Most readers will be familiar with the story of the people of Ammon. Because of Ammon’s missionary work to the Lamanites (and the work of his brothers), many of them were converted. They repented of their war-like ways and buried their weapons of war. They were attacked by other Lamanites but allowed themselves to be killed rather than fight back. They then emigrated to Nephite lands and were protected from further battle by the Nephites. Later, their children fought to help protect the Nephites and became the “stripling warriors.”
At first glance, it appears the Ammonites were clearly pacifists. But this post makes some good points worth considering.
To sum up, the Ammonites may not be considered pacifists because:
1)They allowed the Nephites to protect them through force of arms.
2)They try at one point to take up arms again but are convinced not to by Helaman (see Alma 53).
3)They provided material support to war efforts on their behalf.
4)They never encourage pacifism in others.
5)They never express a coherent anti-war philosophy.
It is important to note that in our day pacifism is a well-developed philosophy that rejects violence in all cases. This post states the following:
The best place to begin an analysis of pacifism is with the absolutist argument that all forms of violence, war, and/or killing are unconditionally wrong. The proposed ideal is that social intercourse should be completely non-violent and peaceful, and conflicts which may arise should be dealt with through arbitration and compromise rather than with recourse to violent means. Absolutist pacifism asserts that peace is intrinsically a good to be upheld either as a duty or on the consequentialist grounds that it is more conducive to human welfare than any use of violence or force.
I would argue that studying the philosophy of pacifism has gained urgency since the Vietnam War because of the many people who have claimed conscientious objector status to avoid military service. You may or may not know that there have been a surprising number of conscientious objectors to recent U.S. wars. A lot of people in society these days spend time discussing just war theory and pacifism.
People who have felt the Spirit strongly can imagine the feelings of the Ammonites. I have been touched by the Spirit in ways that have made me feel nothing but love for those around me. I cannot imagine arguing with other people, much less fighting with them. When I feel the Spirit in this way, my entire being rejects the idea of conflict.
The people of Ammon felt something like this, ie, a complete feeling of love for those around them and a rejection of conflict. They simply could not imagine taking up arms again. This other-worldly feeling is difficult to explain in worldly terms. And so, you can easily understand how they would allow themselves to be protected by others. The Ammonites probably understood the necessity of self defense but could not bring themselves to fight because of their spiritual experiences.
Is this the same thing as pacifism? Probably not. Pacifism appears to be an intellectual enterprise, whereas the Ammonites were infused with the Spirit. So, it is probably correct to say they were not technically pacifists.
It is a wonderful thing to imagine a world where all people are like the Ammonites. I imagine the Millennium being something like that, and this is the reason so many of us look forward to the second coming of the Savior.
In the meantime, I believe thinking about how we should respond to potential violence is a necessary endeavor. In general, I believe in the golden rule and I really try to treat other people like I would like to be treated. But I also believe in self-defense. If somebody were to attack me or my family, I would defend myself and them, using violence if necessary and appropriate. I would also defend my country if the U.S. is directly attacked. But I reject most of the recent wars in which the United States has recently been involved. I do not believe these wars were about defending the United States or our vital interests. By the way, I think these views are completely in line with the just wars described in the Book of Mormon. Just wars are defensive wars, not aggressive wars.
Others may disagree. One of the many great things about the Book of Mormon is that it encourages readers to consider the actions of the various battling groups and to consider how Satan reigns with blood and horror on the Earth, stirring up people to fight unto extinction in some cases. Reading about the near destruction of the Nephites and the Jaredites, you can see that the massive wars portray people with a complete absence of the Spirit. They are in many ways the exact opposite of the Ammonites, who appear to be filled with the Spirit.
So, the people of Ammon may not technically be pacifists, but they are certainly worth studying and considering. How can we apply the lessons they learned to our own lives?
New Post: Were the Ammonites pacifists?: Most readers will be familiar with the story of the peo… https://t.co/pmKgTPdxuq #LDS #Mormon
TheMillennialStar: Were the Ammonites pacifists? https://t.co/yfTlFhTJBJ #lds #mormon
The original, full article (I think) was published at interpreter:
http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-ammonites-were-not-pacifists/
The comments brought some interesting points: since the Lamanites likely had a culture of killing Nephites for sport (sort of), then the people of Ammon had likely done that and their oath was actually in repentance of committing such evil. Their pacifism was due to their oath rather than necessarily being led by the Spirit, which seems to have led their sons to join the war effort.
I have recently come across the concept of using ‘hyperactive nonviolence’ in our interactions with people around us (including enemies) and find it very interesting to ponder. This article, written by a friend of mine, Shiloh Logan, covers the concept well and is, in my opinion, well worth the time to read: http://www.ldsliberty.org/a-brief-look-at-violence-and-nonviolence-in-the-book-of-mormon/
My theory is that the Ammonites were addicted to killing. Lamoni, for example, killed servants simply for losing his sheep. The only way they could overcome their addiction was to remove the temptation to kill the same way a drug addict or alcoholic needs to get rid of temptations that can snag them again. When you view their actions through the lens of addiction, it makes a lot of sense.
Good comments so far. Thanks.
I don’t know that secular terms such as “pacifist” really work within the framework of the Celestial sphere. The same being who bears the title (among others) Prince of Peace is also He who commanded Joshua to lay waste to Jericho, once the walls came down. The Savior also cleansed the temple with a whip. There is more nuance, and a higher order, than which is allowed through the idea of what we view as pacifism.
From my perspective they were willing to die, because the risk of potentially relapsing/being unable to live their covenants, after defending themselves (which was most likely going to require killing), was too great. They knew themselves enough to fear God more than the burn and sting of the blade.
With the events that followed, it most assuredly doesn’t bode well for the case of “pacifism”.
There was a good article by the same author in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies as well: http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/jbms/18/1/S00005-507464a384ac7Boyce.pdf
I haven’t read the newest article at the Interpreter to see what differences there might be. But I did enjoy the article above. I also had a chance to review his book, Even Unto Bloodshed”, which I found to be excellent and far more substantive and convincing than much of the discussion out there on the topic: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-vital-resource-for-understanding-lds-perspectives-on-war/
Those converted by Alma and Amulek among the Zoramites were given refuge in Jershon where the Ammonites lived. When the wealthy Zoramites allied with Lamanites to invade Jershon the Ammonites took shelter in Melek and depended on The exiled Zoramites to defend them by force of arms. That is an action inconsistent with classical pacifism.