When it came to the point when persecution could be borne
no longer, and the Lord gave no command as to what they should do, then the
Saints had a choice. They could fight and be justified or they could seek
refuge in flight, gathering to Zion, or establishing a “stake of Zion” elsewhere
if it were Zion itself that were threatened. (Alma 21:137 notes that “according
to [the Nephites’] danger” flight could be commanded as well as war. No doubt
Smith felt that this was true for his people as well.) Flight and deliverance,
as Bushman has noted is a common theme in the Book of Mormon. (Richard L. Bushman,
“The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution,” Brigham Young University Studies
17 [Autumn 1976]: 8) Although the book unambiguously affirms that God’s
purposes in history are sometimes achieved at the cost of blood and that it is
better that one person perish than a nation (1 Nephi 1:115) (indeed, the
legitimate price of survival is often clearly more than one), there are limits
to the price to be paid. Hence the reminder for the Saints to recognize the
option of flight, or even of surrender. As D. Michael Quinn has remarked, Smith
had no illusions that the kingdom of God would be served by a suicidal
confrontation. (D. Michael Quinn, “The Mormon Church and the Spanish-American
War: An End to Selective Pacifism,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 17
[Winter 1984]: 3)
It is in this context that we should see Gideon’s advice
to Limhi. Faced with the certainty of an overwhelming Lamanite attack on the
city of Lehi-Nephi, Gideon counsels the king to surrender. “IT is better that
we should be in bondage, than that we should lose our lives,” he urges. “Therefore,
let us put a stop to the shedding of so much blood” (Mosiah 9:134). Lehi’s
people would, in theory, have been justified in continuing to fight “for their
lives, and their wives, and for their children” (v. 119); but it was better
than they choose bondage. As Limhi comes to reflect, God will “according to his
own will and pleasure, deliver [his people] out of bondage” (Mosiah 5:52).
Significantly, when that deliverance came it was by means of Gideon’s
stratagem, and not by force of arms (Mosiah 10:8-16). Probably, when
circumstances permitted, this was the best attitude to take. After all, although
the Saints could be justified in using force against their enemies, the promise
was still given them that “if thou wilt spare him thou shalt be rewarded for
they righteousness” (D. and C. 95:5e-f). Regrettably, circumstances did not
always so permit.
Smith was no second Mohammed, despite his anger in Far
West. The Saints were not called to a holy war unless specifically commanded.
And though they could be justified in taking up arms after suffering several attacks
on their rights, restraint was, if lives were not at risk (and sometimes even
if they were) preferable to war. Finally, no act of resistance justified
self-destruction. In all of this, Smith’s thinking was consistent. (Quinn
argues for a bipolar policy of “selective pacifism,” 11-13) In Far West, to be
sure, he overstepped the lines which he had drawn, but the lines remained and
shaped his thinking in Nauvoo. (Graham St. John Stott, “Just War, Holy War, and
Joseph Smith, Jr.,” in Restoration Studies, Sesquicentennial Edition: A Collection
of Essays About the History, Beliefs, and Practices of the Reorganized Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, ed. Marjorie B. Troeh and Eileen M.
Terril, 4 vols. [Independence, Miss.: 1988], 4:139)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift
card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift
Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
