Joseph Smith As Author

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

How and when did he learn about the military strategy and tactics described in the Book of Mormon? Bernard

Playing war with his brothers.

[Cobalt-70]

Also, Smith's paternal grandfather Asael fought in the Revolutionary War. Smith's maternal grandfather Solomon Mack fought in both the French and Indian War and the Revolutionary War, and even wrote a self-published book about his military campaigns. Smith claimed to have inherited a "love of liberty" from his two grandfathers (J.S. Journal, July 9, 1843) I also believe Joseph had at least one uncle (Silas?) who served in the War of 1812.

[altersteve]

From what I have read, altersteve is talking about the difference between a casual interest and a devoted one, something similar to someone who likes to watch war movies and read war novels, even play video games about historical wars but is not interested enough to get into studying the technical aspect of the battles, who moved what where and when and why, it is not some kind of hobby of the young Joseph. Thus if the battles in the BoM reflect actual military tactics, that knowledge came from somewhere else in his view than JS's personal knowledge and experience. He likely sees what is going on in the BoM to be technical enough that such knowledge in a young man would be noticeable or at least the effort he put into studying such things. Since there is no evidence of such diligent study, he sees it as fair to assume a lack of intense and devoted interest.

That would be correct.

Of course, I could be wrong about all of this. But this is my view based on what I currently understand.

[Darth_Bill]

I never thought the strategy used in the BoM was that involved. Build fortifications, flank your enemy, get them drunk....unless I'm forgetting something...

[why me]

I never thought the strategy used in the BoM was that involved. Build fortifications, flank your enemy, get them drunk....unless I'm forgetting something...

Good outline. Now we need the details.

[cdowis]

I never thought the strategy used in the BoM was that involved. Build fortifications, flank your enemy, get them drunk....unless I'm forgetting something...

WWII was not very complicated -- run around and shoot/bomb the enemy, killing as many as possible. That description fits pretty much any modern war. I guess a silly person can simplify any military campaign to that e formula..

Now the details in the BOM --

• the use of wine was not a strategy but just one tactic to achieve a strategic goal.
  the type of trenches -- it was not a simple ditch, read the BOM for the details.
  the specific tactic of enticing the enemy out of their strongholds and surrounding them,

Now you did indeed "forgot" a few details such as describing the logistics of moving men and material in hostile territory while engaging the enemy. And what do you do with your captives? There was a sophisticated strategy of handling them, for example, by putting them to work on the fortifications. How do you recruit warriors where there is only a small standing army, while at the same time defending yourself from the enemies within (the kingsmen).

He "played" army with his brothers? That would have involved simple attacks and defense,

Dear fellow, you are trying to be cute and clever, but only showing that you are silly and shallow. You have indeed "forgot" a great deal.

Edited December 15, 2011 by cdowis

[why me]

Now you did indeed "forgot" a few details such as describing the logistics of moving men and material in hostile territory while engaging the enemy. And what do you do with your captives? There was a sophisticated strategy of handling them, for example, by putting them to work on the fortifications. How do you recruit warriors where there is only a small standing army, while at the same time defending yourself from the enemies within (the kingsmen).

If Joseph wrote the book of mormon he missed his true calling of serving in the army. He would have made a great general.

[Cobalt-70]

the type of trenches -- it was not a simple ditch, read the BOM for the details.

Smith would have certainly been aware of the Medieval moat, if not from general knowledge of the time then from the book by James Adair that claimed that Indians had built them around their fortified cities. Even if he for some reason wasn't aware of moats, the idea of building a moat around your city wall is not particularly ingenious. Nor is the idea of luring your enemy outside their city walls so that you can kill them. Book of Mormon military tactics are pretty obvious and straightforward. We are not talking tactics at the level of Sun Tsu or Clausewitz here.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Kevin Christensen]

Actually, Hugh Nibley did a close study comparing the Book of Mormon discussion of war with the theories of Clauswitz.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=727

For example, he starts like this:

Karl von Clausewitz's great work Vom Kriege, or On War, has been the Bible of the military for 150 years. The Book of Mormon reads as if it were written by a diligent student of this work. This is another case of Joseph Smith's timing to the split second, because the work wasn't published until 1833. Otherwise, you could accuse him of stealing the whole thing, because it's right out of Clausewitz, who was very active in the Napoleonic Wars. I'm going to read his principal maxims from his two-volume work—the great maxims of war; and you will think of some instances from the Book of Mormon just like those. I could mention a couple and draw out my speech. But one sentence would be enough to show modern applications, because if you've been reading the newspapers or the magazines, you'll know how relevant this all is.

