Mormon Violence

[Robert F. Smith]

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF RELIGION ANNUAL MEETING IN SAN FRANCISCO

On November 19, 2011, the AAR and the Society for Mormon Theology and Philosophy, M19-110, sponsored a paper read by Patrick Mason, head of Mormon Studies at Claremont Graduate University (Howard W. Hunter Chair), “Religion, Violence, and the State: A Mormon Argument,” followed by a response by Robert Rees, head of Mormon Studies at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley.

Professor Mason’s paper might be seen as a reasonable corrective to the recent publication of D. Michael Quinn, “The Culture of Violence in Joseph Smith’s Mormonism,” Sunstone, #164 (Oct 2011).

Mason noted that the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia (at the close of the Thirty Years War) ended primarily religious violence and power and shifted it to the secular realm. The new “god” (ultimate concern) à la Paul Tillich, then became the state – “god” in the functional sense. The modern nation-state is now responsible for far more violence than religion.

Mormonism, with only minor concessions to “Caesar,” saw Zion as a refuge from violence, a community of peace, protected by the Lord. The shedding of blood was defined as Satan’s realm as early as 1831-1832. Saints were called upon to endure and reconcile, to depend on diligence and prayer, even in light of Zion’s Camp and the Nauvoo Legion – with practical acquiesence to the power of the state, which continued especially after 1890.

Mason called attention to the 1942 First Presidency Message, and on Pres. Hinckley’s April 2003 message leaving room for individuals to peacefully abstain from military service.

The overall Mormon transition in its first two centuries parallels that of early Christianity in its first four centuries.

In his reply, Bob Rees suggested that there was a more complex melding of sovereignties, conjoining democratic and theocratic polities in one – set over against the moral certitude of the state in the midst of war. Despite the fact that Jesus sought non-violent direct action (he occupies the radical fringe), American Christians generally seem to accept state sponsorship of violence, with redemption and forgiveness a foreign language to them.

Pure love cannot be accompanied by bullets and bombs. The LDS Church needs to take back the moral authority ceded to the state.

In his rejoinder, Mason argued that when the Church is prophetic, it can find itself at loggerheads with the state. Yet the state is unlikely to humble itself in the face of religious objections. Instead, the state only cloaks itself in religious covering when convenient.

Cf. Pres. Kimball’s “The False Gods We Worship,” for the U.S. bicentennial.

[kolipoki09]

I would have killed to be there.

Any chance a transcript will be available soon?

The notion that the modern nation-state causes far more violence than religion may very well be applicable to the Western World, but I have difficulty seeing that apply to the Middle East.

[selek1]

The notion that the modern nation-state causes far more violence than religion may very well be applicable to the Western World, but I have difficulty seeing that apply to the Middle East.

The notion applies far better to Eastern Europe and huge swaths of the Far East than to "the West". The horrific dictators of the 19th and 20th centuries were not products of Western liberal thought- though the democracies that opposed and deposed them definitely were.

By this I mean classical liberal thought- rather than the mantle co-opted and proclaimed by certain progressive ideologies.

More to the point, the notion most definitely applies to the Middle East, for the same reason it applies to the worst regimes of the 20th century.

As Orwell so brilliantly demonstrated (and history has repeatedly witnessed), totalitarian ideologies must inescapably wear masks until firmly cemented in power. No one wants to buy what they're selling, and so they must "sweeten the deal" by pretending to be something else.

Once in power, however, the mask either slips or is outright cast aside and the true agenda appears.

While the progroms, persecutions, and cleansings undertaken in the Middle East are often cloaked in religious rhetoric, they are almost always motivated more by internal politics than by true belief.

In France during the various revolutions, the mask was the "common brotherhood" of Fraternity, Equality, Liberty. The reality was terror, tyranny, and mass-murder as Robespierre and his cronies (and later Napoleon) set themselves up as the new aristocracy- and practiced the very excesses they decried in their predecessors.

In 1939 Germany, the mask was Aryan purity/destiny. The reality was fascism and genocide of everyone who disagreed with the State.

In Communist dominated Eastern Europe and the Far East, the mask was "the solidarity of the workers"- but the reality was socialist deprivation and misery for the masses and Czarist comforts for the "new" ruling class. Throughout the existence of the Soviet State, the leadership remained addicted to Western appliances, Western fashion, and comforts and luxuries on a par with the worst of the Romanovs.

