I posted this at my blog, but wanted to see reactions here at MM.  Over the past few weeks, I have driven by a billboard titled “Remember 9/11″ with an image of the collapsed World Trade Center.  In smaller print on the right, it said “Stand up and be heard.  No mosque at ground zero.”  You can see the sign on a video at this website.

A few weeks ago on KSL, Carole Mikita interviewed a Muslim leader here in Utah.  She asked him what he thought of this idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero.  He said he thought it was a terrible idea.  He said they can build a mosque in many places, and thought it was quite insensitive for these Muslims to incite a controversy there.

As a Mormon, we have had plenty of problems with protests about churches or temples being built.  The Boston Temple was prohibited from building a steeple for quite some time because the steeple was considered too tall.  (It was eventually constructed, but the church was forced to reduce the size of the steeple.)  Many groups have protested the buildings of new temples for a variety of reasons.  My sister lives in Colorado, and 2 Mormon churches sit side by side because the owner of a subdivision refused to allow any churches to be zoned in a particularly large subdivision.  (As I recall, the owner was either a tobacco or alcohol owner that wanted to make sure no Mormon churches were built in the subdivision–so he excluded all churches.  How is this legal?)

I appreciate this Muslim leader’s pragmatism.  I too wonder why Muslims in New York aren’t more sensitive to the issue.  On the other hand, I don’t understand how any Mormon can support a ban on religious construction, given that we have had so many problems with constructing churches or temples.  As a matter of principle, I can’t see how it is constitutional to support a ban on a Muslim mosque anywhere.  What are your thoughts?

“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)

Why does it seem that many Mormons don’t seem to believe this, despite the church’s oft-quoted emphasis that the church is politically neutral?

On May 13, 1969, Elder Hugh B Brown of the First Presidency quoted John Gardner, former secretary of health, education, and welfare under Lyndon B. Johnson.  Gardner gave a very interesting definition of political extremism:

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.[John Gardner, No Easy Victories (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 8, 9.]

The text of Brown’s speech can be found here.  Almost exactly one year prior to Brown’s speech referenced above, he delivered the Commencement Address at BYU in May 1968.  Most of you remember his now famous speech called “Profile of a Prophet.”  It’s a fantastic address as he outlines a legal argument to a Canadian judge on why Joseph Smith is a prophet.  I recently listened to the entire speech.

During the first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then he gave a few words about Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”  I’d like to quote his words of advice to the graduating students.  I’d like to highlight some things I find particularly interesting.

“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.

Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.

Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.

-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968

I posted a slightly different version of this post on my blog.  The first few people commented that the politicians of the 1960′s must have been “Men of Integrity”, but our current politicians are not.  Let’s look at the 60′s for a moment.  Lyndon B Johnson’s ratings were so low, that he chose not to run for re-election.   Robert F Kennedy was shot and killed just 1 week after Elder Brown’s address, joining his brother John who had been shot and killed just a few years prior.  Martin Luther King Jr had been killed just 7 weeks prior to this address (on April 4.)

John F Kennedy had a reputation as a bit of a womanizer.  In 1968, Americans were quite sour on the VietNam War.  The sexual revolution was in full swing, and the Women’s Liberation movement was well under way.  The Bay of Pigs was a disaster in Cuba, and we had just gone through the Cuban Missile Crisis.  People were building bomb shelters for fear of Nuclear War with the USSR.  The Cold War was as cold as it ever was.  Suffice it to say, this decade was a time of tumult.

In the 1968 election that Brown referred to, Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.

I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time.  I don’t understand why our country has become so partisan, and why we don’t try to work together more.  People are gravitating to the extremes of MoveOn.org, and the Tea Party.  Brown saw a similar time of rancorous partisanship in the 60′s, and quoted Gardner:

As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .

Politics can always bring out a lot of rants, and often both sides will have “grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others.”  I’m sure all of you have your pet political issues.  Can we avoid these antagonisms as we discuss the state of our country?

What say you?  Are you guilty of Elder Brown’s definition of political extremism?  Can you disagree with either President Bush or President Obama without questioning their integrity, just as Elder Brown did with Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon?  Do you demean the institutions of the Congress or the Supreme Court because you don’t agree with particular legislation or court rulings?

Trouble in Zion Poster

Kenny Ballantine is in the process of producing a documentary called Trouble in Zion.  The documentary discusses the events leading up to the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.  It highlights the Extermination Order and Haun’s Mill Massacre, as well as events leading up to these terrible events.  Kenny showed a pre-release version of the film at the Mormon History Association in Independence, Missouri in May, and he is also showing the film at Sunstone here in Salt Lake City in August.  I really enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.  I thought Kenny was pretty even-handed, and had experts discuss reactions by both Mormons and non-Mormons which escalated the violence.

Following the presentation at the MHA Conference, Ballentine explained that he didn’t want his documentary to look like a Ken Burns documentary.  A fan of comic books, Kenny found a comic book illustrator to show scenes depicting the conflict.  It took me a while to get used to the comic book art, but it is starting to grow on me.  Kenny was kind enough to give me an advanced copy, and I would like to offer some of my impressions about the film and the conflict.  I hope he stops by to answer questions too!

I was really impressed with the lineup of experts Kenny interviewed.  The most famous people include Richard Bushman, LDS assistant historian Richard Turley, CoC Apostle Andrew Bolton, Washington State University Religion and Sociology professor Armand Mauss, and BYU Church History professor Alex Baugh, among an impressive list of guests.  He outlined a series of events leading up to the Hauns Mill Massacre and the Extermination Order.  Here are some of the key events:

• July 20, 1833.  Bishop Partridge is told to leave Jackson County immediately.  He refuses and is tarred and feathered.  Three days later, he signs an agreement to leave the county.  Ballentine doesn’t really address the reasons why the Missourians were upset at the Mormons, though he does mention that the first Missourians wanted slavery to be legal, while the Mormons from the North were generally against slavery.  WW Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star that Mormons wanted to welcome people of all color.  This is the reason the Missourians were upset, which is why they attacked Bishop Partridge, and destroyed the Mormon printing press.  (Joseph was living in Kirtland at this time.)
• July 4, 1838.  Rigdon issued another fiery patriotic sermon (following his “Salt Sermon”) stating that the Mormons and Missourians would wage a “war of extermination…one party or the other”.  It seems the subsequent Extermination Order by Governor Boggs wasn’t quite what Rigdon had in mind.
• Aug 6, 1838 – Mormons in Daviess County were prevented from voting.  The Whig candidate said Mormons were only supposed to live in Caldwell County and should be ineligible to vote.  He was concerned that Mormons would vote for the Democratic Candidate, because Mormons were overwhelming Democrats back then.  A big brawl broke out that has often been called a “battle”.  There were exaggerated rumors that Mormons were killed.
• Aug 19, 1838 – Mormons were expelled from DeWitt, in Daviess County.  Following the election, Missourians decided to expel Mormons.
• Oct 18, 1838 – The Mormons decide to retaliate.  Known as the Daviess Expedition, a group of Danites (a secret Mormon militia group) led an effort to expel Missourians from Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork.   Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses to the ground.
• Oct 24, 1838 – The Battle of Crooked River.  Mormons attack and scatter the Missouri Militia.  Many of the Missouri Militia erroneously believe all others are killed.  Only 1 Missourian was killed, but LDS Apostle David Patten (known as “Captain FearNot”), Danite leader Gideon Carter were both killed; 9 other Mormons were wounded.
• Oct 27, 1838 – Governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order; “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”
• October 30, 1838 – The Hauns Mill Massacre; 18 Mormons are killed, ranging in age from 10-year old Sardius Smith, to 62 year old Thomas McBride.  I would like to quote directly from the film.