The most famous saying of Clausewitz, the one that everybody knows by heart, is that "War is therefore a continuation of [state] policy by other means." As he puts it elsewhere, "[War] is ... a continuation of political intercourse ... by other means."¹ He is strictly a soldier, dealing only with the technical side, only with how war is conducted. He says he's not going to talk about the causes in the background. And there he spills the beans. This points directly to the causes — the continuation of politics. The Book of Mormon begins with the war in Jerusalem and ends with the war at Cumorah; and in between there are a lot of wars. They all deal with political ambition. We don't have to go into Egypt, Babylonia, and Jerusalem to illustrate this, because we see the territorial ambitions and the political ambitions of Zerahemnah, Amulon, Amalickiah, Ammoron, Laman, Nehor, Zeezrom, Korihor, etc. They were men of political ambitions who wanted to get ahead. They started out with political parties and ended up uniting bodies in war, such as the great coalitions of Amalickiah. Of course we don't need to comment as far as the present world is concerned — what is cold war but politics being carried on? It's a political movement on both sides; it's political systems in conflict.

He early compared the Book of Mormon against his own experience with Army intelligence and the 101st Airborn during WWII.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=74&chapid=919

War is anything but glamorous in the Book of Mormon; the campaigns and battles are described not as a writer of fiction would depict ancient warfare with all its excitement and color; all that a romantically inclined young American of the 1820s would imagine as the gaudy trappings of heroic derring-do is conspicuously missing. It is real war that we see here, a tedious, sordid, plodding, joyless routine of see-saw successes and losses—brutally expensive, destructive, exhausting, and boring, with constant marches and countermarches that end sometimes in fiasco and sometimes in intensely unpleasant engagements. The author writes as one would write—as only one could write—who had gone through a long war as a front-line observer with his eyes wide open. Everything is strictly authentic, with the proper emphasis in the proper place. Strategy and tactics are treated with the knowledge of an expert: logistics and supply; armaments and fortifications; recruiting and training; problems of morale and support from the home front; military intelligence from cloak and dagger to scouting and patrolling; interrogation, guarding, feeding, and exchange of war prisoners; propaganda and psychological warfare; rehabilitation and resettlement; feelers for peace and negotiations at various levels; treason; profiteering; and the exploitation of the war economy by individuals and groups—it is all there.

Daniel Peterson has compared parts of the Book of Mormon with the writings of Mao Tse Tung, Che, and Giap.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=66&chapid=728

For instance,

Certainly the recent interest in Sun-Tzu's Ping fa ("The Art of War"), written around 400 B.C. in China, and the continuing interest among military strategists in the early nineteenth-century Vom Kriege ("On War") of the Prussian theorist Karl von Clausewitz indicate widespread recognition that the fundamental rules of strategy do not change. "The reason for reading Clausewitz today," wrote Colonel Edward M. Collins in the "Introduction" to his 1962 anthology, "is quite simple: he has something to say which is important, timely, and relevant to our situation."⁹ As Che Guevara, one of the leading practitioners and theoreticians of guerrilla warfare in our century wrote, "It is obvious ... that war responds to a certain series of scientific laws; whoever ignores them will go down to defeat.... Though geographical and social conditions in each country determine the mode and particular forms that guerrilla warfare will take, there are general laws that hold for all fighting of this type."¹⁰ North Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, another authority on the subject, agrees. "Revolutionary armed struggle in any country," he writes, "has common fundamental laws."¹¹

