Capitol

More Thoughts on the Capitol Breach

The forces of contention may have just escalated to a new and even more feverish pitch as a result of the election disputes and the breach of the Capitol building in Washington.

I grew up in the deep south in the 1960’s in a family where I was taught that God loves all of His children equally – black and white, male and female, young and old. As a pre-teen young man I saw the low-quality snowy black and white TV news images of numerous civil rights demonstrations. Almost universally the announcers condemned the demonstrators as lawless criminals who were breaking all of the social and legal norms of society and had to be stopped. Invariably these demonstrators were outnumbered by police and military personnel who at times seemed to attack the demonstrators without any obvious provocation. What I saw on the videos simply did not correspond to what I heard from commentators – so over the years I have learned to carefully consider discrepancies between what I see and what I hear. 

This has been reinforced as I have become fascinated by politically and emotionally charged events like what I saw in my youth and like what happened at the Capitol. I lived in the DC suburbs in 1968 and personally witnessed the hours-long convoy of National Guard soldiers as they gathered in Washington to try to bring peace to the city where whole blocks of buildings had been burned to the ground. I was among the thousands of innocent spectators who a few years later were tear-gassed at a 4th of July fireworks celebration on the National Mall when anti-war demonstrators clashed with police. And looking overseas, I watched Yeltsin standing on the tank changing the course of history in his country. I saw the Tiananmen Square events unfold before the eyes of the entire world. 

More recently I have watched multiple sources report on civil unrest in cities across the nation. The picture quality is much better these days but the contrasts between the video and audio messages are still troubling at times. It is becoming more difficult to discern the truth of what we are seeing and what we are being told despite, or maybe because of, a flood of varied sources. 

I watched over three hours of non-stop live coverage of the Capitol events as they unfolded. The first coverage I found was on PBS. As other news sources began to cover the evolving events I went over to CNN. After scanning other sources I chose to stay on PBS and CNN – at times running both feeds simultaneously. PBS had more fact-based coverage with little editorializing but they only had a couple of camera angles. CNN had more camera angles but their video images became increasingly disconnected from their audio reporting and editorializing as time went on. At first the crowd was described as “demonstrators” while the images showed highly charged individuals breaching the security perimeter of the Capitol. Then as the crowd became larger with fewer images of struggle between crowd members and law enforcement personnel, the description became that of a “mob” forcibly taking over the Capitol. Later as the crowd voluntarily dispersed with little or no violence, they were described as violent “insurrectionists” and even “domestic terrorists.” 

Once again, throughout the coverage that I witnessed, the verbal description often didn’t seem to correlate with the visual images being projected. 

What to make of it all?

I think the only way to make sense of it all is to look to the inspired writings of those in history who were privileged to see our day in detail – and who were rightfully fascinated with what happens to us. The world does not acknowledge this prophetic source of insight, and yet for me it is the best framework from which to understand the events unfolding around us.

What I saw in the Capitol events yesterday felt like echoes of the recorded history of the Jaredite nation.

For instance, in light of the intense election disputes plaguing the nation, I marvel that just eight weeks ago (the first week after the presidential election) the entire membership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began studying the Book of Ether in the Book of Mormon – a book painstakingly included in the hand written record that Moroni knew would come forth in our day. Moroni was one of those ancient prophets who saw our day, literally in gory detail. He obviously felt that we would be benefited by knowing the story of the Jaredite nation which thrived miraculously and then self-destructed on this continent thousands of years ago. 

What I saw in the Capitol events yesterday felt like echoes of the recorded history of the Jaredite nation. For me, understanding these parallels provides a helpful framework for making sense of our circumstances in 2021. 

The Jaredite nation started in approximately the year 2300 B.C. from humble beginnings but became the greatest nation on the face of the earth at that time (known today among secular scholars as the “Olmec civilization”). It was founded on a deep faith in the power of God to bless and direct His children for good – with a founding narrative based on multiple, dramatic miracles and heavenly interventions. 

Over time they drifted from that faith and narrative and eventually rebelled against the very God they had previously invoked as the source of their peace and prosperity. And here’s where this all starts to feel applicable to the events at the Capitol – and why I sincerely believe they could have consequences of Biblical proportions. 