“On October 30, 1838, a large group of armed Missourians marched on the small and peaceful Mormon settlement known as Haun’s Mill, primarily in retribution for the Mormon gutting of Daviess County.

…

Amanda [Barnes Smith]’s two little boys, Sardius and Alma had followed their father into the blacksmith shop.  The men had hoped to use the shop like a fortress in the event of an attack.  Instead, it quickly proved to be a death trap.  Seeing no other alternative, the men made a desperate dash for the woods, nearly all of them being gunned down in the process.  Many of the attackers looted, humiliated, and brutalized the wounded and dying.  The oldest victim was 62 year old Thomas McBride who after surrendering his weapon was hacked to death with a corn knife.  And the youngest was 10 year old Sardius Smith.  An enraged Missourian leveled his gun against the small boy’s head, and after proclaiming that ‘nits become lice” pulled the trigger.

Amanda found her husband and 10 year old son Sardius dead, and her 6 year old son’s hip was “all shot to pieces.”Apostle Andrew Bolton of the Community of Christ said,

“Hauns Mill was a tragedy:  17 boys and men are killed and another one dies later from his wounds.  Hauns Mill was a peaceful settlement of Mormons: 15 miles from the main group in Far West, but therefore isolated and vulnerable in the sectarian war that was erupting around them.  Two days before the massacre they reiterated their commitment to live in peace with their neighbors.  This was a genuine, authentic group that didn’t want any part of the violence and suffered horrible tragedy.  The lesson from Haun’s Mill is the innocent get hurt whenever there is human violence.  It spills over, and there is tragedy.

So how does such a tragedy happen?  Why do neighbors turn so quickly on each other?  In my previous post, I discussed the Rwandan Genocide.  Armand Mauss describes the “Moral Panic” in Ballentine’s film.  He is professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University.  He retired in 1999, but continues to be active on Mormon studies.  He is probably most famous for his book The Angel and the Beehive.  The Moral Panic explains how groups turn so quickly violent.

When a society is gripped by a moral panic, that society is apt to respond as though their facing matters of life and death.  That leads to violence that is considered justifiable in almost any extreme, because of what we see is at stake.  It makes it possible for people who yesterday felt very friendly toward another people, suddenly see those people not only as enemies, but as less than human.”

…

All of the restraints that people normally feel about the way human beings should treat human beings, those restraints gradually melt away, and people who are perfectly nice, decent people, find themselves doing things that they would have never thought that they could do….Under other circumstances a group of Mormons and a group of Missourians might have gone to dinner together and had a good time, but under these circumstances, they faced the Moral Panic.”

It is truly astonishing how quickly neighbor can turn against neighbor.  It is truly a tragedy when cooler heads do not prevail.

As I said before, I really enjoyed Ballentine’s film.  There is much more to the film than I have presented here.  If you get a chance to see this film at Sunstone, I encourage you to see it.  I know Ballentine is still trying to obtain financing to finish the film.  While it is not yet complete, I think it is an excellent film at this point.  If you would like a preview, click here to watch some clips from the official website.  I’ve invited Kenny to stop by, and I am sure he would welcome questions and comments.

Memorial Day is a United States federal holiday which “commemorates U.S. men and women who have died in military service to their country.”   At the risk of coming under the condemnation of Mormon bloggers everywhere, I wish to register my objection to the deplorable sentiments underlying this holiday.

We can all agree on the magnitude of the sacrifice offered by American soldiers. They answered the call of the leaders of their country to go to war. They did this with the knowledge that their own lives might be taken. I am not one who looks upon military volunteers as being either bloodthirsty warmongers or poverty-stricken and brainwashed victims. Their brand of courage is not ordinary, and will never be ordinary.

I must, however, denounce the commemoration of lives destroyed by militarism. Instead of celebrating lives given up for war, I would mourn the lives snuffed out and stolen by our country’s participation in martial combat. It seems to me that Memorial Day might more aptly commemorate the lives of America’s great Peacemakers — people such as Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Peace Pilgrim, Jeannette Rankin, A.J. Muste, Jane Addams, and a myriad of others.

“The job of the peacemaker is to stop war, to purify the world, to get it saved from poverty and riches, to heal the sick, to comfort the sad, to wake up those who have not yet found God.” (Muriel Lester, Social Activist, Gandhian Pacifist, 1883-1968)

Throughout history, nations have consigned their young men (and now women) to kill one another for reasons honorable or absurd. Often war was declared as a response to evil or oppression; other times violence came as political or economic conflicts that should have been resolved without violence. When the causes are just and when they are not, lives lost to war are sacred and full of promise and potential. Those who ponder these things can only regret that wars are still waged and lives are still lost. I wish that on the day which has been set apart as a “Memorial”, we would not only remember the courageous souls who were sent by their governments to die on battlefields, but rather we would regret and repudiate the conditions that lead some people to believe that offering their lives in military service is the best or only hope for peace, protection or patriotism.

“Indeed, conceit, arrogance, and egotism are the essentials of patriotism. Let me illustrate. Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with blood-curdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend HIS country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner. It is for that purpose that we are clamoring for a greater army and navy, more battleships and ammunition.” (Emma Goldman: Patriotism: A Menace to Liberty From the 1917 edition of Emma Goldman’s Anarchism and Other Essays)

Military indoctrination, by its nature, teaches the young that the enemy is unworthy of life.

Christian pacifists are often asked about Romans 13. ["Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience."] The Mormon counterpart seems to be our Article of Faith #12: ["We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."] But I find my answer in Romans 12, which says to do good to your enemy and to overcome evil with good. In World War II, after all, there were many Catholics and Lutherans in Germany who used Romans 13 to justify fighting for the Nazis.

“Many people know the simple spiritual law that evil can only be overcome by good. Pacifists not only know it, they also attempt to live it.” (Peace Pilgrim, Philosopher, Activist, Ethical Vegetarian, Vegan 1908-1981)

A Memorial Day song in a new tradition, Hymn for Anzac Day, was sung for the first time at Mornington Methodist Church in New Zealand on April 29, 2007. Anzac Day is New Zealand and Australia’s version of Memorial Day. Notice the third stanza, where the brave who do not answer the call of war are also honored:

Honour the dead, our country’s fighting brave,
honour our children left in foreign grave,
where poppies blow and sorrow seeds her flowers,
honour the crosses marked forever ours .

Weep for the places ravaged by our blood,
weep for the young bones buried in the mud,
weep for the powers of violence and greed,
weep for the deals done in the name of need.

Honour the brave whose conscience was their call,
answered no bugle, went against the wall,
suffered in prisons of contempt and shame,
branded as cowards in our country’s name.

Weep for the waste of all that might have been,
Weep for the cost that war has made obscene,
Weep for the homes that ache with human pain,
Weep that we ever sanction war again.

Honour the dream for which our nation bled,
Held now in trust to justify the dead,
Honour their vision on this solemn day,
Peace known in freedom, peace the only way.

(words by Shirley Murray, music by Colin Gibson)

I challenge supporters of the American military machine to demonstrate how war brings about peace. How does more killing honor the lives of those who have died? The world has been at war throughout recorded history, and never has war brought definitive peace to any generation. Violent resistance to violence always fails to bring about peace. Rather, it establishes a realignment of forces under principles of violence. War is rarely motivated by the high ideals that its supporters use to justify it.

“Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…. The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.” (Martin Luther King Jr.)

In this day and age, with our weapons of mass destruction and our new and improved ways of torturing each other, war is insanity. It is destructiveness; it is immorality; it is total waste. Our goal today must be the end of war. Negotiation should be our commitment. Perhaps the best way to memorialize the sacrifice of those who have lost their lives in war is to strive for a mastery of peace — a better way of resolving conflict — a commitment to the transformational power of love.

