[Morgan Deane is a military historian and history professor at BYU-I. His first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon is available in book stores, and he blogs at http://mormonwar.blogspot and www.arsenalofvenice.com ]
The Duck Dynasty patriarch made news recently for advocating a controversial policy in response to the group ISIS in Iraq. He said that “in this case, you either have to convert them—which I think would be next to impossible—I’m not giving up on them, I’m just saying either convert them or kill them. One or the other.”
This had inspired the usual rants about “racist, hillbilly, redneck, white trash” from those on the left who say this is the same kind of rhetoric- covert or die- that inspires ISIS and other terrorist groups.[1] That it happened on Sean Hannity’s show has inspired connections to all sort of loony fringe figures from Cliven Bundy to Ted Nugent. But Latter-day Saints should have noticed something rather particular about his statement. In Helaman 6:37 it reads:
And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.
So in response to the threat of Gadianton Robbers the Lamanites hunted (and presumably killed) them, or they converted them. To understand this strategy, and how it might apply to modern times, it is important to realize more about the Gadianton robbers than is commonly assumed. The Nephites were not a hegemonic power throughout much of the text and especially the book of Helaman. The Nephite record keeper(s) complain about losing the chief judge position (Helaman 6:39), the people had to plead to the prophet Nephi through intermediary leaders (Helaman 11:8-9), and the prophet Nephi had to qualify his prophecies to only the lands they possessed (Helaman 7:22). The Gadianton robbers were not a band of toothless high way bandits that the term implies, but they filled the vacuum represent by Nephite weakness which resulted in competing power centers. The complicated power struggle and struggle for legitimacy resulted in the use of delegitimizing terms such as robber, and resulted in a rather elastic application of the term. In some cases those that were labelled robbers actually filed suits and counter suits using complicated legal maneuvering to counter label their enemies as robbers-hardly the picture that one gets from hearing the term. In discussing the opponents of Roman historian Susan Mattern offered this insight that applies a great deal to the Gadianton robbers, “The difference between a bandit, a tribal chief, a petty king, or the leader of a rebellion could be open to interpretation; many individuals are located in more than one of these categories by the ancient sources.”[2]
This understanding of the text leads offers another interpretation of Phil Robertson’s comments. Instead of a brutal ISIS like policy of forced conversion or death, the Lamanite’s policy is a reaction to a brutal enemy in a complicated time filled with competing power centers. The weakness of the Nephites allowed the robbers to flourish and created a chaotic situation probably not unlike that currently seen in the Middle East, and the Lamanites responded with two associated policies.[3] Since ancient polities often combined religion and the state, this had an important and powerful political goal. While the problem persisted throughout the books of Helaman and Nephi, the Lamanites had success in either converting or actively hunting them.
In modern times the gospel still has ability to affect politics and promote harmony. As the Prince of Peace true conversion to the gospel of Jesus Christ is the best chance for it. The Nephites had a prolonged period of tranquility after the personal ministry of Christ.[4] The modern church continues to spread the gospel and proclaim peace (D&C 98:16). Barring a conversion and when subjected to the “barbarous cruelty” (Alma 48:24) of people like ISIS, those that are subject to attacks of ISIS have a right, and given the genocide and mass accounts of sexual slavery in the region, many would say they have a responsibility, to resist and kill them.
So what might seem like a ridiculous claim from Phil Robertson captured a certain logic. Preaching the gospel and proclaiming peace is the best way to achieve a lasting peace. But when that fails the Lamanites hunted the Gadiantion robbers, the Nephites resisted “with their swords” (Alma 61:14) whatever they couldn’t resist with their words, and Phil Roberts said convert or kill. He was less artful than the scriptures, but no less correct.
What do you think? Is it appropriate to apply the Book of Mormon to a modern problem? Why or why not? Does this change the assumptions you make about the Book of Mormon? Does this change your opinion of Phil Robertson, or help you understand the threat posed by modern Gadianton robbers?
[1] For a typical example please see this: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-convert-or-kill-isis
[2] Susan Mattern, “Counterinsurgency and the Enemies of Rome,” in Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome, Victor Davis Hanson eds (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010), 169 (163-184).
[3] It is possible that the Nephite policies themselves contributed to the rise of Gadianton Robbers. The prophet Nephi pointed to many sins committed by the Nephite people, these crimes and the likely power graps by unscrupulous politicians likely had an alienating effect. This is the subject of a new book that revises and reexamines our understanding of the text.