As this ancient nation spiraled down into ever-increasing conflict, two competing factions emerged as the dominant sources of political power. Somehow the leaders of these two factions – Coriantumr and Cohor –  were able to persuade all of the people to align themselves with one side or the other. Everyone had to choose which side they would join. Remarkably, in the record we have, eventually only one person remained above the fray as a neutral observer: the prophet and historian Ether, whose writing from a cave helped make the surviving record we have today possible. 

The contention escalated because “there were many who rose up, who were mighty men, and sought to destroy Coriantumr by their secret plans of wickedness.” But the warring factions were nearly equal in their strength and “Coriantumr, having studied, himself, in all the arts of war and all the cunning of the world, wherefore he gave battle unto them who sought to destroy him.” 

Cohor was succeeded by others with continued death and destruction until there were only a few remaining on each side. The prophet Ether then records the last few days of the conflict when after further battles of attrition Coriantumr kills his single remaining opponent and becomes the last survivor of the war that completely destroyed the entire Jaredite nation. 

The real Jaredite tragedy is that neither side had a cause worth shedding blood over, yet everyone became committed to shedding blood. What destroyed the Jaredite nation was that the people, individually and collectively, chose a path of ever-increasing contention and created an environment where everyone eventually joined in the fight. 

Then, as now, ever-increasing contention inevitably leads to bloodshed. Usually someone steps forward and restores at least a semblance of peace. Sadly for the Jaredites, no one stepped forward. May we pray for leaders who will continue to step forward now.

What about for us – in our day? 

With the results of the Georgia Senate runoff races coming to a conclusion last week, some Trump supporters are pointing to them as evidence of yet more fraud – “see, they even managed to swing both congressional elections!” 

I would argue the opposite – that these results are strong evidence that there was no massive fraud or irregularities in the Georgia presidential vote. It was a second test of the will of the citizens of Georgia and the result seemed conclusive evidence that Biden won the popular vote fair and square. 

Then the US Capitol erupted in chaos. While there was near-unanimous condemnation of the breach and the events that led up to it, the ensuing chaos is likely to galvanize the underlying ideological political conflict and could easily set the stage for a potentially dangerous escalation of contention (although, for the immediate term, it appeared to have calmed things down and shaken people on both sides to their senses). 

As with the Jaredites, the two warring political factions are persuading people that they have to take sides in this conflict. President Trump has clearly won many to his side, convincing them that they must enter the fray and rebuking anyone who declines to join him – friend or foe alike. With the breach of the Capitol, the Democratic side can now continue doing likewise:  convincing many others that they must enter the fray unless they want to risk a similar rebuke for anyone who declines to join.  

That very dynamic seemed to be on full display by the end of the day across the country. Within my own circle of friends and family many had taken sides before the day was over. And of course the divisions were deep and almost equally divided in numbers. Who doesn’t have a strong opinion about what happened at the Capitol? 

The stage seems to be setting up for a conflict between the two political factions of our day which could be catastrophic for the country. 

What is to be done? What should we individually do about it all?

Amidst the seemingly endless dramatic conflict that can take so much of our attention, President Nelson raises something that offers to frame everything in a very different perspective.

Maybe it’s time to step back and take a broader view. Several recent quotes from living prophets provide what I believe to be the most helpful counsel and insight for how we should respond to the turmoil of our day.

President Nelson: The most important thing – Let God prevail

Amidst the seemingly endless dramatic conflict that can take so much of our attention, President Nelson raises something that offers to frame everything in a very different perspective. “These surely are the latter-days, and the Lord is hastening His work to gather Israel. That gathering is the most important thing taking place on earth today.” This statement clearly distinguishes the relative importance of God’s work over that of the current political contests. The gathering he describes is first and foremost a gathering of hearts and minds in united commitment to the principles taught by Jesus Christ regarding love of God and of all mankind. Since this isn’t always easy to understand for people, he added further clarification by saying, “one of the Hebraic meanings of the word Israel refers to a person who is willing to let God prevail in his or her life.” He also reminded us that “God does not love one race more than another. His doctrine on this matter is clear. He invites all to come unto Him, “black and white, bond and free, male and female.”” In other words, the most important thing going on in the world today is the active gathering of ALL those who will let God prevail in their lives. As he has reiterated often before, nothing else is more important or of more consequence.

President Oaks: Generous Civic Engagement

Lest we think that we must passively submit to political policies that we disagree with, President Oaks has said, “This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.” For those of us who struggle with the current level of political acrimony he said encouragingly, “As I have lived for many years in different places in this nation, the Lord has taught me that it is possible to obey and seek to improve our nation’s laws and also to love our adversaries and our enemies.”

