Episode 18 // Weapons of Peace: Lessons from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies with David Pulsipher

Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts or watch on YouTube. 

In this episode of the Proclaim Peace Podcast, hosts Jennifer Thomas and Patrick Mason are re-joined by professor David Pulsipher to explore the principles of peacemaking as taught in the Book of Mormon, with a special focus on two remarkable examples: Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace, and the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. They discuss the significance of nonviolent peace builders throughout history, including figures like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, while emphasizing the unique lessons learned from the Anti-Nephi-Lehies' story. Tune in as they delve into the scriptures to highlight how these narratives can inspire and guide individuals on their own peacemaking journeys.

Timestamps

[00:01:27] Anti-Nephi-Lehies as peace models.

[00:04:51] Multi-generational effects of peace.

[00:10:34] Defining peace through conflict transformation.

[00:11:36] Love transforms wartime conflict.

[00:17:36] Anti-Nephi-Lehies’ transformative story.

[00:19:12] Conversion and peacemaking among Anti-Nephi-Lehies.

[00:24:26] Flipping the script on conflict.

[00:27:32] Christian pacifism vs. covenant making.

[00:31:15] Weapons of peace.

[00:34:24] Armed with love and prayer.

[00:39:05] Spiritual victory in conflict.

[00:42:56] Creative peacemaking solutions.

[00:48:00] Nonviolence in resisting evil.

[00:50:22] Higher way to defend.

[00:55:05] Finding peace through Christ.

TRANSCRIPT:

(00:03-00:06) Jennifer Thomas: Welcome to the Proclaim Peace Podcast. I'm Jennifer Thomas.
(00:06-00:16) Patrick Mason: And I'm Patrick Mason. And this is the podcast where we apply principles of the gospel and read the Book of Mormon to become better peacemakers. Jen, how are you doing?

(00:16-00:19) Jennifer Thomas: I'm doing great, Patrick. Good morning.

(00:19-00:54) Patrick Mason: Good morning to you. I'm excited about every episode we do. They're all great. They're all highlight. It's like children, right? We love all of our children. But I've been looking forward to this one ever since we decided to focus our conversations this season on the Book of Mormon and what it teaches us about peacemaking. And in my mind, the Book of Mormon has so many amazing stories, but it really gives us two absolutely sterling examples of peacemakers. Obviously, Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace himself, but then also this amazing story of the anti-Nephi-Lehies.

(00:54-01:38) Jennifer Thomas: Yeah, I think as you start to become a person oriented towards peace, you want and desire to learn about nonviolent peace builders. And there are those that we can name just from our own most recent history, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi. Obviously, as Christian peacemakers, we orient mostly towards Christ. And there are certainly many other people that we could talk about. But I know that for me, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, greatest blessings of my peacemaking journey has been learning about really delving deeply, I guess, into the anti-Nephi-Lehi's because I think their story is about as good a model of the principle of nonviolence as you can find pretty much anywhere else in history. I think it's exemplary. It's a standout.

(01:39-02:55) Patrick Mason: Yeah, I totally agree. And so what we want to do in this episode is not only tell the story of the anti-Nephi-Lehites, kind of walk through the scriptures and dive deep into maybe some things that we typically miss, but also talk about ways that people interpret the story. Because scripture is always open to lots of different interpretations, and people have read the stories in different ways. And that's totally fine, right? I mean, there's lots of different and valid interpretations of scripture. But I think one of the things that really occurs to me in my study of the Book of Mormon is just how central this story is in the Book of Mormon. Partly, I mean that, like, literally. So some scholars have pointed out that, like, literally this story, if you were to crack open the Book of Mormon, like, to its exact middle, this story is basically right there. It is right at the heart of the book. Now, is that intentional? Is it accidental? You know, I don't know about that, but it is sort of interesting about it. But I also think it's not just the placement of the story in the book. But it's the way that later prophets keep talking about the story and coming back to it, maybe in some surprising ways that we don't often think about.