In the Middle East proper, the mask preferred by authoritarians and the power-mad is religion, because it is an easy road into the mind of the "common man". They cloak their rhetoric in the "language of the people" in order to lull the gullible.

In the Middle East, that "language" happens to be dominated by religious overtones- and in many instances, is the only commonality to be found among the various tribes and factions.

But make no mistake- the agenda of the autocrats is their own power, and they'll drop the religious angle like a hot rock the moment it serves their purposes to do so (just as did Saddam Hussein).

In Palestine and Syria, the mask is "justice for the displaced and Palestinian statehood". The reality is crushing poverty, pandemic corruption, misery, and a never-ending cycle of violence for the common Palestinian/Syrian while their leadership vacations in New York and Paris, pile up billions in cash in Swiss banks, and cavort on the Riviera.

Arafat, Saddam, and Qaddafi played the resistance leader with great panache- but they loved their fine wines, fine cigars, and air-conditioning more than their people or their God. They made a great show of affected piety for the masses, but their private bacchanalias and sexual peccadilloes made the debauchery of pagan Rome look tame.

The rhetoric of the Assads, the PLO, Hamas, and Iran almost always contain religious overtones- but their underlying motives are invariably self-interest (ie, retaining their political power and personal wealth).

Scapegoating Israel for the self-inflicted misery of Arab/Muslim police states may sound religious - but it is invariably an attempt to distract from their own abuses and excess- tactics every would-be dictator has studied for the last two hundred years.

The "proof in the pudding" is Turkey. Until very recently, Turkey was an Islamic nation with a secular government and got along well with Israel, its neighbors, and the West. As such, Turkey was the only truly "functional" Islamic nation in the world. Turkey enjoyed unprecedented peace, prosperity, and liberty- even as the majority of their population practiced the same religion as hell-holes such as Iran and Libya.

As the authoritarian Left has sought inroads into Turkey's government, it has increasingly cloaked itself in religious rhetoric to sway the masses- but those religious trappings are invariably reserved for the commoner- while the would-be ruling class bask in licentious luxury and power.

Rather than Islamic religion being the source of violence in the Middle East, it is merely the fig leaf with which the unscrupulous and the power-mad cloak their own darker impulses.

Edited November 28, 2011 by selek1

[Calm]

"The rhetoric of the Assads, the PLO, Hamas, and Iran almost always contain religious overtones- but their underlying motives are invariably enlightened self-interest (ie, retaining their political power"

I'd say "unenlightened self interest" as enlightened self interest benefits others to benefit the self and I don't see much benefit for anyone BUT themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

[selek1]

I'd say "unenlightened self interest" as enlightened self interest benefits others to benefit the self and I don't see much benefit for anyone BUT themselves.

Point taken (and corrected in a subsequent edit, above).

Still and all- I'd very much like to see the transcripts- and see for myself whether some of the characterizations in the OP accurately reflect the words and positions of the speakers.

There are several comments I find troubling- particularly that "Jesus sought non-violent direct action" and "<Jesus> occupies the radical fringe" that "American Christians generally seem to accept state sponsorship of violence" and that "redemption and forgiveness" are "a foreign language to them".

These statements smack of historical revisionism and of political ideology trumping both reason and fact.

"Pure love cannot be accompanied by bullets and bombs" makes for a dandy bumper sticker, but comprises a shockingly shallow analysis of history and elevates peurile to an art form.

"The LDS Church needs to take back the moral authority ceded to the state" is likewise troublesome, and for the same reasons.

Those demanding that we "take back the authority ceded to the state" are almost invariably the first ones in line to accuse us of "trying to legislate morality" and/or "attempting to establish a theocracy".

[thesometimesaint]

The American Indians might take exception to that.

[LeSellers]

The American Indians might take exception to that.

Take exception to what?

Please, thesometimessaint, quote the message you're responding to. It is not hard to do, and it really makes following the conversation easier.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

The notion that the modern nation-state causes far more violence than religion may very well be applicable to the Western World, but I have difficulty seeing that apply to the Middle East.

What Selek1 said, plus:

If we take any so-called "religious war", the underlying component is universally political,not religious at all.

Take, for instance, the Northern Ireland "troubles". Typically portrayed as "Protestant" (Anglican) v. Catholic, it's really "English" v. Irish, pure and simple. Actually, it isn't even all Irish v. all English, even among those who live there. Many of the Irish in Northern Ireland are quite content to take the "benefits" of English rule (including the much-touted universal "health" care), and not all Englishmen want to pay the taxes to support the Irish. There is not even the least hint of converting one religionist to the other type.