[4] For more see Robert Rees, “Imagining Peace: The Example of the Nephites Following Christ’s Visit to the New World” in War and Peace in Our Times: Mormon Perspectives, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, and Richard Bushman eds, (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2012) 41-56.
Citation needed…
Morgan,
What do you make of D&C 98?
Good question Nate. I thought all of the peace on Earth stuff proclaimed by the angles at his birth, and that we sing about during Christmas time made the claim self evident. But if that isn’t good enough, citation 4 gives one example, and the entire volume contains a great deal of discussion in how the application of Christian principles, and necessarily the spread of the gospel, can lead to peace. Of course, the cited scripture in Helaman 6:37 that inspired the post is another example.
I should also clarify that the discussion of law suits and competing power centers comes from my research into the use of the term robber in ancient societies and not necessarily the BoM. That is implied by the use of a Roman historian immediately after that line, but thought it should be more clear. Thanks for reading.
Morgan,
To be honest, “all of the peace on Earth stuff proclaimed by the angels at His birth” is belied by centuries of evidence showing that converting to Christianity doesn’t make a person or a nation any less warlike. If you meant something different by “preaching the gospel and proclaiming peace,” I apologize for the misunderstanding and will engage with your clarified statement.
I think you make a good point. Though I would point out that you cited a part of one sentence out a substantive paragraph. I think you would benefit by looking at the article I cited and the volume in which that article appears.
Honestly though, this whole line of inquiry seems somewhat discursive, as the substance of my post is actually about the strategy pursued with the first half of convert or kill (for lack of a better phrase) fails. I didn’t think it needed defending that the Prince of Peace can bring lasting peace because it is an assumption that every member with a hope of resurrection, heaven, the lasting peace after Christ’s visit to the Nephites, the Atonement, and the millennium shares. Maybe I’m a little naive for accepting Isaiah’s account that the lion and the lamb will lie down together, or Christ’s declaration that peace makers are blessed. As a follower of Jesus Christ I strive to be a peace maker and expect that the combined peace making of Saints might make a difference in the world. So I thought that went without argument.
I’ve already mentioned some of the resources out there that discuss these peace making efforts in much greater detail. There are plenty of websites, presentations, and books that deal with a theology of peace. I’m basically familiar with their arguments because I’ve presented at the same conferences, published in the same book, or associate with the same publishers. I’ve already cited the War and Peace volume because it is a great discussion of the topic from well qualified individuals on a variety of viewpoints. For an example of the diversity in the book, it has my chapter that defends preemptive war in the BoM.
While I do share the hope expressed by many peace advocates, I operate from the assumption, somewhat borrowed from Thomas Hobbs, that men are naturally brutish and warlike. I have to confess that I don’t put much stock in peace theories overall. I look at the years of recorded warfare and don’t believe that a bunch of elites, that only live in a peaceful and prosperous society because of victory in war, and who operate in a relatively cocooned existence- even compared to fellow Americans who already exist in a bubble compared to the rest of the world- are going to change 5,000 years of history by having some academic conferences, prayer meetings, or rallies. Making a difference, as I said earlier, doesn’t mean we can eliminate genocidal dictators, mass raping armies, WMD using mad men, state sponsors of terrorism, and depraved barbarians. So I study what I believe to be more practical concerns like, among other things, the appropriate circumstances in which one should wage war and the most effective and moral ways to fight it.
So I’m afraid this isn’t the in depth answer you are looking for about how we achieve peace through preaching the gospel. I tend to agree with you more than disagree about the failings of that strategy throughout history, even in Latter Day Saint history. I tried to respect and give space, (or be fair and balanced if you will), to more idealistic, and maybe even more Christlike notions of peace and harmony. But I specialize in more practical and historically based considerations, such as the best strategy for “hunting” robbers and would love to discuss those considerations in greater detail.
Thanks for the thought provoking response Nate.
Isn’t convert or kill the raison d’etre of muslim extremism, or am I missing something?
Interesting post though.
Well, it always seems appropriate to apply the BoM to a modern problem; if for no other reason, it points out that human motivations don’t seem to change much over centuries. The examples in Alma 44 and 62 where Moroni kills the opponents who refuse to take the covenant and uphold the cause of freedom certainly seem extreme to our modern sensibilities, but those were extreme circumstances.
In addition, as we keep discovering, some people simply aren’t open to diplomatic solutions, negotiations, and compromise. I suspect the ISIS folks may fall into that category. History would point to religious conviction as a prime source for that sort of intransigence.