Sod, seed, and salvation — it’s how I like to describe the Abrahamic Covenant. There were three promises in the covenant. The first was a land promise, where the Lord gave Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. The second was the promise of a great and numerous posterity. And the third was the blessing of the everlasting Gospel: the priesthood and the promise of exaltation, to come to the world through Abraham’s lineage. (see Genesis 17)  But just look at how often the covenant was renewed!

• Several times with Abraham in Genesis 12, Genesis 15, Genesis 17
• With Isaac in Genesis 26
• With Jacob in Genesis 28
• With Joseph in Genesis 49

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that this covenant consisting of a land promise, a posterity promise, and a gospel of salvation promise was also given to

• Moses and the children of Israel in Exodus 6
• David in 2 Samuel 7

and, though we call it the Abrahamic Covenant, the same covenant was made even earlier, with

• Adam in Genesis 3
• Enoch and Noah in Genesis 9, Gen 9:21-25 JST

Finally, if you’ve read this week’s Sunday School lesson, you’ll know that the Abrahamic Covenant is made with faithful members of the Church today, as promised in D&C 132.

But when speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant, we might well consider the claim of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, his alleged descendants, and the ongoing conflict over the land of Canaan. I think it is interesting that the claims of both Palestinians and Israelis can be distilled into sod, seed, and salvation claims. Before you jump to a conclusion about how the argument over Palestine/Israel should be solved, let’s look at these with an open mind.

Sod: The Land Claim

Jewish claims to the land of Israel are based on the fact that this was the historical site and native site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel. There were always large communities of Jews in Israel, and the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. Palestinian Arabs’ claims to the land are also based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years. The land was originally “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews, they say.  Who’s right?  Let’s see: 

§ It was the British who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

§ But the territory was Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917.

§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. In 1250 they took Palestine over from:

§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:

§ The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:

§ The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:

§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:

§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from

§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:

§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:

§ The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:

§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:

§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:

§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:

§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites. (from Lawrence Auster)

This brings us to our second point. The Hebrew Torah clearly shows that the Jews seized the land from the Canaanites. Can we go back into history and discover who the descendants of these ancient native peoples are?

Seed: The Descent Claim

Ibrahim Alloush describes the descent claim of the Palestinians as follows:

“The Arab identity of Palestine emanates not from the Islamic conquest, but with the Canaanites who came into Palestine from the shores of the Arabian Peninsula around 2500 BC, and who had sovereignty over the land until about 1000 BC. Hence Palestine was called the Land of Canaanites, until the Philistines came from the island of Crete and intermarried with the Canaanites to melt peacefully into them leaving only the name behind: Palestine. The ancient Hebrews were indeed part of the peoples of the region but they came into Palestine (the Land of the Canaanites) as invaders.”

Those making this claim point out that descendants of the Canaanites/Philistines (ancient Arabs) have maintained a continuous presence in the land throughout history. Others say that the archaeological evidence disproves this. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the Jews have their own problems proving literal descent. For example, Shlomo Sand insists that Diaspora Jews descend from converts and have no ethnic link to ancient Israel. In addition, human rights groups make the point that no other indigenous or aboriginal peoples on the planet are granted the same consideration as the Jews. But there is one other consideration being used to make a claim for the land.

Salvation: The Religious Claim

According to the Torah, Eretz Yisrael was promised to the Abraham and his descendants. Muslims believe that since Abraham’s son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God’s promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. The prophet Muhammed passed through Jerusalem on his first journey to heaven, and all of the land of Israel is designated as Islamic “Waqf” which implies it must be governed by Muslims.

Israelis insist that the covenant was renewed with Abraham’s son Isaac and the inheritance was passed through his line to the Jews. They made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago have remained steadfast to it. They pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement “Next year in Jerusalem,” and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple is still an event commemorated by a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman’s makeup or jewelry left incomplete, a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. Christians identify with the Jews’ love of Israel in many ways. The plaintive sound of Psalm 137 is reinforced in many of our hymns: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” This sympathy has been apparent in modern reactions to the conflict over Israel.

In attempting to keep this post from being unwieldy, I am afraid that I have greatly simplified the issues. Please feel free to make additional points about these claims in the comments. However, what I am most interested in discussing is the great support the Christian world has given to the Jews’ political return to Israel in modern times. (Zionism was actually opposed by Orthodox Jews at first — they regarded Zionism as a violation of God’s will.) But the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people in 1947. Do you think there is a solution to this conflict? Who has the better claim? Should a world-wide coalition define boundaries, or should we let the two nations duke it out on their own?

Does your religious worldview and your Christian understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant affect your position on the issue?

A child is born in Bukavu

A child is born in Bukavu, and sadness fills his mother’s heart… Bukavu is not the city of David. It is a town in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. War has been ravaging the country for years. Ever since Kabila invaded the former Zaire with military support from the US. It is a war that no one speaks of – but it has cost the lives of millions of people and caused unimaginable suffering.

The child’s mother is a young girl, a daughter of the area. This young girl is named Maria.  Maria was a girl like most any other girl in her town. She walked miles for water, she helped her mother with the cooking and she also tilled the land. She learnt how to read in primary school, but ever since the war her parents no longer could afford to pay her school fees. Maria was a believer in the Christian gospel – and went like all other young girls her age to church on Sunday.

Church was a mud hut with a roof made out of straw. There on Sundays, the kids would gather to learn about God. The preacher, an older man with glasses and graying hair, would always talk about God’s love for humanity – and that God once, long time ago, had come to the world as a male child to save humanity. In church, she had also learned some words of English. She knew that when you greeted someone, you had to say: “Good morning, class”. 

The morning breaks

That was then. Prior to the attacks… One day, as the morning broke and shadows gathered, foreign soldiers drove into town. The houses were set on fire. The adults were gathered on the square and the older men were executed one by one. This is how Maria lost her father – and she and her mother witnessed it. The soldiers held their heads for them to watch. Maria was afraid. After having seen the murder of her father, they also separated her from her mother. She was chosen from among the young girls to follow a group of soldiers. One of them stripped her of her clothes and forced himself on her – he, subject to the commanders’ orders.

Now she held this young child in her arms. Her heart was filled with sadness, and she knew that her firstborn child would have given her joy under other circumstances. Some months after the soldiers left, Maria was chased away. The villagers who were left behind were ashamed of her and of the other girls who had become pregnant. These girls were a constant reminder of the day when the men in the village had been powerless – confronted with the threat and the fear of a gun. “Do not ever come back”, were the last words she heard as she was running for her life into the deep woods. 

Maria sings to her little child a song she learned many years ago: “Lullaby, lullaby, my little one. Lullaby, my child so dear. Thy precious life has just begun. Thy mother holds thee near”. And yet, she knows the words do not ring true. True, all life is precious. But not one soul will ever value the life of this child. Born of a violent union, unwanted by his mother, into a world where people willingly march to the sound of guns. What future can she promise him? What life can this child possibly hope to have? Even though she loves him, he is a constant reminder of what happened to her, and like the villagers who once chased her away she cannot find peace when she looks into his eyes. 

Its ranks are filled with soldiers, united, bold and strong…

Victory, victory… The guys were singing and shouting, drunken by their thirst for blood and proud of their conquest. Bukavu had been encircled, trapped, taken, raped and ravaged. The soldiers executed the orders of their commander and had in turn executed the elders of Bukavu – one by one. Herodes was the commander’s name. His boys feared him.

They were now men. They had proven it – to themselves and to him who had led them into victory. Joseph, one of the soldiers, the one who raped Maria, was nonetheless feeling some unease. In following orders, Joseph had forced himself upon this young girl. The others had told him that having sex with a virgin was going to save him from the disease that was making him weak, this pandemic they called AIDS. But more importantly, the others respected him now. He had become one of them: their partner in crime.

