in his position. But it ignores the context of his time.  The shifting positions, pro Nazi attitudes, and minority within church leadership undermine the value of isolated quotes. Using his quotes suggests a failure to articulate clear moral positions, and the reason why a person might shift them throughout a their life. It also suggests that the logical outcome of anti war positions will result in opposing just war against genocidal dictators. And they suggest that a person holds a minority position within the Church and is not accurately stating binding doctrine.  

***************************

---

[1] See this for example:  http://www.millennialstar.org/hiroshima-day/

[2] http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

[3] See more on prophet bashing here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-duplicitous-anti-war-critic.html

[4] 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) 141-160, 141.  Unless otherwise noted, all of the page numbers for this post originate from Quinn’s essay.  I was rather surprised he presented the evidence found in this post without comment but instead focused on Clark’s protection and assistance to pacifists.  While the latter is good I think the former deserves more attention and consideration than it got in his piece. 

[5] 142.

[6] 143.

[7] 142.

[8] Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (New York: Penguin Group, 2012) 183.

[9] 150.

[10] 153, 154.

[11] 153.

[12] 153.

[13] 156.

[14] 151.

[15] 155.

[16] 159.