My caveat about too close an application of the Moroni scenario is simply that Moroni, Pahoran, and the leadership of that time and place were righteous people with a sort of a combination church/state government. We have no such thing currently in the US. I have little or no confidence in American leadership to use power in sensible ways, much less righteous ones. If it were as easy as “ISIS is right there, go find them,” I think a case could be made; but the dog’s breakfast we’ve made of the “war on terror” so far is not confidence-inspiring.
Indeed, human motivations don’t seem to have changed all that much at all since the nineteenth century.
…eliminate genocidal dictators, mass raping armies, WMD using mad men, state sponsors of terrorism, and depraved barbarians.. Please, this is a straw man argument, this has not been the goal of any major developed nation’s use of military force during my lifetime. Rather these are the propaganda reasons offered to justify war for other purposes.
Good question Hedgehog. But yes you are missing something. The details beyond the third paragraph explained why the Lamanite strategy was different. Simply put, a counter insurgency strategy consisting of two major approaches, is different than the actions of ISIS.
We do need to convet ISIS, or at the very least their Sunni base of support to a peaceful tolerant ideology, not necesssarily Christianity, but to the basic liberal democratic ideals of the West. The ancient caliphates were tolerant of diversity, why can’t the Muslim extremists find a way to reconcile the Koran with peaceful co-existence again?
Our current administration pressured the Iraqi government to make changes in order to gain the confidence of Sunnis who feel marginalized and threw their support to ISIS.
A combination of military assistance to those threatened by ISIS and an overall policy to encourage tolerance may be our only reasonable course of action. But, posioning the mix with calls to Christian conversion will just ruin it all.
I disagree Howard. Just in my life time we intervened in Bosnia to stop mass rape and genocide. Then in Kosovo to stop the same dictator. We intervened in Somalia to stop warlords that were starving their own people. We intervened in Iraq for a variety of reasons, but his use of WMDs against his own people and human rights abuses were a part of it (though admittedly the case for war made to the public focused on current WMDs- which was also on my list). And I haven’t seen any disputes that ISIS is forcing women into sexual slavery, beheading many, and committing genocide. Now of course, there is always a gap between rhetoric and reality, and always a politician ready to justify a self serving war with noble words. So at best your assertion is debatable, but the reasons I listed certainly aren’t a straw man.
Well it seems there were a lot for reasons to intervene in Bosnia but rape and genocide were secondary had we really been concerned about rape and genocide back then the US response to Rwandan genocide would have been much more substantial.
We intervened in Iraq for a variety of reasons… Indeed, Israel and oil being the two biggest ones and lies of 911 involvement and WMD were used to justify it by end-justifies-the-means amoral neocon thinking.
ISIS is just blowback the mujahideen morphed into al qaeda which morphed into ISIS. Endless profits for the mighty war machine. You can’t arm gorillas and just walk away after and expect the warlords to not take over and expect the friends and neighbors of those we kill and make homeless to embrace us our ways. We make enemies every time we go to war. If you want a regime change a seal team or three can take often care of it but that doesn’t feed the war machine much profit.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
Your post was long on conspiracy theories while short on substance. I’m just surprised you didn’t blame some Jewish bankers, though you did blame Israel and oil which is close enough. You also called Iraqis “gorillas” which isn’t racist at all. You claimed Bosnian intervention was not about genocide and mass rape because genocide happened somewhere else. That does nothing to dispute why we went to Bosnia. Though I agree that a failure to act in Rwanda was horrendous, and I attacked Clinton for it at the time.
What would be a substantive and serious response is something along the lines of, “in this article Secretary of State Albright said this…which states reasons x, y, and z for intervening. These reasons do not match the ones you gave.” And so on through each of my examples given. A vacuous rant about Jews, gorillas, neocons, and the war machine is disappointing on a number of levels.
Ever hear of gorilla fighters or gorilla warfare, are either racist big guy? A substantive and serious response was: What do you make of D&C 98? Still waiting for a response.
I think the context was clear Howard meant guerillas.
Thanks Hedgehog, sorry for my poor auto correced spelling.
Also Morgan has chosen to conflate Jews (the people that I didn’t mention) with Israel the country (meaning it’s government that I did mention) By saying “Jews” he attempts to paint me both racist and antisemitic (a very special form of racism) and by adding “conspiracy theories” he attempts to smear my comments in order to dismiss them.
corrected
No it wasn’t clear. The correction at least makes it just a conspiratorial post, and not racist too. That’s good. I’m sorry for my mistake.