This being the case, I think it not inappropriate to try to shed some light upon the behavior of the Gadianton robbers of the Book of Mormon by referring to some of the sad experience of our own dismal century. I do so by borrowing freely from the works of three men who are arguably the greatest authorities on guerrilla warfare of our time—Mao Tsetung,¹² Vo Nguyen Giap, and Ernesto "Che" Guevara. I do not mean to imply by my choice of three Marxist-Leninist strategists that the Gadianton robbers were somehow communist, or proto-Bolshevik. It is simply the fact that, in modern times and at least until the days of Jonas Savimbi in Angola, the most spectacularly successful practitioners of guerrilla warfare have been Marxists. (I would also like to have it clearly understood that, while I cite them on military theory, on which they are demonstrably expert, I do not endorse their political, economic, or moral positions. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.) Rather, I try primarily to apply their theories and experience to an analysis of the behavior of the Gadianton robbers during one period of their history, recorded in the book of Helaman and in the first portion of 3 Nephi.¹³

And more recently, we've had John Sorenson write about the Seasonality of the Book of Mormon, as well as, in Mapping the Book of Mormon, the geopolitcs and geography. Larry Poulson has more recently used Google earth to refine things further. (See his recent FAIR presentations, showing how the narrative only works in light of specific Mesoamerican settings.) Mark Wright has posted on various Mesoamerican issues, as has Brant Gardner. One of my favorate papers on the Book of Mormon is Thomasson and Hawkins, "Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon" comparing the personalities and themes of the main narrators with patterns that emerge from suvivors of Nazi and Soviet Death camps. That is not something that comes out watching Independence day parades.

All in all, this kind of reading (just for starters) does not leave me impressed with the sponge theory approach to Joseph Smith, which prefers a high level of abstraction and quick dismissal to close reading in the purported contexts.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Cobalt-70]

Actually, Hugh Nibley did a close study comparing the Book of Mormon discussion of war with the theories of Clauswitz.

...

Daniel Peterson has compared parts of the Book of Mormon with the writings of Mao Tse Tung, Che, and Giap.

I don't think anyone who has read Clausewitz and Sun Tsu, and is intellectually honest, would ever compare the level of sophistication of the strategy and tactics described in the Book of Mormon with those of these classic military strategy books. Does the Book of Mormon contain some high school-level observations about military strategy and tactics? Yes. Do Clausewitz and Sun Tsu agree on those points? Obviously, yes, as would any book on military strategy and tactics. But just because your 5th grade textbook mentions the laws of gravity, and so does a graduate level astrophysics textbook, you can't say that these two books are on a par with each other in level of sophistication.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't think anyone who has read Clausewitz and Sun Tsu, and is intellectually honest,

The rhetorical strategy here is rather obvious. Thus far it does not involve engaging the actual observations that Nibley, Peterson, Sorenson, and the others have made.

would ever compare the level of sophistication of the strategy and tactics described in the Book of Mormon with those of these classic military strategy books. Does the Book of Mormon contain some high school-level observations about military strategy and tactics? Yes. Do Clausewitz and Sun Tsu agree on those points? Obviously, yes, as would any book on military strategy and tactics. But just because your 5th grade textbook mentions the laws of gravity, and so does a graduate level astrophysics textbook, you can't say that these two books are on a par with each other in level of sophistication.

One effective strategy has always been to defeat the enemy without actually fighting. Propaganda, words, display. But that only works when the enemy admits defeat. In this case, the assertions fly by without any specific support, or any direct engagement with the Book of Mormon text, or the specific observations, comparisons and arguments made by the scholars I cited.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Darth_Bill]

First, don't appreciate the tone cdowis. I've been here for a good long time. I'm sorry if I haven't captured the nuances of all the militarywork that is in the BoM. I haven't reached that part in the commentary from Brant G. And can be forgiven of my gargantuan ignorance. I mentioned what I did because in my cursory readings, I haven't found anything approaching titanic marvels of military strategy. I admit that I might be jaded by all my other history reading. Logistics and movements are part of the deal of warfare so using prisoners or fortifications isn't giving me anything unique enough to say it is divine. There are other parts that I feel are more convincing. Do I have to stand amazed at every word in the BoM to feel it divine? I still think it is the best guide for life and the strongest testimony of Christ on the planet. So I'm not that impressed with the wars in it. Big deal.

[Bernard Gui]

Might be worth noting that BoM writers purposely did not write their secular history in great detail.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

No thoughts on why Joseph did not use the vocabulary employed by contemporary writers when describing Native American culture?