Elder Uchtdorf: Stay Hopeful (Even Today) for Unimaginable Good to Come

Elder Uchtdorf summed up a course of action that can provide a guide for our daily activities in this tumultuous world when he quoted from Doctrine and Covenants 123:17 “cheerfully do all things that lie in [your] power; and then may [you] stand still, with the utmost assurance, to see the salvation of God, and for his arm to be revealed.” He then concluded his remarks with a most hopeful apostolic promise: “And I promise that the Lord will cause unimaginable things to come from your righteous labors.” Unimaginable is the word that stands out to me in what God can make of our righteous labors – no matter how humble or seemingly insignificant they may be. 

In summary, the forces of contention may have just escalated to a new and even more feverish pitch as a result of the election disputes and the breach of the Capitol building in Washington. The Jaredite record provides a clear warning of where this path can lead if we don’t change our ways – especially in a country so evenly divided on our points of contention. Prophetic counsel from ancient and modern prophets provide timely perspective and instruction on how we can navigate the daily challenge of being true to our principles while resisting the urge toward fear, anger, hate and contention. Isn’t that just what America needs right now?

While others continue to obsess about who is going to win, to prevail, and to dominate in terms of political and cultural power, may we encourage others to heed the call of living prophets to center our attention on another question:  how we can “let God prevail” in our own lives. 

About the author

Lynn Chapman

Lynn Chapman is the president of NVS, LLC, and President of the McCune Institute. He has worked as an interim editor for Deseret News and served on the MWAA board in Washington, D.C. He has a Public Policy Ph.D. from George Mason.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Changing the World One Birth at a Time

Explore how Latter-day Saint women are making waves in global maternal advocacy—and uncover the keys behind their success that create a model for the global community.

Lord Baltimore commends his people to Wisdom, Justice, and Mercy

#NeverTrump; #AlwaysLiberalism

Trump is not as bad as his critics would have you believe, but he remains the antithesis of the American liberal ideal. We should use this chance to repudiate him.

Is There Anyone Who Shouldn’t Watch “Rule Breakers”?

There is a moment where the Dreamers team is waiting to hear if they will attend an upcoming competition.  They wait. Their coach comes out. “Yes,” she says. The group pauses. Nothing happens. The coach says yes again, and suddenly, everyone cheers. The scene is emblematic of the joys and shortfalls of Angel Studios’ latest and most uncharacteristic film.  You can’t help but hope for the best for the group of girls at the film’s center. The film intends to make you cheer, but the pacing hiccups make it difficult to know when you’re supposed to.  In many respects, “Rule Breakers” follows the model of a classic based-on-a-true-story sports movie. You construct the team. They overcome challenges. They succeed through a series of competitions until the big moment. But the particulars are quite different. Our competitors here are teenage girls from Afghanistan. The competition is robotics. The challenges are not just the discrimination that has become de facto to sports movies but also bombings and customs regulations.  The characters are such personable go-getters facing so many struggles that you can’t help but root for them. The distinct story helps keep the genre fresh. But the same novelty that benefits the film also makes it hard to understand the stakes. What does it take to get admitted to these competitions? Which competitions are important? What is the goal of the young women participating? The reactions from the characters to their placement were different enough from how I felt that I wondered what I was missing. The series of competitions all felt co-equal. It’d be like watching a baseball movie that starts in spring training and ends in July. You’d feel excited for their growth and wins, but it lacks the build-up and climax that is inherent in the form.  Nikohl Boosheri plays Roya who became an early female computer programmer in Afghanistan turned coach for the team. She turns in a controlled, understated acting job. Her performance is believable for someone determinedly overcoming the many challenges she does. But what it has in verisimilitude, it lacks in accessibility. I wanted to understand her journey, but instead, I watched her conquer logistics.  The remainder of the cast follows Boosheri’s lead. For as inexperienced as the ensemble is, there is hardly a misstep. But the characters also don’t feel distinct.  In many ways, the film reminded me of a documentary. It feels as though it follows events, not a story, and it follows people, not characters. But it also doesn’t have the authenticity or immediacy that sets documentary footage apart. I struggle to imagine the misanthrope that wouldn’t like this film. Its themes are so deeply human just about anyone will be able to feel them.  There is one scene between Roya and a Hispanic man named Jesus. They introduce themselves, and she responds, “Like the Christian prophet?” Jesus responds, “Yeah, is that a problem?” Roya takes a beat and chuckles to herself, “No. My father is named Mohammed.”  By being so specific to such a distinct slice of humanity, “Rule Breakers” somehow manages to speak to all of us. It’s far from a perfect film, but if you love sports movies and culture clash movies, you will love this movie. And even if you don’t, you’ll cheer along. This is an easy film to watch with kids. It’s not flashy enough to keep most kids’ attention, but the plot moves well enough to engage older kids. And there is nothing objectionable at any point for anyone except learning about off-screen violence that could be thematically hard for very young children. It may not seem obvious, but this is a family film in the truest sense.  Two and a half out of five stars. “Rules Breakers” releases in theaters nationwide on March 7, 2025. 