You are the man! We saw you, Joseph. You did it. You made her cry – you and your gun. You made her scream. The words were both making him feel proud and good about himself, but for one reason, unknown to him, they were also haunting him. Could he look at a woman again without thinking of the pain he had caused to this young girl – whose name he would never know? In order to survive – either you dominate or you are dominated, Herodes used to say. To rule, you have to systematically brake down the bonds that bind communities together. They need to fear you or fear will overtake you…

I am trying to be like Jesus

War does not bring out the best in us – it brings out the worst in us. True, some acts are acts of courage – but aren’t those heroic acts always associated with saving lives, and not with taking them? Fear begets fear. It is the opposite of love. Misery begets misery. It is the opposite of joy. Violence begets violence. It is the opposite of peace.

The nativity story told the world of a little baby boy, born to Mary, a girl chosen among other girls to be the mother of a Savior, rejected by men and yet, many are they who believe he is their safe ticket to heaven. The story from Bukavu is the story of a little baby boy, born to Maria, a girl chosen among other girls to be the victim of a soldier, so he could gain accept in the eyes of his comrades, so he could become a man, taking by force what he believed was a safe ticket to health.

Jesus taught us that he was not Herodes. “My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”  Jesus was nonviolent. Not exactly what you would associate with being a King. He was God. He was love, both long-suffering and kind. That is why he came to earth as a man and not as a woman: not because God favors men, but because the concept of what it means to be a Man on earth is so contrary to what it means to being God in heaven – who Mormons believe is male. Be kind, as a child, he said to them, and loving as a hen gathers her chickens:

“O ye people of these great cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have nourished you. Yea, how oft would I have gathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens, and ye would not. O ye house of Israel, whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart”. 

Love one another

It was necessary for Jesus to come to earth in the form and shape of a male – to represent God as his firstborn son, the first among all great men, a king of kings. “Little children, a new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another”.

The divine irony is the fact that Jesus exhibits throughout his life traits that we call feminine: peaceful, loving, kind, sharing, meek, forgiving, gentle, and caring. He helped the poor and he healed the sick. We crucified him, because he was a threat to men everywhere. He challenged the very idea of what it means to be a man: strong, violent, forceful, greedy, noisy, arrogant and proud. He challenged the way we think about achieving peace, not by dominating others before they dominate us, but by showing us a better way to freedom – paved with love and with sacrifice.

In short, this was the message Jesus gave to the modern House of Israel, to the modern sons of Jacob: “What manner of men ought ye to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am.”  He showed all men an alternative masculinity – that of the nonviolent male who sides with the poor and the downtrodden. Come, follow me, the Savior said. 

For an alternative and nonviolent study of the Book of Mormon, mormongandhi is regularly publishing a study chapter on mormon nonviolence (latter day satyagraha) at http://mormongandhi.com. Each chapter follows the set-up of the Institute Study Manual of the LDS Church. In addition, you can share your thoughts and insights on the nonviolent readings of the Book of Mormon with other “peaceable followers of Christ” (Moroni 7:3) at the discussion forum (http://peaceablefollowers.wordpress.com) created in parallel to the “latter day satyagraha” site.

mormongandhi currently lives in Oslo, Norway. He has a BA in peace and development studies from Bradford University in the UK, where he studied religious peacebuilding, as well as a master’s in peace operations from GMU in Washington D.C.

mormongandhi is looking for alternative and more peaceful ways of thinking and living. He calls himself an advocate for nonviolence in the Restoration movement.

Shortly before the Second World War, the United States instituted the draft system. With the deemphasis on the doctrine of gathering to Utah, and the advent of World War II, the Church had to face some tough issues. For the first time we were confronted with the problem of having significant numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints on both sides of a military conflict. In the April Conference of 1942, an official statement was made by the First Presidency that although the gospel of Christ is a gospel of love, every citizen has an obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms is made.

“The state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.” (First Presidency Message, Conference Report, April 1942, pp. 88-97)

This statement is included in full on the Church’s website as representative of our public policy. Perhaps the preeminence in the Book of Mormon on war in the defense of one’s freedom influenced the decision to support government in waging war.  Other Christian religions, notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, encountered the same quandary and formulated quite different policies. At the time of World War I, it was recommended that Witnesses serve in the army only if compelled, and then to request positions in a non-combative role such as medical service.  However, by the time of the Second World War, they refused to assist the war effort in any way, to salute the flag, and even to vote.

Since the 1942 CR statement was made, there has been a general reluctance to speak against any military action taken by countries wherein dwell large numbers of Latter-day Saints, especially the United States.  During the Vietnam War, Mormons were urged not to be conscientious objectors, but to enter the military and serve their country.  Church statements at the time emphasized the propriety of war in defense of our families, religion and country.  In the several wars which have ensued, LDS members in the military are urged to see themselves as defending not just their own nation but also the freedom of religion that it ensures for the Church.  I don’t know if it is just my personal experience, but I rarely hear talks or prayers in the Church urging peaceful solutions to national conflict.  Instead I hear prayers from the ward level to temple prayer circles where the Lord is asked to bless our members who are serving in the military.  There is a subtle acceptance of military action inherent in these types of prayers which grates on me.

I think it will be very interesting if Mormon rhetoric concerning participation in military efforts will begin to soften now that the President of the United States is more committed to exploring greater options toward pacifism than past administrations have done.  Lately President Obama has been involved in a global nonproliferation regime concerning nuclear weaponry.  As part of his vision for a world without nuclear weapons, he drafted a proposal which was unanimously accepted at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 24.

This is a complicated issue, which may involve even more conflict, given that Iran may resist the resolution.  However, I have great hopes for the way this is heading.  I also see many younger Latter-day Saints who are committed to the issue of pacifism.  Since military service is currently voluntary, young men and women do not feel undue pressure from the Church to serve their country in this manner, as they have in the past.  Thus, an LDS generation is growing up with more of an opportunity to formulate their own responses to a call to military service amid a political climate which is more conducive to pacifism than ever before.

Will we soon see the cessation of hawkish patriotism in Sunday School lessons and Church talks and prayers?  Will more LDS leaders arise in the traditon of J. Reuben Clark, who affirmed: “Moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations. I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of peaceful adjustment of international disputes?”  Or will civil and religious duties continue to be cited as justification for participation in military conflict?

Bercot was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but left over differences about Biblical interpretation, and subsequently became an Evangelical Christian. However, he had doubts about some Evangelical doctrines as well, such as the idea of eternal security (once saved, always saved), and remained convinced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief in pacifism was correct.

Based on the fact that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the closest in time and place to the Apostles, Bercot reasoned that present-day disputes over scriptural interpretation could similarly be resolved by examining the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers to determine how they interpreted and applied scripture. (These pre-Nicene Church fathers lived anywhere between 50 and 325 A.D.) Bercot’s legal training taught him to seek out the primary sources containing the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, rather than relying on modern treatises that often present sixth or seventh-hand accounts of what the Early Christians supposedly believed and practiced.

At the conclusion of his research, Bercot published a ten-volume collection of the Ante-Nicene Fathers‘ writings, the most comprehensive collection of primary sources available in English. Bercot then compared what he learned about pre-Nicene Christianity to mainstream Evangelical Christianity, formed his own publishing company, and published his summarized findings and analysis in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up.