Bernard

Edited December 16, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Honorentheos]

So....are we talking mesoamerican military strategy here? Lest we focus too much on the trees and forget the forest.

[Cobalt-70]

No thoughts on why Joseph did not use the vocabulary employed by contemporary writers when describing Native American culture?

Who says he didn't? Some of his terminology is nearly identical to that of James Adair. But other than the King James version of the Bible, it is not likely that Smith actually had many, or any, books at his disposal for precise reference at Harmony and Fayette while translating. The influences from years past went into his mind, and then came out later as his own inspired words of scripture while he was looking at a stone in a hat.

[Nevo]

No thoughts on why Joseph did not use the vocabulary employed by contemporary writers when describing Native American culture?

Bernard

Hi Bernard,

I've seen you point this out before. It's an interesting observation, but exotic vocabulary aside, the Book of Mormon's descriptions of the Lamanites as a filthy, idle, wild, ferocious, bloodthirsty, and idolatrous people, adept with bows and arrows and axes, who paint their faces, shave their heads, wear loincloths, dwell in tents, and engage in murder and rapine against Nephite settlements (see, e.g., 1 Ne. 12:23; 2 Ne. 5:24; Enos 1:20; Alma 3:5-6; 17:14), matched the prejudices of Joseph Smith's time and place quite well. Indeed, as Richard Bushman notes, "these passages sound like the Jacksonian view of Indians common to most Americans in 1830" (RSR, 98). Contemporary readers of the Book of Mormon (including Joseph Smith) seem to have had no trouble at all identifying the Lamanites as Native Americans, in spite of the absence of words like "wampum" and "wigwam."

Edited December 16, 2011 by Nevo

[Cobalt-70]

The rhetorical strategy here is rather obvious. Thus far it does not involve engaging the actual observations that Nibley, Peterson, Sorenson, and the others have made.

...

One effective strategy has always been to defeat the enemy without actually fighting. Propaganda, words, display. But that only works when the enemy admits defeat. In this case, the assertions fly by without any specific support, or any direct engagement with the Book of Mormon text, or the specific observations, comparisons and arguments made by the scholars I cited.

It's pointless to criticize the Nibley and Peterson articles on a point-by-point basis, because they themselves speak in such general and intuitive terms. Neither article could be considered a serious attempt to raise the Book of Mormon to the level of Clausewitz and Sun Tsu. In fact, they don't even claim to do so. All they do is point out various "parallels" between the Book of Mormon and Clausewitz or Sun Tsu. But what is even the point of that exercise. A few parallels between the Book of Mormon and Clausewitz or Sun Tsu don't prove raise the former to the level of sophistication of the latter. If there methodology is flawed, there's no need to even go into the details of what they did with their flawed methodology.

For example, what's up with Nibley's observation that the Book of Mormon has "lots of wars" and that "they all deal with political ambition"? Okay, so does Nibley really think that nobody prior to Clausewitz realized that wars are related to political ambition? Does he think that Smith would never have heard of Napoleon? And what's up with Peterson implying that nobody could have known about the existence of guerilla warfare unless they had read Sun Tsu, Mao Tsetung, and Gue Guevara? Does Peterson know nothing about the Revolutionary War?

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[why me]

So....are we talking mesoamerican military strategy here? Lest we focus too much on the trees and forget the forest.

I think that we are talking about the military strategy in the book of mormon. Whomever wrote the book of mormon had some experience with war and military strategy. And of course, JS had no experience at all. He was just a money digger and a farmer at that time. But I would think that any young man with such an imagination (if he wrote the book) would be interested in military matters to such an extent that he would be joining the army as a vocation. Just my humble opinion. Or at least talk about it with his parents.

[why me]

Hi Bernard,

I've seen you point this out before. It's an interesting observation, but exotic vocabulary aside, the Book of Mormon's descriptions of the Lamanites as a filthy, idle, wild, ferocious, bloodthirsty, and idolatrous people, adept with bows and arrows and axes, who paint their faces, shave their heads, wear loincloths, dwell in tents, and engage in murder and rapine against Nephite settlements (see, e.g., 1 Ne. 12:23; 2 Ne. 5:24; Enos 1:20; Alma 3:5-6; 17:14), matched the prejudices of Joseph Smith's time and place quite well. Indeed, as Richard Bushman notes, "these passages sound like the Jacksonian view of Indians common to most Americans in 1830" (RSR, 98).