(02:55-04:39) Jennifer Thomas: Well, and it seems like it might have been the opportunity when this whole civilization had been given the vision of a different path. And so it's the question of which one they took, right? And that presents to us the opportunity to also choose. Just as you were referring back to prophets that refer back to this story, I think one of the ones that's most critical is the prophecies that Samuel the Lamanite offers to the church, telling them the narrative. of what's going to happen to them in the future. And you might have missed it, but he specifically refers to the anti-Nephi-Lehies. In Helaman 15, he's talking about the converted Lamanites, and he praises them. And I'm going to read this directly, because I think it's important. He says, you know also that they, the Lamanites, have buried their weapons of war, and they fear to take them up, lest by any means they should sin. yea ye can see that they fear to sin for behold they will suffer themselves that they be trodden down and slain by their enemies and will not lift their swords against them and this because of their faith in God. So he's talking about that in the present tense right and he says because of this faith Samuel says the Lord shall bless them and prolong their days notwithstanding their iniquities. So in other words, I think what he's saying is that one of the reasons that the Lamanites were ultimately preserved when the Nephites were not, even though both peoples were really horribly wicked by the end of the Book of Mormon, is because we see that there was some sort of residual effect of the anti-Nephi-Lehi's faith, that it was such a tremendous act of alignment with the way the Savior would have us act that that carried sort of a beneficent effect through the end of their civilization.

(04:40-05:07) Patrick Mason: Yeah, that's so incredible. I mean, I think about section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants, where the Lord tells us to renounce war and proclaim peace. That's where the title of this podcast comes from. And the Lord talks about the multi-generational effects of either violence or peacemaking. Like it will redound through the centuries, the choices that you make. So we might expect Samuel to point this out, right? Our main Lamanite prophet, right? Say, hey, remember those other Lamanites?

(05:07-05:08) Jennifer Thomas: Fairly recent history, right?

(05:09-06:34) Patrick Mason: Yeah, exactly. But I'm also struck by somebody praising the anti-Nephi-Lehites that we might not expect. And I go here to Mormon chapter 7. This is actually Mormon's final sermon, literally his last words before he hands the plates over to his son Moroni. In universities, oftentimes we talk about a last lecture, like the last thing that a professor might say. with all of their accumulated wisdom over the years. And so here, you know, Mormon has been not only editing this record and reviewing it, so he knows all of these stories. He's told all of these stories, right? But he's also spent his entire life as a general. And so after these hundreds of pages that he's edited, what is his last lecture? What is his last message that he wants to leave with the people? And this is what he says in Mormon chapter seven. First, know ye that ye must come unto repentance or ye cannot be saved. believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the son of God, and he is brought to pass the redemption of the world. So like, believe in Jesus, right? I think we can all kind of rally around that, right? It would be a last message I would have, yes. That's a pretty good one. But after that, then he has one other major piece of advice. And he says, know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you.

(06:35-07:29) Jennifer Thomas: Well, and again, so we have to consider who's writing this, right? This is a military prophet, right? He spent his entire life as a general raging the war against the Lamanites. And he probably named his own son after Captain Moroni. And in his final thoughts, it's not Captain Moroni or Teancum or any of the other great Nephite generals on his mind. It's the anti-Nephite Lehi's. And I think that just is, again, this reminder to us that he's looking back and seeing this moment when there was just like a transcendent alignment with the way the Savior had called people to behave and they did it. And he's seeing the long downstream effects of what happens when people chose not to align themselves with that message but kind of justify constantly doing something else. Something else was more expedient. Violence solved the problem better. And he's seeing what happened because of that. Don't do this, right?

(07:30-07:35) Patrick Mason: Exactly. I hear not only advice, but also a kind of lament. Like, what if we had followed this advice?

(07:35-07:43) Jennifer Thomas: Exactly. Yeah. Right. There was a different option. And writing to us now, he's saying there is a different option, right?