Mormons might be interested to know that Bercot’s research into the Early Christian Church demonstrates that the LDS Church today shares many of the doctrines of the Early Church, including:

• A concept of salvation that stresses the importance of both faith and obedience. As Bercot puts it: “The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever he chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (Emphasis in original.) According to Bercot, the mainstream Evangelical interpretation of “saved by grace” actually originated with St. Augustine after the Nicene Creed.
• That a person, once saved, could fall from grace and lose his salvation through disobedience.
• That salvation depends on a person’s correct exercise of his free will, rather than being predestined arbitrarily and irrevocably by God.
• That baptism actually effectuates a remission of sins, rather than simply being a sign of outward commitment.
• That unbaptized infants who died before baptism could still be saved, as well as other good and noble people who died without baptism.
• That Christians should observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper weekly.

However, Mormons might also be interested to know that, according to Bercot, the Early Christians held additional beliefs and practices that may be waning or absent from Mormonism:

• Early Christians had no belief resembling the modern “health and wealth” gospel that physical health and safety, or material prosperity, are blessings for righteous living. Rather, the Early Christians lived in material simplicity, striving to have all things in common and giving to the poor to the point of joining others in their poverty.
• Early Christians believed in separating themselves from the world as much as possible, going so far as to abstain from politics and the legal system, refusing to take oaths, and abstaining from the popular amusements of the day.
• Early Christians rejected capital punishment and even refused to assist in prosecuting someone for a capital offense. Similarly, Early Christians rejected war and refused to serve in the military. According to Bercot, the concept of the “just war” did not exist amongst Christians until St. Augustine.
• Many Early Church Fathers taught there was no special doctrinal revelation after the apostles and that everything we need to know about God had been revealed to the apostles by Jesus.

As Real Heretics crept into Christian bookstores, Bercot was surprised to learn that the book was making a huge splash in Anabaptist (Amish/Mennonite) circles. Bercot’s historical validation of several Anabaptist doctrines like pacifism, baptismal regeneration, separation from the world, and a rejection of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide (faith only) and predestination backed up several of their most cherished views. While Bercot was intrigued to learn that his findings greatly overlapped with Anabaptist beliefs, he found no legitimate basis for some Anabaptist beliefs, such as their lack of evangelism and avoidance of modern technology.

Over the next several years, Bercot struggled to find a religious community that embraced all Early Christian beliefs and practices as he understood them. He formed his own short-lived Early Christian Fellowship, but later affiliated with the Anglican Church because it allowed him freedom to form his own society to promote Early Christian beliefs, and because it is one of the older Christian churches that avoids the veneration of icons. However, Bercot eventually left the Anglicans due to their Catholic practice of venerating the Virgin Mary and espousing the “Just War” theory.

Bercot ultimately relocated to Pennsylvania, where he currently resides, and now affiliates with the Mennonites, who have many, but not all, of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that his research discovered.

The Campbellite-Mormon Connection

As I read Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, I was intrigued to find a non-LDS scholar giving historical support for so many LDS doctrines. Page after page, I kept wondering to myself: When Joseph Smith set out to restore the Early Christian Church, how did this largely uneducated 25-year old get so many things right? As far as I know, Joseph was ignorant of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I couldn’t see how Joseph could have had the time or means to pour over old texts written by Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or any of the other Early Church Fathers. Nor am I aware of Joseph ever having quoted the Early Church Fathers in his sermons or writings.

Moreover, I was struck by the fact that some of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that seem to be waning or absent in Mormonism today, such as the strong emphasis on creating a separate society and having all things in common, were found in Mormonism as originally established by Joseph Smith. The differences between Mormons today and the Early Christians (e.g., Mormons’ abandonment of communal living, strong involvement in political and legal affairs, common approval of capital punishment, military service, and strong allegiance to country) all seem to have resulted from Mormon “mainstreaming” over the past century .

In response to the question of how Joseph Smith got so many things right when he undertook to restore the Early Church, faithful Mormons will likely respond that Smith’s success owes to the fact that he was a true prophet of God who was called to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ. However, Real Heretics presents information that many others have cited to provide another possible explanation. After discussing the Early Church, Bercot discusses the eventual corruption and apostasy of the Church, and the valiant efforts of the Reformers to root out that corruption. Bercot then traces the development of several Restorationist branches of Christianity using language that will ring familiar to Mormons:

Whereas Luther had sought to reform the existing church-state establishment, others concluded that such an establishment was beyond reforming. So they worked to restore primitive Christianity apart from the church-state institution. Since the days of Luther, there have been numerous such movements to restore early Christianity. Real Heretics, p. 149.

Although Bercot does not identify Mormonism as one of those Restorationist movements, he does identify one of Mormonism’s cousins, the Stone-Campbellite Movement, as being one of the more successful Restoration movements:

Another movement to restore primitive Christianity sprung up in America in the early 1800s out of the Presbyterian church. . . . Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister, began a movement in Kentucky to restore apostolic Christianity. Stone’s chief objective was to restore the holy living and separation from the world that had marked early Christianity.

In the 1820s, Stone’s movement merged with a separate movement begun by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who were also seeking to restore primitive Christianity. One of Alexander Campbell’s primary objectives was to achieve unity among all Christians, forsaking all man-made creeds and traditions and returning to the forms, structures, and doctrines of the apostolic church. Real Heretics, p. 151.

Both Stone and the Campbells published journals urging a Restoration of the Early Church in the early 1800’s (The Christian Baptist, Millennial Harbinger, and The Christian Messenger).

Those familiar with Mormon history will recognize the names of Thomas and Alexander Campbell as the founders of the “Campbellite” Restoration movement that Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, Edward Partridge, Isaac Morley, and at one point a majority of all Mormons belonged to before converting to Mormonism. When Sidney Ridgon read the Book of Mormon in 1830 while he was a Campbellite preacher, he converted to Mormonism as did many other Campbellites.  This enormous influx of former Campbellites into Mormonism doubled the Church’s membership in three weeks and resulted in Joseph Smith relocating the Saints’ gathering place by joining the former Campbellite converts in Kirtland, Ohio.

Why was Mormonism so appealing to Campbellites?  Starting in 1823, Campbell’s publication The Christian Baptist advocated an abandonment of all creeds and sects that divided Christendom and a restoration of a unified Church in which the “original gospel and order of things” are present.  (Source.) Alexander Campbell explained the Campbellites’ “distinguishing views and practices” as follows:

They regard all the sects and parties of the Christian world as having, in greater or less degrees, departed from the simplicity of faith and manners of the first Christians, and as forming what the apostle Paul calls “the apostasy.” . .  .

They look for unity of spirit and the bonds of peace in the practical acknowledgment of one faith, one Lord, one immersion, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all; not in unity of opinions, nor in unity of forms, ceremonies, or modes of worship. . . .  

Thus while they proclaim faith and repentance, or faith and a change of heart, as preparatory to immersion, remission, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they say to all penitents, or all those who believe and repent of their sins, as Peter said to the first audience addressed after the Holy Spirit was bestowed after the glorification of Jesus, “Be immersed every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The immersed believers are congregated into societies according to their propinquity to each other, and taught to meet the first day of every week in honor and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, and to break the loaf which commemorates the death of the Son of God, to read and hear the living oracles, to teach and admonish one another, to unite in all prayer and praise, to contribute to the necessities of saints, and to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.

Every congregation chooses its own overseers and deacons, who preside over and administer the affairs of the congregations; and every church, either from itself or in co-operation with others, sends out, as opportunity offers, one or more evangelists, or proclaimers of the word, to preach the word and to immerse those who believe, to gather congregations, and to extend the knowledge of salvation where it is necessary, as far as their means extend.  (Source.)