Or they match the barbarians of europe or even the vikings. It is my understanding that the 'civilized' roman armies met such people throughout their battles to expand their empire. Interestingly, Mel Gibson in his movie Apocalypse put the early book of mormon to the screen. When I saw that movie set in mesoamerica I had this opinion that mel used the book of mormon for his backdrop. Of course he didn't. But those people in that movie were certainly as decribed in the book of mormon.

[why me]

Contemporary readers of the Book of Mormon (including Joseph Smith) seem to have had no trouble at all identifying the Lamanites as Native Americans, in spite of the absence of words like "wampum" and "wigwam."

I think that the point Nevo is quite easy: the book of mormon is a complex piece of work. Something that would be difficult to write through an automatic writing process. The book is no 'see jane run' kinda book. The person who wrote it had to have some experience in military matters and have a good understanding of government. In other words, the book takes more than a vivid imagination to write. It would have taken some research and study before writing it. And then, the question remains: who wrote it?

Edited December 16, 2011 by why me

[why me]

Okay, so does Nibley really think that nobody prior to Clausewitz realized that wars are related to political ambition? Does he think that Smith would never have heard of Napoleon? And what's up with Peterson implying that nobody could have known about the existence of guerilla warfare unless they had read Sun Tsu, Mao Tsetung, and Gue Guevara? Does Peterson know nothing about the Revolutionary War?

Could JS have known is the question. The critics have JS as a harvard graduate in ancient history, extremely interested in military matters and in govenment. And a very gifted writer who can write books without a manucript. Lets face it, if all this is true, JS was one gifted human being. Sad that he took the road that he did. He would have been a great general in the US army, killed many indians, and became president of the united states. Maybe he would even had been a general in washington, being Lincoln's right hand man against the south.

[cdowis]

He would also be intimately familiar with middle-eastern culture, language, geography and names. Or he was just very lucky.

[cdowis]

I don't think anyone who has read Clausewitz and Sun Tsu, and is intellectually honest, would ever compare the level of sophistication of the strategy and tactics described in the Book of Mormon with those of these classic military strategy books. Does the Book of Mormon contain some high school-level observations about military strategy and tactics? Yes.

The point is that this knowledge of military tactics found in the BOM, supposed written by one of JS's education, did not come from "playing war with his brothers". By your own admission there is some sophistication of warfare beyond playing cowboy and indians in the backyard.

We then add the sophisticated knowledge of many other areas, the dozens of "coincidences" of history, geography and language, the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses to specific miraculous events of the plates, and shared visions of angels including Peter, James,. John and John the Baptist, the angel Moroni, the voice of deity, the vision of the Saviour.... all of this makes JS unique among those who are claimants to the prophetic calling.

This thread is evidence that these attempts to explain it away borders on the incredible and absurd. The chapters on religion such as mercy and justice, the fall of Adam, the atonement, the doctrine of Christ;;;; add the chapters on warfare, religion, history, etc go well beyond entertainment where we are still dicussin this book over 100 years after it was written.

Edited December 16, 2011 by cdowis

[why me]

The point is that this knowledge of military tactics found in the BOM, supposed written by one of JS's education, did not come from "playing war with his brothers". By your own admission there is some sophistication of warfare beyond playing cowboy and indians in the backyard.

We then add the sophisticated knowledge of many other areas, the dozens of "coincidences" of history, geography and language, the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses to specific miraculous events of the plates, and shared visions of angels including Peter, James,. John and John the Baptist, the angel Moroni, the voice of deity, the vision of the Saviour.... all of this makes JS unique among those who are claimants to the prophetic calling.

This thread is evidence that these attempts to explain it away borders on the incredible and absurd. The chapters on religion such as mercy and justice, the fall of Adam, the atonement, the doctrine of Christ;;;; add the chapters on warfare, religion, history, etc go well beyond entertainment where we are still dicussin this book over 100 years after it was written.

We also don't know what was written on the 116 pages that were lost. Too bad.