(07:43-08:42) Patrick Mason: Yeah. Well, and that's exactly what his son will say right after that. It's like, learn to be more wise than we've been. Like, learn from our mistakes. The whole point of the Book of Mormon is not just to do what they did. Sometimes we are supposed to, right? There are lots of heroic examples in the Book of Mormon, but sometimes it's, no, learn from our mistakes and do better. So we want to dive more into this story, and we wanted to bring on a special guest who I think, you know, he's spent years and years studying this subject, maybe more than anybody that I know. And this is actually our first return guest to the podcast. He appeared way back on episode four, so go back and check that out. It's a great episode about Nephi and the Sword of Laban. But we couldn't think of anybody we'd rather talk to about the anti-Nifa Lehighs than David Pulsifer. And before I introduce him, just one note to our listeners, especially those who are watching on YouTube. We had some, shall we say, technical difficulties in recording this episode.

(08:42-08:43) Jennifer Thomas: It was fantastic. It was epic.

(08:45-10:01) Patrick Mason: David.  We're  so  happy  to  have  you.

(10:01-10:05) David Pulsipher:

(10:05-10:13) Patrick Mason: Okay, so you know the drill here. You know how we start each of these conversations, but we want to give you another go at it.

(10:13-10:15) Jennifer Thomas: We always ask… We didn't like your first answer.

(10:15-10:24) Patrick Mason: Sorry. It was so great. We wanted to hear another variation on it. How do you think about and how do you define peace?

(10:24-11:25) David Pulsipher: Well, I can't actually remember what I said last time. I have a policy never to go back and listen to myself on anything. So I think the way that I would say that I define peace right now is kind of counterintuitive to most people. I don't define peace as the absence of conflict. I define peace as conflict that has been transformed through love. And so I guess another way to put that is to say that all relationships have conflict. There's no way to avoid conflict. Therefore, peace is not the absence of conflict anyway, but it's a conflict that's being engaged in and through and informed by and infused with love. So maybe another way of saying it is relationships built and organized around the principles of love. And that can be individual or it can be community. So when there's love in the relationship, then we have peace.

(11:25-12:16) Jennifer Thomas: So I'm going to assume that you set yourself up for this episode because that is an absolutely beautiful way to begin the conversation that we're about to have about the anti-Nephi-Lehies. I cannot imagine, again, a better way to think about what happened there was that than the fact that it was a wartime conflict that was completely transformed by love, was transformed by, in this case, the love of the Savior and a desire to do things differently. I know that you've been thinking and writing about this passage of Scripture for many years, and I think as members of the Church, sometimes we kind of glide over it, it's very moving, it touches us, but we might not really engage with and think about the repercussions of it. So I'm wondering if you could kind of share with us what about this passage of Scripture has just grabbed you and made you willing to sort of wrestle with it over the years?

(12:17-15:04) David Pulsipher: Well, it's been a story that has always been one of my favorites in the Book of Mormon. I didn't really have the vocabulary or the concepts to be able to articulate what it was about the story that was so powerful. I just think part of it is just such an unusual story. You just don't find anything like it in most places. And in fact, I thought of it as kind of a really anomalous narrative and story until I started teaching here and began teaching U.S. history, the second half of U.S. history in particular. I had studied American studies at the University of Minnesota, had been, had loved my experience there, but had been wondering about principles, philosophies, theories, academic theories that would help explain things like selflessness and altruism and I hadn't been able to find very much in my program but as I was teaching the civil rights movement really for the first time really kind of paying attention to it. I think everybody knows you learn more when you teach than than when you're just a student. So I'm sure that this had been presented to me before as a student, but as I'm trying to help make sense of it to my students, and I'm watching what's happening as I'm watching documentaries to show to my students, I'm watching the These brave, incredibly brave and religiously motivated people go out and put themselves in the line of fire, of fire hoses and cattle prods and dogs and so on. The thing that immediately came to my mind was the anti-Nephi-Lehi's and I began seeing what they were doing as very analogous to that story and then when I heard Martin Luther King declare that what they were using was the weapon of love suddenly the light started to go on. There was a connection between the scriptural story and historical events in the United States that really awakened in me a desire to figure out what was going on here and why was it producing the real results that it was producing. In both cases, very similar kinds of results. So that began a kind of lifelong, well, not lifelong, but 20-year journey now of trying to understand the dynamics of love, an assertive kind of love, or the weapon of love, as Martin Luther King and Gandhi and others called it as well.