Although the Campbellites and Mormons held many other beliefs in common, the above provides a sampling of the types of similarities that have presented religion historians with a fascinating chicken-or-the-egg question:  did Joseph Smith’s teachings resemble the Early Church’s “original gospel and order of things” because Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God whose authentic revelations enabled him to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ, or because contemporary Restorationists like Alexander Campbell first identified correct Early Christian beliefs and practices that were later adopted by Joseph Smith? In other words, did God use the broader Restoration movement of the American frontier as an “Elias” that prepared Rigdon and eventually thousands of souls to embrace the true Church of Jesus Christ restored later by Joseph Smith, or was Joseph Smith’s success in duplicating many Early Christian beliefs and practices the result of his simply mimicking the beliefs and practices of contemporary Restorationist preachers who got it right first?  Because Campbellite converts to Mormonism such as Parley Pratt reported that they were converted Mormonism because they were inspired by the truthfulness of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon (Source), it seems the answer to that question depends on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic record compiled by Early Christians living on the American continent, or is a fabrication cobbled together by Smith and possibly others inspired by the Restorationist ethos that pervaded the American frontier when it was published.  (We know where Alexander Campbell stood on that question: in 1831 he denounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it all-too-coincidentally addressed “every error and every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.”)  (Alexander Campbell, “The Mormonites,”  Millenial Harbinger 2, (January 1831): 93.)

Regardless of the answer, Will the Real Heretics Stand Up suggests that the modern Christian denominations that most resemble the pre-Nicene Church’s beliefs and practices (i.e., Anabaptists and offspring of Restorationist movements) are relatively obscure groups that are popularly regarded as being on the outskirts (or on the outside) of Christianity today.

[Pictured below, left to right: Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith.]

[poll id="10"]

The term “Jack Mormon” is familiar to most of us.  Generally, it means a Mormon in name only.  In modern usage, a Jack Mormon is probably inactive, doesn’t really go to church, doesn’t follow the Word of Wisdom or other orthodox Mormon habits, and may or may not be proud of his Mormon heritage.  However, in the days of Joseph Smith, Quinn says on page 101, “non-mormon allies were known as ‘Jack-Mormons’, originally an LDS term of endearment.”

Alexander Doniphan is even mentioned in LDS manuals, such as this primary manual.  Quinn talks about these events, and talks about a few of the Missourians who did try to help the saints.  From page 100 of his book,

Despite the hatred of some Missourians toward Mormons, other non-Mormons protected LDS friends in the state.  William Thompson endured several lashes “with a cowhide,” rather than tell a mob where the Mormons were.  Better known among Mormons was Missourian Alexander W. Doniphan, who had risked his standing in his own community by defending the Mormons against expulsion from Jackson County in 1833.  In 1834, he startled fellow Missourians by praising the effort of Zion’s Camp to reclaim Mormon lands in Jackson County.  As state representative from Clay County, Doniphan regretted that his fellow residents had asked the Mormons to leave the county, and he successfully persuaded the Missouri legislature to create Caldwell County [in an 1836 compromise.]  When anti-Mormon troops surrounded Far West and forced its surrender, General Samuel D. Lucas ordered Doniphan to summarily execute Joseph Smith, and six other Mormon leaders who were in custody in November 1838.  Doniphan refused to obey the order, thus risking a similar summary execution himself.  By putting his own safety and career at risk, Alexander Doniphan saved Smith’s life and earned a permanent place as one of Mormon history’s non-Mormon heroes.

I want to quote from a website regarding Doniphan’s actual reply–I think it is impressive.  The website is http://www.historicliberty.org/tours/Alexander%20Doniphan%20-%20Juarenne.htm, and states,

When the Mormons surrendered to the militia, Doniphan’s commanding officer gave the order for Joseph Smith, the Mormon leader, and six others to be shot. Doniphan’s reply was “It is cold-blooded murder. I will not obey your order. My brigade will march for Liberty at 8:00 tomorrow morning, and if you execute these men I will hold you personally responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God.” Doniphan chose to subject himself to the threat of possible court-martial rather then to carry out an order which meant the execution of men not found guilty by civil or military tribunal.

Continuing on from Quinn page 101,

Without the drama of Doniphan’s military insubordination, militia general David R. Atchison restrained his own troops and used his political clout to benefit the besieged Mormons.  Another young Missourian wrote his father in December 1838 that the governor’s “extermination” order was a “foul disgrace to our State,” and the the Mormons had every right “to defend [themselves] with force and arms…”  The Jews call such benefactors and rescuers, “righteous Gentiles,” but during Smith’s life these non-Mormon allies were known as “Jack-Mormons,” originally an LDS term of endearment.”

So, I wanted to learn a little more about Alexander Doniphan.

• Alexander Doniphan Elementary School is found on 1900 Clay Drive, in Liberty, Missouri
• Doniphan served 3 terms as a state representative, and worked as a lawyer, who represented Joseph Smith.  Quoting from the website above, “During his career as a trial lawyer Doniphan defended more than 188 men, none of whom suffered the extreme penalty for the crime with which he was charged. This was true in Joseph Smith’s case. Doniphan tendered his services as a civil defender of the Mormons who were never convicted in court. Thus was spared the life of one who led the beginning of one of the great religious movements of our day. This building stands as a monument to Doniphan’s compassion and respect for the law. “
• There was a presentation on Doniphan at the Truman Presidential Library in 2007.  ‘He once met Abraham Lincoln and Lincoln is reported to have said: “Alexander Doniphan is the only man I have ever met who lived up to my previous expectations.” Today there many items which bear his name including several towns, a school, a battleship, a county, a highway and numerous local awards.’
• He went on to lead a very successful campaign in the Mexican-American War in 1846-7.
• He was a slaveholder, who favored keeping the union in tact.

I am grateful for non-Mormon allies such as Doniphan, and hope we will always appreciate men like this.  I posted a few more details about Doniphan which can be found here.  Comments?

On this upcoming Memorial Day it will be easy to post flags outside our homes and then just enjoy the BBQ. But there are very helpful things we can do, ranging from just a little effort to a lot.

The web page on “Citizen Support” by the Community Relations section of the U.S. Department of Defense lists a variety of strong suggestions, such as donations or volunteer work at homes for disabled vets, gift certificates, care packages, and many other possibilities.

One easy step to take would be to log onto the web pages of “Beyond Tribute” – a not-for-profit organization with the mission of helping businesses turn a percentage of their Memorial Day profits toward wounded veteran’s and their families. In a recent article entitled “Tribute is Not Enough”, former General Wesley Clark endorsed the organization.

I urge readers to click the red “sign the pledge” on the “Beyond Tribute ” page in order to urge businesses to begin participation.

For more tribute to our soldiers, I suggest visiting Mormon Insights.

HAVE A HAPPY AND MEMORABLE MEMORIAL DAY!!

When most of us hear the word “jihad” or “holy war”, we immediately know that a jihad is not what God wants.  Most of us feel the same when we hear the word “crusade.”  Really, does anyone think God wants people to fight in his name?

In the book of Joshua, Joshua claims to be commanded by God to destroy everyone and everything in what is now the land of Israel.

“And they utterly  destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and  ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

So Joshua smote all  the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the  springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly  destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And  Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country  of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.” (Joshua 10:40-41)

In an interesting twist, the prophet Jonah wanted God to destroy the city of Nineveh, yet God felt those people were to be spared.  Were the Ninevites really more righteous than the Jericho-ites?  Does God command genocide, yesterday, today, or in the future?

Orthodox History

First, let’s go back about 400 years or so before the time of Joshua, to the time of Joseph, Israel, and the 12 tribes. Israel and his sons left the “chosen land” of their own free will. They were not forced out of the land by foreign invaders. They were forced out by drought.

As we know, Joseph was sold into Egypt as a slave, and then ended up saving the whole family of Israel. Israel, and his sons freely settled in Goshen, Egypt. They liked the place so much, that they had no desire to leave.