In Africa, the world's newest nation, South Sudan, was, ostensibly, the northern, Arabic Muslim tyranny dominating the black Christian south. But it was, again, not religious war, it was not about conversion, it was about power. (BTW, with the exceptions of Sri Lanka and the Basque Country war in Spain, I cannot think of a war any place on earth that does not involve Muslims, can you?)

War is a political act, religion may provide "cover", but little more.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

SIGH. The topic is Mormon violence. I'm pretty sure that many US Mormons are related to Indian Fighters

[Nominee]

Lehi:

SIGH. The topic is Mormon violence. I'm pretty sure that many US Mormons are related to Indian Fighters

I think the topic is religion, violence and the state. The title is Mormon Violence.

War is a political act, religion may provide "cover", but little more.

Lehi

I agree completely.

[DarkScythe]

Evil people will use any method to gain power and secure it. Either thru Religion, political or other, Power they want and do anything to keep it even thru violence.

[thesometimesaint]

Violence is violence period. While there MAY be some rare circumstances where acting violently is permissable. War whether it is done in the name of religion, econmomics, or political posturing is mere rationalization of a great evil.

[DarkScythe]

Violence is either good or evil. it is completely Amoral but never Immoral.

[thesometimesaint]

DarkSythe:

At least when it comes to people violence is immoral. It is the exercise of suppossed power to do as you want to another individual.

[DarkScythe]

All actions within context makes moral or immoral. But Actions in and of themselves are Amoral. That is the difference.

Edited November 28, 2011 by DarkScythe

[Log]

DarkSythe:

At least when it comes to people violence is immoral. It is the exercise of suppossed power to do as you want to another individual.

Gee, that is the whole point of voting and passing laws.

Just sayin'.

[Mark Beesley]

Lehi:

SIGH. The topic is Mormon violence. I'm pretty sure that many US Mormons are related to Indian Fighters

The LDS attitude toward the native Americans was compassionate and generous. Brigham Young was well-known for his position advocating peacable co-exitence with native Americans. Jacob Hamblin was one of the better known LDS figures who worked with the native Americans of Southern Utah and Northern Arizona. If there were LDS who enaged native Americans with violence, they were doing so outside the dictates of their religion.

[thesometimesaint]

http://books.google.com/books?id=65YlAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA639&lpg=PA639&dq=Mormon+indian+fighters&source=bl&ots=OyqYnkrkhk&sig=nViVOLcPhryHhNAPYF7cIowqp8A&hl=en&ei=t8fTTqTDJoWPigLe2dzhCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Mark Beesley]

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

Was there something in particular from the book on Texas that you wanted us to see? The only thing I saw was that some Mormons settled there to help build a sawmill and left to settle somewhere else when the mill was completed. I didn't see where any of the Mormon settlers were noted as Indian fighters. But I could have missed it.

[LeSellers]

SIGH. The topic is Mormon violence.

You may sigh all you like. Following your posts is often tedious because there is little (or more often no) context.

Any good writer seeks to make his readers' job easier if for no other reason than the selfish one of not being misunderstood.

Hitting the "Quote" button is not a hard task. Even my three-year-old granddaughter can do it (when I explain what it's all about), and my 83-year-old mother-in-law is good at it, too.

Lehi

Edited November 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[selek1]

The topic is Mormon violence.

Actually, in reviewing the thread, we've yet to see a single example of "Mormon violence".

What we DO have is a second-hand report about statements regarding religion and state-sanctioned violence made by two scholars loosely associated with the Church.

That is not the same thing.

Given the actual statements made in the OP, I cannot help but wonder if the title wasn't selected for its provocative nature and "shock value" instead of its bearing on the subject matter...

Gee, that is the whole point of voting and passing laws.

Someone has apparently been watching Starship Troopers, lately.

Radjeck (or however it's spelled) made precisely that same point.

To vote was to exercise your will upon the body politic- it was inherently an act of force. That's the main reason why the ballot was reserved for those who actually troubled to serve and protect society, rather than merely enjoying the fruits of other's labor

Edited November 29, 2011 by selek1

[Robert F. Smith]

I would have killed to be there.

Any chance a transcript will be available soon?

