Imagine a war involving a surprise attack against descendants of Jacob, failed prisoner exchange negotiations, political assassinations, forced population movements, espionage, trickery, political strife over conscription, and extensive building of fortifications and settlements. I am, of course, referring to events described in the Book of Mormon.
But the template fits Israel, too. It is easy to sit at our peaceful American desks and offer Israel advice, but let us first ground ourselves in reality by considering similar past events. What kind of situation is Israel in, and what has worked before? Israel seems to be fighting an existential war across gaping cultural and religious fault lines. We can enrich our perspectives on such a war by considering scriptural precedents in the Book of Mormon, notably in Alma chapters 43 to 62.
In the Book of Mormon, there is ongoing tension between the Nephites and the Lamanites, a catch-all term for their enemies. Nephite society was generally characterized by higher levels of literacy and economic development (with Nephite dissenters able to introduce both to their enemies in Mosiah) but a limited population. It seems likely that they existed as a small enclave of Mosaic culture, surrounded by other cultures in the Americas. There was a history of disputes over land, including the “Land of Nephi” or “land of first inheritance,” which the Nephites were forced to flee but attempted to recapture through both settlement and, later, direct military means.
Israel’s GDP per capita is higher than any nearby non-petrostate but is vastly outnumbered and faces actors explicitly devoted to its destruction. Its enemies are also associated with descendants of an elder but spiritually disinherited brother, Ishmael. And Israeli land claims are also a matter of contention, with bases in ancient possession, modern repurchase, current possession by conquest and settlement, and a tangled legal background ranging from the Ottomans to the British and the United Nations.
In Alma 43-62, about 74-57 B.C., the Nephites were facing yet another defensive war after a long history of conflict. In the same chapter where Moroni is first introduced, Alma 43, we read:
And now, as Moroni knew the intention of the Lamanites, that it was their intention to destroy their brethren, or to subject them and bring them into bondage that they might establish a kingdom unto themselves over all the land; and he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take.
This shows that the Nephites were fighting an existential war and that, from the very outset, the rules of engagement were set accordingly: spies and “stratagems” were fair game.
Knowing their context of existential war—war fought not for prestige or territory but for national survival—is key to understanding both Moroni and modern Israel. We aren’t discussing discretionary American actions fought with dollars and drones and a few volunteers on the other side of the world. These are not wars started and fought with half an eye on domestic politics, that can be abandoned at our convenience. We are talking about situations of real danger, where statesmen must carefully consider whether the present and future consequences of their actions will include the death of everyone they love.
The Book of Mormon’s eponymous ancient editor, Mormon, explicitly identifies the Nephites as faithful and their key general, Moroni, as a moral example:
Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land […] and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity. Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.
Shortly thereafter, Moroni is also described as a man of God; indeed, Mormon, also a general and man of God, was sufficiently impressed with Moroni so as to name his son after him. The contemporary religious leader and record keeper Helaman is described as “no less serviceable” to the people.
The prevalence of soldiers and religious men in the Israeli government is notable. I lack the expertise to disentangle every right and wrong of Israeli politics, if indeed anyone can, and won’t hold up any particular Israeli leader as a modern Moroni. But making some distasteful decisions in an extremely complex political and social environment is not necessarily disqualifying.
Israel’s situation is difficult, as it involves a variety of enemies: state and non-state actors and some other figures that are hard to define. Gaza is a tricky case: is it an internal or external problem? Do its people deserve rights within the Israeli state? Do they deserve an independent state? Is there a realistic path to either one from where they are? How can Israel justly deal with the practical reality of a restive population inside its de facto military perimeter? The Book of Mormon narrative includes difficulties with similar thorny problems, where populations attempt various political and military actions against the Nephite state they are linked with.
Now that we’ve established some analogies of circumstance, consider: How did Moroni act? If the Book of Mormon contains any such mortal, he is presented as the “good guy,” so what kind of example does he set? I will discuss the high points in chronological order.
His early actions included organizing his people to “defend their lands and their country, their rights and their liberties” and sending out spies. In an early battle, he held a dominant military position, offered a ceasefire, and then chose to continue the slaughter when his opponent declined his terms of sworn total future non-aggression. He did not accept a ceasefire at any cost.
He emphasized the shared values of his people, raising a standard, the “title of liberty,” on which he wrote, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” This key motivational statement foregrounded positive, shared religious values and identity. Moroni used the power of the state to “[cause] the title of liberty to be hoisted upon every tower which was in all the land.” Moroni knew and said that he was fighting for the right cause.
Internal dissenters, led by one Amalickiah, wanted a change in political control and opposed Moroni, then attempted to flee when it became clear Moroni commanded a majority; Moroni used military force to compel the bulk of these dissenters to return:
And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.
This ultimatum resulted in several years of peace. However, Amalickiah eventually obtained rule over the Lamanites by intrigue, validating Moroni’s original intent to prevent his defection. Moroni recognized that some enemies should not be left at large and that political liberty does not extend to treason.
Moroni prepared his people for battle by effectively using novel defensive technology, in his case improved armor and fortifications. Perhaps his free society’s higher level of education helped him keep the technological edge.
Moroni won a gory, lopsided victory thanks to his preparation, and as a result, his enemy “did curse God, and also Moroni, swearing with an oath that he would drink his blood.” Ugly situations exist, even for righteous men doing their best.