Probably due to changes in the government, and the Israelites growing numbers, the Israelites were later viewed as a threat, and ended up becoming slaves to the Egyptians, so the nation of Israel (which was formerly just a really big family) longed to return to the “promised land.” Of course, this brings up the whole Exodus story, and wandering for 40 years, etc.

So they left the “promised land” for 400 years, which was resettled by 6 nations.  I’d say that if Israel really wanted the land back, they should have returned after the 7 years of drought-they’d have a much stronger claim than waiting 400 years.

Ok, so now the land is occupied by these six “squatters.” Are they are just supposed to get up and leave because Moses/Joshua said so? A modern equivalent would be the Muslims claim that God wanted people to fly planes into the world trade center. Just as Christians and Jews just don’t understand “God’s will,” from the Muslim point of view, these six squatter nations didn’t understand “God’s will” telling them to pick up and leave the promised land.

How did Joshua negotiate? Cleon Skousen justifies Joshua’s actions by saying,

“each city or tribe was given the opportunity to submit peacefully and become citizens of Israel with the condition that they would follow the rules and laws set forth by the new central kingdom, including giving up their idolatry and immorality.”

Excuse me? They’ve lived there for at least 300 years, and now Joshua tells them to submit peacefully? What kind of negotiation is that? It sounds suspiciously like Jihad or Crusader “convert or die” kinds of negotiation. If someone gave me that kind of a choice, I’d probably put up a fight too.

Unorthodox History

Some scholars claim that Joshua and Moses never existed.  The accounts of the Old Testament (especially those of the Pentateuch) were not written until centuries after their narratives had ended. Most of these were carried on through oral tradition and were later compiled into a written and collaborated form.

Scholars, such as William Dever of the University or Arizona, claim that (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/11/18/1679514.aspx) the Land of Canaan was not taken over by conquest – rather, the Israelites actually might have been Canaanites who migrated into the highlands and created a new identity for themselves. “Joshua really didn’t fight the Battle of Jericho,” Dever said. These scholars say the Exodus never happened, but was invented to create a new identity for a new group of people, with the new religion of Yahweh.

I know there is some problems of dating the city of Jericho to the time of Joshua. However, in my mind, it seems as if Joshua (or whoever he really represents) is glorifying war. From that point of view, I have no reason to doubt that the Israelites probably used God as a weapon to destroy their enemies, whether they were fellow Semites or the six heathen nations. I see this reasoning as very similar to the Crusades, and Jihad, and have no reason to doubt whether genocide happened in the time of Joshua. It seems that the story of Jericho is a way the Jews used God to justify atrocities.

My take is that Joshua was a prophet.  He felt he was inspired.  However, I do not feel that God wanted all the inhabitants killed.  I do not think God ever commands genocide, and I feel that this action was wrong by Joshua.

Comments?

First of all, what is the War on Christmas?  Here are six of the skirmishes:

1. Governments, retailers, employers and public schools avoid, censor or neutralize all references to Christmas.  In some cases, this is an effort to maintain separation of church and state (for government run institutions), and in other cases, it is an effort toward inclusion (for employers, retailers and individuals).
   • Rather than referencing Christmas, verbiage has been changed to things like “holiday tree,” “winter break,” “end-of-year bonus,” and “holiday season.”
   • Glenn Beck, in a silly mood, suggested the term “RamaHanaKwanMass” as an amalgam holiday covering all the major bases.
   • On Seinfeld, George’s father creates his own holiday “Festivus.”  Festivus is the holiday for “the rest of us.”  They decorate the silver festivus pole while screeching “serenity now” at each other.
2. Traditionalists (who also happen to be Christians in this case), not content to sit on the porch and shake their canes at the world as it goes by, have fought to re-include the word Christmas in public settings and protested its exclusion in various ways:
   • attempting to change the official state tree name in CA from “State Holiday Tree” to the “California State Christmas Tree.”  The measure failed, although Gov. Schwarzenegger still called it a “Christmas tree.”
   • Sears and Kmart ran deliberate campaigns in 2005 and 2006 to re-popularize the use of Christmas in the signage in their stores.
   • Responding to threats of a boycott, Wal-Mart relented on its policy of neutrality and changed its “holiday shop” to a “Christmas shop” in 2006.
3. The focus has begun to shift away from neutrality toward inclusion and diversity.
   • After receiving a signed petition of almost a million shoppers, Target relaxed its policy of using the term “holiday” and began including references to both Christmas and Hanukkah in its store signage stating that the use of the word holiday was a “mistake.”
   • Schools study holiday traditions around the world and across religious boundaries; however, non-religious greetings are still encouraged:  as my 6 year old daughter proudly proclaimed:  “Best wintry wishes!”
4. Many point out the fact that Christmas was not really a Christian holiday anyway, but was in fact an effort to recast Pagan elements with newly acquired Christian themes in order to win converts and de-emphasize immoral but fun practices.
   • Christmas trees, yule logs, candles, holly and mistletoe all have pagan origins that were later re-imagined as Christian symbols.
   • Originally, young men would go to houses demanding alcohol and food rather than a focus on making children happy (or making them behave).  Parties and debauchery were the rule (before it became commercialism).
   • Obviously, Christ wasn’t even born on December 25 anyway, unless those shepherds were wearing Gortex parkas (slight exaggeration) as they watched their flocks by night.
5. Stripping away the religious elements of Christmas leaves just the commercial elements, opening the door for some very well-founded criticism of the holiday.
   • Without religion, you’ve basically got a retailer’s and bank’s holiday that instills greed in children and adults alike.
   • Some have even gone so far as to suggest that Santa Claus was introduced by competing religions to deliberately draw focus away from Christ.  Some people also think the moon launch was faked.
6. Abbreviating the name “Christmas” to “Xmas” has been alternately rejected and embraced by Christians.
   • Some view the “X” as a way of taking Christ out of the holiday.
   • Others view the “X” as a symbol of Christ, essentially the cross.

My own view on these 6 battles is:  1) separating church & state feels important to me; also I liked the Festivus episode, 2) I wouldn’t sign the petition, but I don’t care if they say Christmas along with other holidays, 3) I’m all for more holidays, not fewer, 4) I have to work hard to see Christmas as a Christian holiday, 5) see #4, and 6) I use Cmas to abbreviate, but then we don’t focus on the cross as a symbol of Christianity.

So, where do you fall out on each of these battles?  Until then:  “Best wintry wishes!”

Sometimes we forget that the early restored church focused a lot on the millenium, which many of them believed was imminent.  As if they didn’t have enough stress!

This lesson is mostly a compilation of various prophecies about the second coming and the millenium.  Here are the ones specifically referenced in the manual:

• The Civil War, starting in South Carolina (some might say still going strong in South Carolina)
• Wars poured out upon all nations (two major world wars plus a host of others – the 20th century has often been called a century of warfare)
• Famine, plague, earthquakes, thunderbolt & lightning (the first three are standard CNN fare; the last two are part of the Queen song Bohemian Rhapsody)
• A seer raised up by God (although Mormons consider this to be Joseph Smith, the Bickertonites, another branch of Mormonism, are still looking for this seer)
• The moon will turn to blood (I always wonder whether this means it will be red which is a common scientific phenomenon or whether someone will be murdered on the moon, which might be a good premise for a sci-fi novel)
• The Son of Man will descend in the clouds of heaven (not to burst Charles Manson’s bubble, but I don’t think he qualifies based on this description alone)
• The wicked will be destroyed off the face of the earth (or does this mean that the play Wicked will finally end its Broadway run?  See how enigmatic prophesies can be!)
• Judah must return (Jews for Jesus?)
• Jerusalem be rebuilt (this would be a lot easier if it weren’t a war zone)
• A temple will be built in Jerusalem with water issuing from under the temple (a wellspring or someone left the water running in the bathroom?)
• The waters of the Dead Sea will be healed (I assume this means freshwater instead of brackish, but maybe it has something to do with overfishing–see today’s AM post for more discussion on this point)
• The sun will turn to darkness (hey, that happens every night!)
• Earthquakes in diverse places (pretty common nowadays)
• The seas will heave beyond their bounds (sounds like global warming)
• There will be “one grand sign” of the Son of Man in heaven that people will mistakenly say is a comet or planet
• Contrary to popular belief, all flesh will be subject to suffer from disease and famine, including the righteous  (sorry if this isn’t in your plans . . .)