But we equipped the Iraqi army and not guerillas, so the correction makes him wrong as well. (Of course he may have been referring to a more general principle, such as don’t arm Afghan or Syrian rebels who could then attack America. On top of this, some of the local Anbar Awakening units were incorporated into the Iraqi army, so if you consider the Awakening as guerilla units, and those units were then armed during their time in the Iraqi army, he technically might be correct. But this was his post and he needs to be clear, and not expect me to translate his vague screed into more concrete ideas.)
Considering he was already complaining about Israel, and then said gorillas, and both are common complaints and key words in conspiracy theories, particularly anti Semitic ones, it actually made much more sense to me than magically divining that he was incorrectly referring to the hardware given to the Iraqi army by grossly misspelling a word that captured his false idea.
Okay Morgan, so the are some ways I might be right and one I might be wrong. Let’s move on now to your take on D&C 98 and how that might or might not modify your position.
Fair enough. Sorry again for misreading you.
I described my philosophy of war a little bit already in comment 5. It is basically repeated from this post on my blog: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2012/11/george-orwell-on-pacifism.html
Or you can see some here that quotes some passages from my chapter on preemptive war: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2014/04/more-than-second-look-rebuttal-to-rock.html
In comment 5 I also talked about how I’m familiar with the arguments of many peace proponents, as a result I know what scriptures they like to quote, and how they will try to bash me over the head with them. So, full disclosure, I don’t care that much to talk about it. You might say that’s because it obviously proves me wrong, but its really because in response I can cite a few I already did in the article above, such as not being murdered by the barbarous cruelty of their opponents, or resisting with swords whatever they can’t resist with their words, and more. I’ve been there and done that, and don’t feel it helps make anybody or anything more peaceful. There are a variety of ways to discuss matters of war and peace, and a variety of approaches.
At best there are scriptures that can support peace theories and those that support war. The Ammonites are a good example of this contradiction. They are amazing examples of non violence, but their sons are amazing example of righteous warriors. But they only fought because their parents wouldn’t. And the Ammonites only survived that long because they were protected by the military strength of the Nephites.
Moreover I actually tried to renounce war in the OP by pointing out how the Prince of Peace is the best way to obtain peace. As I also explained in comment 5, I operate on the assumption that the world is fallen and warfare is a part of it. While Latter Day Saints can make a difference by renouncing war and proclaiming peace, we won’t be able to eliminate war. So I focus on justifications for war and the moral and most effective ways to fight them. For example, on what the BoM has to say on how to best “hunt” Gadianton robbers or terrorists as seen in the OP. If you want a full discussion of every scripture regarding war, and how it applies to a country with secular leaders that don’t follow our faith, that is a broad subject for a another day. You might try “Even Unto Bloodshed” by Duane Boyce, who goes into much more detail than me. http://gregkofford.com/collections/forthcoming/products/even-unto-bloodshed
The section 98 header sums up verses 39–48 as “War is justified only when the Lord commands it.” Do you agree with this summery?
President David O. McKay taught: “There are two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter—mind you, I say enter, not begin—a war” Was President McKay wrong with respect to preemptive war?
No way you can compare what was going on with the Nephites, Lamanites and Gadianton robbers with the U.S. war machine and ISIS. The BOM is talking about people who live together and are in conflict NOT some huge empire seeking to control people all over the world. The U.S. is not a righteous country fighting for freedom from an attacker. It is the attacker seeking to force its designs on others and control them for its own agenda which is not Christian.
If you recall the Nephites lost when they stopped fighting defensively and went on the offense, while taking pleasure in doing so and bragging about their warfare skills. That is the lesson most people seem to miss.
Perhaps I should have said: context and familiarity with Howard’s comments then. Racist slurs: never. Idiosyncratic autocorrected spellings: not infrequent.
Personally I’ve never seen or heard the term gorilla applied to Iraqis or Jews, so I’m at a loss on that one, but can accept the US and Britain are likely to differ in the terms of abuse selected.
On the OP topic, my inclinations are with those of Craig Thomas #11, and stockoneder #23. The part about defense not offense has always resonated with me in the BoM.
Idiosyncratic autocorrected spellings: not infrequent. Indeed and while this can certainly cause some confusion it can also be used to fake confusion while simultaneously attempting to discredit the comment(or) in an implied ad hominem for spelling and thereby avoid (he hopes) having to actually address the content!