While settling his own people to create facts on the ground, he also forbade population movements that would be harmful to the security of the free Nephite population. The people of Morianton were a population who “took up arms against their brethren” over a land dispute, then attempted to run to the Lamanites when Moroni got involved. Moroni dispatched his lieutenant Teancum to interdict their flight, as success on their part would “lay a foundation for serious consequences … yea, which consequences would lead to the overthrow of their liberty.” What might have seemed to be an “internal” matter was not really internal, given its potential to draw in much more powerful external enemies, and freedom for those involved was not the most important consideration.
This same Teancum, later described as “a true friend to liberty,” then assassinated the enemy political and military leader, Amalickiah, killing him at night in his own tent.
This brought a lapse in hostilities, followed by a successful Nephite counter-offensive that resulted in the taking of many prisoners. These prisoners were put to forced labor, burying the dead and building fortifications. The Lamanites also held prisoners, including Nephite families, and their new ruler, Ammoron, offered a prisoner exchange. Moroni made an offer to trade one Lamanite fighting man for one Nephite family in the context of an end to Lamanite aggression; Ammoron agreed to the exchange but not the peace, promising “a war which shall be eternal.” Moroni rejected these unsatisfactory terms and instead used trickery and force to get his people back.
Meanwhile, another general, Helaman, led two thousand sons of pacifists to miraculous victories. They, too, took many prisoners to the point that prisoners threatened their supply situation, and they faced the choice, “a very serious matter,” of either killing them or dividing their force to escort the prisoners elsewhere. Unwilling to kill them in cold blood, they chose to escort the prisoners away; however, most were killed during an attempted mass breakout. This decision demonstrated the Nephites’ willingness to take military risks in order to respect the value of human life, yet lives were still lost because of enemy choices.
Helaman and Moroni both received inadequate provisioning and reinforcement from the central government, leading to a preventable defeat. This led Moroni to threaten a coup, only to discover there had already been a coup, which Moroni then suppressed to re-establish the legitimate government. With unity re-established and the would-be king and his supporters tried and executed, Moroni was again in a position to defend his country. After assassinating another Lamanite leader and winning a final battle, the Nephites were able to establish peace, and Moroni gave up command and “retired to his own house that he might spend the remainder of his days in peace.”
Around this same time, Moroni benefited from the desire of many Lamanite prisoners to join his side, become free, and work, an indication that the Nephite vision of freedom was recognized as attractive even by many of their enemies. This could be, in part, because the war was described as having caused “much famine,” suggesting civilian suffering, presumably on both sides.
However, the existence of many individual Lamanites who later chose peaceful coexistence didn’t prevent bloodshed and suffering. Presumably, they were good and reasonable people even before they had the opportunity to choose peace—we should default to expecting good people on both sides of wars—but their leadership and their society’s collective actions still had consequences. Only Moroni’s definitive victories freed these Lamanites to choose peace.
Moroni’s victorious retirement wasn’t a lasting happy ending; the Nephites soon enough fought other battles with both external enemies (Lamanites) and internal conspiracies (the Gadiantons). At one point, they adopted a sort of reverse siege tactic where the Gadiantons were forcibly excluded from a Nephite security perimeter until they started to starve and were forced to offer a pitched battle. The Gadiantons lost, and their leader was executed.
At times, preaching brought significant numbers of people to repent, a favorable development for peace. However, continued issues with Gadianton conspiracy eventually resulted in the collapse of the Nephite state, and lasting peace was achieved only by miraculous, apocalyptic destruction of the wicked and the appearance of the resurrected Christ. Moroni’s success was limited.
But again, the prophet Mormon wrote all of the above, and his considered, inspired judgment placed Moroni, bloody hands and all, as a model of the virtuous leader.
What can we learn from all this?
Ugly situations exist, even for righteous men doing their best. A people deeply committed to freedom and the value of human life may end up wading through blood, depending on their enemies’ choices. Enforcing a lowest-common-denominator ideology of sanity, freedom, and patriotism can be appropriate. Borders are complicated, and there may not be any attractive way to adjust them. When people inside a defensive perimeter revolt in the context of outside threats, a good leader may need to act harshly or face existential consequences. Enemy leaders need not be out of bounds. Prisoner exchanges and ceasefire offers are not always the right answer, and it may be a good leader’s duty to reject them. Leaders facing existential threats may need to restrict personal liberty, even to the point of denying freedom of movement and enforcing conscription to maintain freedom for future generations. Good people may inevitably suffer until their evil leaders are defeated. No amount of inspiration and virtue confined to one side will necessarily suffice for a happy ending, but it may preserve freedom for another generation.
Other societies committed to freedom have also made hard decisions. Consider American restrictions on speech and political freedom during and after the Civil War. World War II supplies additional examples.
It is easy to say that Moroni or Lincoln or Churchill should have somehow done better, but such matters are hard to judge in hindsight, with the counterfactual outcomes prevented and peace established. I’ve read enough of these men to doubt my wisdom to second-guess them.
Similarly, the decisions Israel faces now are difficult. Unlike some Israeli leaders, I lack military experience, local knowledge, access to classified intelligence, whatever wisdom can be won through decades of daily involvement in such matters, and skin in the game. I do not presume to give them detailed advice. But I recognize the ugly kind of challenge they face and that many of the decisions they are criticized for are not outside the frameworks that good people have historically used to handle existential threats.
I am more willing to give my fellow Americans advice. Few living Americans have experienced existential war, but we can and should know something of what it means, not least by reading the Book of Mormon. And let us please adopt a measure of humility as we consider a free, friendly country fighting for its existence.