(15:04-15:54) Patrick Mason: And I love the way that you frame that, that you knew this story for a long time, right? It wasn't that you just stumbled upon it for the first time just 20 years ago. You probably grew up reading it. You'd heard it many, many times. But it wasn't until later that you came to appreciate it. And I think that's the case oftentimes for us, that we have all these gems in our own tradition, in our own religion, that, of course, part of this just comes with maturity and different life experience that we learn to appreciate other things. But I know, based on conversations we've had before, that you had a kind of particular experience where you came to maybe a new, even better appreciation of this story when you were talking about it at an academic conference a few years ago. Do you mind talking about that experience?

(15:55-18:06) David Pulsipher: Sure, I think you're probably referring to some very early training that I went to in Minnesota. So as I'm beginning to see these parallels, I became interested in learning more about nonviolence theory in particular. And so I signed up for a nonviolence training in Back in Minnesota where I had gone to graduate school, I was really excited to go back to the Twin Cities. It was with an organization called the Fellowship of Reconciliation which had formed in the early days of the First World War as a way of trying to mitigate the chaos and the catastrophe that was enveloping Europe. It was a wonderful training, but I remember just even in my signing up, there was a question by the organizer like, why is a Mormon, as they called me, why is a Mormon interested in this training and why do you want to come? and I told him I'm just interested in these theories and so they let me in. I arrived and had a wonderful experience hanging out with some fantastic Methodists and Presbyterians and others all very religiously motivated in their commitment to nonviolence. The training was fantastic but the second day I was there we had a lunch and we were sitting out on this deck of One of the organizers, the people that were hosting it, and I started sharing the story of the anti-Nephi-Lehi's with the people that were there because it fits so well with many of the principles that we've been talking about. And one of the people I was having lunch with, actually several of the people I was having lunch with, were just floored by the story. And they said, that is an amazing story. You need to get that story told to more people. And I couldn't have agreed more that they couldn't think of anything in their own traditions that matched that kind of story. And they just thought it was phenomenal. So they loved it and wanted to hear more. And so I've made it a commitment to try to get that in front as many people as I can.

(18:07-19:10) Jennifer Thomas: Well, so it's interesting to me that both at the same time that we have in our possession this amazing story as part of the scriptures that talks about people being transformed by love into nonviolent peacemaking, the people outside of our community were themselves surprised that you wanted to even participate in this kind of discussion, right? And I think I really appreciate the way that your work and hopefully the work of this podcast sort of helps us bridge that, right? And to say, hey, we have a robust doctrine of peacemaking and we just kind of need to turn to it. And so one of the things I think we'd love to do right now with you is have you really look at these scriptures. You know, if we can, if people are reading along with us and they want to open to Alma chapters 23 and 24, I think we'd love to have just sort of an open dialogue with you about some of the things that you think people might not really have understood were key elements of this conversion, of this transformation, and then this movement towards peacemaking among the anti-Nephite Lehi's.

(19:12-22:47) David Pulsipher: Yeah, I would love to highlight a few things that I think are really fascinating about this story. Most people are familiar with the story. We've got the sons of Mosiah who go to the land of the Lamanites and of course after a lot of efforts are able to convert thousands of people. The spirit moves in their hearts and they feel to join themselves to the people of God and as part of that process they reject their Lamanite traditions and their history and their kind of the narrative of how the world works and as part of that process they take on a new name. They actually shed the name of Lamanite and take on the name of anti-Nephi-Lehi or anti-Nephi-Lehi's and their king takes on that name himself, the son of the king of the Lamanites and the brother of Lamoni. We could talk a lot about what that name means because nobody really knows, so I'm going to skip over that. I think the thing that is fascinating here is that this causes, as you might imagine with any culture that is a significant portion, including the leaders are rejecting the dominant narrative, this causes a lot of anger. and creates a sense of betrayal by the other Lamanites who have not felt to do this as well and they are so angry and stirred up by Nephite dissenters, Amalekites and Amulonites to wage war against the king and depose him and they begin preparing And for me, one of the most fascinating moments is apparently this is taking some time for them to prepare. It's not just a sudden attack and surprise attack. They have a sense that this is coming. And Ammon and Aaron and the kings, Anti-Nephi-Lehi and his brother Lamoni, they all gather to the land of Ishmael. And for me, one of the most fascinating lines here is, is there in verse 5, they came to the land of Ishmael that they might hold a council with Lamoni and also with his brother anti-Nephi-Lehi what they should do to defend themselves against the Lamanites. Now that word defend is really fascinating and I think some people reading on because they decide that one of the things they're not going to do is they're not going to take up arms against the people that are preparing to come attack them. And some people can assume that they've then chosen not to defend themselves. And I don't think that's what the narrative is saying. They're actually talking about what they should do to defend themselves. What are the methods we are going to use to defend ourselves? Yeah, what are our options? And they reject this one option, but that doesn't mean that they've rejected all the options. And I think that bears out as the story continues, that what they're doing is actually a strategy to defend their families. and to defend themselves against the Lamanites. And so this council is basically starts with option one, the one that everybody jumps to, is immediately dismissed. And because that's the very next line, there was not one soul among all the people who had converted unto the Lord who would take up arms against their brethren. Nay, they would not even make any preparations for war. But that doesn't mean they didn't prepare, again. So it's not that they're not defending, and it's not that they're not preparing. It's just that they're defending and preparing in different ways.