After the Second Coming, here are the prophecies regarding the millenium:

• Christ will reign personally (this doesn’t sound like there will be an election since the majority of the planet is still not Christian; or maybe he will just be really persuasive.)
• The earth will be renewed (like a library book?) and receive its paradisaical glory (this is the only place you ever see that word paradisaical)
• The nations will dwell in peace for 1000 years (that would be a nice change)
• The earth will be as a sea of glass, one great Urim & Thummim, and when we look in it we will see as we are seen (So, if the internet is a Urim & Thummim, maybe this is like Facebook?)

The lesson talks about some of the good things about focusing on the Second Coming & Millenium:

1. It motivates us to live the commandments and be good people.
2. It provides a sense of urgency to fulfill the three missions of the church.
3. For those enduring trials, there is an end in sight.

But there are also some potential negative side effects of this focus:

1. Developing a complacent attitude that “this world” is temporary anyway and doesn’t matter; hardly an effective way to foster our stewardship of this earth (e.g. why recycle?).
2. An expectation of reward for good deeds (rather than doing things out of a love of God & our fellow human beings).  This is kind of like the Santa Claus effect on children–10 months out of the year they behave like troglodytes, but they are perfect angels once Christmas is around the corner.
3. A hyperbolic worldview in which danger lurks at every corner and there is a war for our souls at every turn; fear is not a good basis for Christian charity toward others or rational, balanced decision-making.

What are your thoughts as you think about the Second Coming and the Millenium?  Do you make an extra effort to be good when the moon turns red due to a solar eclipse when there are dust particles in the air?  Does thinking about the Second Coming motivate you to be a better person or is it too “out there” to contemplate?  Discuss.

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in obeying the laws of the country in which they live. Members of the Church are counseled to be good citizens, to participate in civil government and the political process, and to render community service as concerned citizens.” reference: Mormon.org

Obeying the law and being good citizens in the larger community is a foundational principle of our Church. In the 20^th century, our consistency with this principle opened surprising doors in countries closed to other religious denominations.

The former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) allowed the LDS Church to build a temple in Freiburg in the late 1980’s. It was still a communist, cold-war, Soviet satellite nation. The peaceful and obedient example set by members of the LDS Church trapped behind the Iron Curtain after WWII gave the East German government the level of confidence they needed to accept such a religious structure in their land. The Freiburg temple was actually the FIRST temple built on German soil. The West German temple was built a couple years later.

The positive aspects of being engaged with, and supportive of governments, being obedient to the laws of the land, and honoring our communities has been a great tool to reach out with the Gospel.

I would like to pose this question: Where do we draw the line?  When do we have to say “no?”

There certainly has to be a point where we can not obey the law. Jesus answered the Pharisees and Herodians “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” At some points in history though, “Caesar” crosses the line.

Is it acceptable to go to war and kill other people for our rulers? I’m not talking about defending ourselves from direct attack, but to “protect our international interests.”

Is it ok for members to actively support a government that represses basic freedoms?

Is it noble for members to actively support a government that imprisons and tortures political dissidents?

At what point do faithful LDS members have an obligation to actively oppose their rulers?

What is your personal line in the sand?  I would love to hear what you all think about this personally.

[Please note, I will actively moderate rants about specific countries or political parties that do not add to a constructive and positive discussion.  Thank you in advance for that cooperation!]

“All soldiers
They’re all gonna die
And all the little babies
They’re all gonna die
All the poets
And all the liars
And all you pretty people
You’re all gonna die” (Low, 2007)

The chilling opening words to Low’s most recent album, Drums and Guns, somehow had a remarkable effect on me.  Low has progressed a great deal since their inception in the early ’90s and this album is particularly moving.  It is a themed album; an anti-war album.

As many of you know, Alan Sparhawk and Mimi Parker of Low are practicing members of the Church (Alan being a BYU graduate, Mimi a convert).  One of my interests is the way that art plays off testimony in the Church, and I admit, most of the time I’m left wanting.  Drums and Guns was such a pleasant surprise for me.  Alan and Mimi have taken their experiences, testimonies, and desires and crafted an album that is anti-war.  In today’s political climate one would assume the album, released in 2007, is an anti-Iraq War album, but this does not seem to be the case, necessarily.  It seems to truly be two members of the LDS Church being obedient to the Doctrine and Covenants in renouncing war and proclaiming peace.

I explained to my mom the concept for the album.  “It’s an anti-war album, Mom.”

And she looked at me and said, “It’s so easy and popular to be anti-war when you’re a musician, isn’t it?”  I’ll let you parse that one yourself, but for the most part, it’s true.  Musicians since the Sixties have been renouncing war and proclaiming peace for various reasons, sometimes because it’s the trendy thing to do, and sometimes through a heartfelt desire to change the world somehow.  War is a common theme in music, from Dylan’s “Blowing in the Wind” to CCR’s “Fortunate Son”, to Black Sabbath’s “War Pigs”, and the other end of the spectrum, Alice Cooper’s admission that he was pro-Vietnam.  It was in part these songs and artists that influenced the popular opinion of the war, for good or bad.

Musicians understand that they have the ability (and some would say responsibility) to influence popular opinion.  Some musicians have taken this to great lengths, such as U2′s Bono, who has been outspoken on numerous causes such as poverty, homelessness, and hunger.

I searched my memory and realized that, with Drums and Guns, this is one of the first times (if not THE first time) I’ve heard LDS musicians take a stance on anything in their art.  Where are our outspoken LDS artists, musicians, and filmmakers?  I concede that there are a few possible explanations:

1) I just haven’t been paying close enough attention.  This may be the case, but I would say that I probably pay much more attention than the average member to things of an artistic nature, so if there are politically active LDS artists out there…

2) …perhaps they just don’t have the outlets they need to get their message to me.  This seems rather unlikely, as well.  They have their art.

3) Fear.  There is an inherent risk in voicing opinions, and struggling LDS artists with families don’t feel like they can afford taking risks.

Unfortunately, the last option is 4) LDS artists aren’t making statements like this, and aren’t concerned with issues such as war.  If this is the case, then Mormon art, like Mormon hairstyles*, is indeed 40 years behind the rest of the world.

And yet it leads me to wonder about the progress of our Church.  There are some that criticize the Church (from within and without) for being provincial, non-progressive.  Could it be so due to the lack of progressive art in our community?

Or do we take a more Marxist view (thanks Russ) and assume that Mormon art merely reflects the culture it is created in?  That art is not in itself causative?  This debate has raged for centuries.

When will we as a people of rising prominence in this world start making artistic stances to change the world?  When will we take advantage of our position?  Alternatively, am I just missing something?

Either way, for a beautiful yet jarring picture of war and its emotional elements, try Drums and Guns by Low.

*cheap shot

Event: Nader House Party! — “Talk to Nader by phone!”
Start Time: Saturday, July 26 at 4:00pm

To see more details and RSVP, follow the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/n/?event.php&eid=20402069774