Similarly the silence regarding #2 , #22 and the loaded and unwarranted content of #14 “conspiracy theories”, “Jewish bankers”, “racist”, “vacuous rant” “Jews” and the condescending lesson on what constitutes a “substantive and serious response” are all gamy diversions to avoid answering the challenges to his position. When he does finally answer it isn’t at all clear or succinct requiring links to his philosophy (baffle ’em with bullshit? or I don’t want to actually have to admit I’m throwing out D&C 98 in order to promote war in it’s place?).
Very gamy tactics Morgan!
I thought it was super-obvious that Howard meant guerillas. Funny, but super-obvious.
Howard: I’ve already talked about cherry picking scriptures and prophet’s statements to support your political agenda. This is a good summary with an example: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-duplicitous-anti-war-critic.html
And the full version here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2011/12/duplicity-of-anti-war-critic.html
Here is a good case study using J. Reuben Clark, though you could do this with other leaders as well: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-butchers-apostle-context-for-anti.html
Your comments are good example of what I described in comment 21, and described in greater detail in the links above. I’ve been there and done that, with people I know and respect far more. So I called it ahead of time, based on your very first comment, and didn’t feel the need to do it again. Even though I thought it was an insincere gotcha question, I still explained, twice, how I incorporate those scriptures into my theory of just war. Meanwhile, you still haven’t engaged the actual topic, or engaged the scriptures I cited. You have offered some vaguely conspiratorial screeds. (And what turned out to be a horribly misspelled word I misconstrued. As Rick Perry might say, oops!) Needless to say I’m still disappointed on a number of levels.
Thanks for commenting Stockonder. I appreciate your actually commenting on the subject of the thread and not trying to derail the it by running the anti-war playbook. That being said, I find many of your statements vague and problematic. A “huge empire seeking to control all people” isn’t very specific. For example, what defines huge? The Nephites numberered as “the sands of the sea.” Their society grew very rich off of the people, so much so that I think many dissidents had legitimate complaints. See Helaman 4:12 and 10:18.
The U.S. actually spends small fortunes of money to try and liberate people. There are people literally in sexual slavery by ISIS, violent attackers blatantly obvious about their plans to establish a caliphate, so I can’t imagine a more clear case of fighting for freedom. Not to mention that the right to live is pretty important, we’ve already had alerts on the southern border to possible terrorist attacks. So you see it isn’t quite the simplistic dichotomy that you make it between small and righteous Nephites (they were at times huge and not very righteous) and the unrighteous and huge American empire (which many would argue isn’t unrighteous, an empire, nor huge.)
Nor is offensive warfare as simple. You can find some pertinent information here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2014/04/more-than-second-look-rebuttal-to-rock.html
And here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2010/04/book-of-mormon-is-not-relevant-for-our.html
My book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents has a chapter that defends offensive and preemptive war in the BoM, and my new book discusses offensive war in at least two chapters. In those chapters I show some of the consequences of it that I didn’t cover in my first work. So it’s a little more complicated than offensive wars are bad. Thanks for commenting.
I’ve been writing and thinking about this subject for years. (Mormon Heretic can testify to that since he was one of the first bloggers I met.) So I would rather link to a more substantive version of my words than provide what I think is an insufficient summary here. For those that wish to have sincere and substantive conversations with me about the topic, I don’t think I’m overburdening you.
I think this line sums things up pretty well Morgan I’ve been there and done that, with people I know and respect far more.
Its supremely ironic how you’re getting an attitude, calling me “gamy,” and crying bull shit because I haven’t sufficiently indulged your thread derailing nonsense. You’ve been obsessed with D&C 89, but haven’t said a word about the BoM or any scriptures I cited, and really haven’t engaged my long posts on this thread, and comments made elsewhere concerning my philosophy of war. I guess you might say those are nice gorilla tactics, but you still haven’t engaged the OP. 😉 At this point in the conversation I would usually say thanks for commenting and move on, but you haven’t added anything to the thread, so I’ll just move on.
Have a great life Morgan.
Israel is the chosen people, perhaps to establish the laws and begin a true relationship with God.
Jesus corrected when the law got hijacked. He also expanded God’s invitation to the gentiles and paid our ransom.
ISIS and Islamics who don’t stand vocally against it are God’s broom to clean up the Godless liberal messes of western civilization. Perhaps Allah is the same as HF. Their commitment to purity and modesty and a spiritual life is certainly familiar sounding. Either way, they ‘re offended by the same smut that conservative Christians are and they are seeking to do something about it. Gods broom perhaps…