Demanding Conversations About Violence

In the weeks since the premiere of the Under the Banner of Heaven miniseries, there has been a broad consensus that the show doesn’t quite work. Its attempt to paint Latter-day Saints as promoting violence just doesn’t land. And its depiction of Latter-day Saints simply doesn’t resonate because it’s too dissimilar. This of course must come as some disappointment to critics of the Church who had hoped the series would prompt more conversations around the issues they deem problematic such as how the Church promotes violence. Into this void comes a new argument made most prominently by Taylor Petrey, but also echoed by a student columnist at the University of Utah, and now promoted on Twitter by Benjamin Park—namely, that because there has been some violence done by some Latter-day Saints who use the language of their culture in perpetrating it, Latter-day Saints should watch the series with the intent to learn how to make their Church less violent. Both Petrey and Park had previously criticized the series for its poor job in portraying Latter-day Saints, but have since shifted. We don’t want to attack the Daily Utah Chronicle piece because it’s a student article. But Petrey and Park should know better. Some of us have been on the record defending Petrey as a serious scholar, despite the fact that his conclusions don’t often derive well from the available evidence. But Petrey seems to suggest in his article that any violence that uses the language of religion must have been inspired by that religion. We understand the temptation of this point of view. What else could we blame violence on if not the culture it arose in? But Petrey’s position assumes that human beings are naturally non-violent, and only become violent as a result of their culture. This is a major assumption in the Robert Orsi essay that Petrey relies on extensively. Parks’ tweets similarly assume that any conversation about Latter-day Saints and violence must concede that the faith contributes to the violence in some way. But the causes of violence are often complicated. Because of the importance of our innate nature in creating violence, even the most peaceful society would still produce fringe examples of extreme violence. Having a Latter-day Saint who becomes violent isn’t proof that the faith contributes to that violence, even if the perpetrator uses the language of their culture in perpetuating that violence. Cultural contexts can then increase or decrease the likelihood of that emerging, but no culture has discovered how to remove it altogether. And because Under the Banner of Heaven fails to present a clear picture of what most experience as Latter-day Saint culture, it doesn’t do much to establish whether a Latter-day Saint context is more prone to cause violence than others. Those who use Latter-day Saint or another religious language and context to perpetuate violence weren’t necessarily made violent by those cultures. But rather, violent individuals will leverage anything around them to perpetrate their violence. We’re aware of many other similar examples—of abusers, for instance, who used the language of therapy to perpetuate abuse. But it would be absurd to suggest that therapeutic culture caused that abuse. Even pacifist language has been known to be used to perpetuate violence by shaming survivors into silence. An abusive person will draw upon the most powerful language available within their given cultural context and weaponize that. This is not coincidentally the conclusion made by prosecutors in the Lafferty case, that the murder was about power and relationships and that religion was merely the pretext. Does the Church of Jesus Christ disproportionately create violent offenders? We’d be interested in reading any definitive social science research on the question, but unfortunately, those promoting this point of view or hoping to have this conversation have not yet presented any. And rather than attempt to answer this question clearly itself, Under the Banner of Heaven skips the question and takes it as a given. A study of this sort could start the conversation Petrey, Parks, and the student author hope for. Instead, we get a story about a 38-year-old murder that was notable mainly for how unusual it was among the Latter-day Saint community and perpetrated by someone who had recently been kicked out of the Church for their extremist views. It should not surprise anyone that it hasn’t prompted anyone to conclude there’s a problem with violence among Latter-day Saints.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This