I imagine that it will be published, but do not yet know of the venue.

The notion that the modern nation-state causes far more violence than religion may very well be applicable to the Western World, but I have difficulty seeing that apply to the Middle East.

Our Civil War and WW II were by far the most violent wars yet fought on earth, and, even though Bertrand Russell defined Communism as a "religion," the high death rates cynically visited upon the Soviet, Chinese, and Cambodian populations by their own leaders were largely designed to obtain obedience through terror.

The case of internecine warfare among various Muslim sects does not actually reflect Muslim religion (one of the high religions, with a merciful God), but is merely an opportunistic and ignorant application of Islam -- a version which a good Muslim should call "shirk" (association of Allah with some other "god" or ideology) -- and which applies as well to the targeting of a Jewish state. These are ethnicities and ideologies in conflict which use religion as an excuse to exercise and bring out the bestiality of the natural man -- the "religious" conflict and ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina being a recent example (in which Muslims were victims of genocide by nominally Eastern Orthodox Serbians and Roman Catholic Croatians).

What is irremediably sad is that these peoples had such friendly, tolerant, and productive relations in the past. There was a time, in the golden age of Islam, for example, when the Wazir (prime minister) of an Islamic state might be a Jew, and in which the Jews were respected as "the people of the Book."

[Robert F. Smith]

Point taken (and corrected in a subsequent edit, above).

Still and all- I'd very much like to see the transcripts- and see for myself whether some of the characterizations in the OP accurately reflect the words and positions of the speakers.

There are several comments I find troubling- particularly that "Jesus sought non-violent direct action" and "<Jesus> occupies the radical fringe" that "American Christians generally seem to accept state sponsorship of violence" and that "redemption and forgiveness" are "a foreign language to them".

These statements smack of historical revisionism and of political ideology trumping both reason and fact.

"Pure love cannot be accompanied by bullets and bombs" makes for a dandy bumper sticker, but comprises a shockingly shallow analysis of history and elevates peurile to an art form.

"The LDS Church needs to take back the moral authority ceded to the state" is likewise troublesome, and for the same reasons.

Those demanding that we "take back the authority ceded to the state" are almost invariably the first ones in line to accuse us of "trying to legislate morality" and/or "attempting to establish a theocracy".

The comments made by Mason and Rees were obviously meant to be taken in the context of state violence directed against the Mormons, forcing that ethnicity to accommodate itself to normative (non-polygynous, non-communal, etc.) "American" conduct. An atmosphere of lynchings and extermination curtailed some of the most radical Mormon activities, which have been redirected into other areas of religious endeavor (genealogy, temple building, missionary work, etc.).

To the degree that the state makes itself a "god," and the head of state the "high priest" of that "religion," moral authority can indeed be stripped from actual religious institutions. See Robert Bellah on American Civil Religion for an example of that argument.

Even though I served my country proudly as a U.S. Marine, I have a very hard time envisioning Jesus Christ with a rifle in his hand, and I often wonder why modern American "Christians" are so ready to give short-shrift to the Sermon on the Mount -- some observers have concluded that Jesus preached "an impossible love." Others of us, who marched with Martin Luther King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference in the early 1960s, thought that non-violent direct action might lead to civil rights and to an end to slavery one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation, and we were right.

[Avatar4321]

I've thought alot about violence/non-violence. Especially after I was reading Gandhi and non-violence.

The Book of Mormon says that there are times when the Lord commands us to fight. But at the same time, I think we are called to be non-violent otherwise. It takes a lot of faith to be non-violent. I'm not sure I've reconciled it all to myself yet.

But i think we are in a violent society and we are quite often engaged in it without realizing how much it affects us. Maybe we should seek to be more like the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi and give up our lives rather than hurting someone else. I think the Spirit would be with us much more.

[lachrymolotov]

The Mormons, as a group, I would venture to say have committed relatively little violence. But that may be only because of their precarious situation. Didn't Joseph Smith Jr. once claim he would make a swath of blood from the Atlantic to the Rockies?

In this day and age, our nation is committing violence against innocent people every single day. If you aren't against it, you are supporting it... and I think a lot of Mormons support it. A recent study suggested that people who attend church regularly are more likely to support torture even though it has been proven to be unreliable. Parents have even confessed to murdering their own children under torture, even though they were innocent. In general, violence seems to be unable to solve any of the important problems modern society faces.

Where do you stand?

Political - Mod