(22:48-23:54) Jennifer Thomas: One of the things that I think what you've just talked about highlights is that when we move into peacemaking, and we do it in a way that sort of negates the worst part of our culture or kind of our tribal behavior, I think we can often expect that some of the biggest pushback and threat can come from people in our tribe or in our group who feel like they are, just like you said, being betrayed or that some opposition is being set up to them. And one of the things that I like, and hopefully we can discuss this more, is this idea that actually the best way to defend themselves against their own tribe was to flip that connectedness on its head, right? The very thing that made the Lamanites so angry, this denial of their culture, this denial of their brotherhood, was the thing that they were able to use as they defended themselves to remind… Almost in that process, they were reminding the Lamanites, hey, we are your brothers, right? We are not going to kill you. And it was this really effective way to respond to the threat that the Lamanites were feeling.

(23:54-27:20) David Pulsipher: I think that's exactly right. They are doing what psychologists call flipping the script, right? That there's a certain script about how things are going to play out and how they should play out and they don't play along with the script and they end up turning the script back on itself. And I love what you were saying. They're taking that sense that they have betrayed their brethren and they're actually reaffirming their connection yeah and they're saying you are our brethren we are your brethren and we see you as our brethren we don't see you as enemies and we and yeah for me that's the the the wonderful thing they decide to do is i mean they decide to bury their weapons of war and of course the way it's framed here by anti-nephi lehi as you know we have We have committed so many sins in the past and we're not going to commit more sin by shedding the blood of our brethren. We're not going to stain our swords with the blood of our brethren. We're going to bury them that they might be bright and so on. And it's very easy to kind of interpret that as then, okay, well that's the motivating factor here. The motivating factor is they just don't want to sin and they've committed so many sins in the past they don't want to go back to that past. But I think one important way to think about this is that could be Alma in his record or it might be Mormon and then later by Ammon, they're framing it in a different way. They're saying that they're doing this out of a motivation of concern for their enemy. So in Mormon's commentary or Alma's commentary, if he's quoting from his record, it says that they did this being in their view a testimony to God and also to man that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man's blood. So there's that kind of sense of not going back. But this they did, vouching and accompanying with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren, they would give up their own lives, and rather than take away from a brother, they would give unto him." I love that phrase. It's the sense that they are as concerned about the fate of their enemies, in fact, maybe even more concerned about the fate of their enemies than they are concerned about their own fate. They're saying, you know, we're good with God. We have reconciled with God. You haven't, and we're more concerned about what's going to happen to you. We don't want to come against you in that moment, right? And then Ammon doesn't frame it at all in terms of really in terms of a fear to sin. Well, I guess he does a little bit, but he says, you know, went later on in chapter 26, we can see the sincerity of their love towards their brethren and towards us, and then rather than sacrifice their lives than even to take the life of their enemy. And they, because of their love towards their brethren. And again, it's the focus here is that I mean, yes, there's a concern about going back to some bad habits, but it seems to be even more driven by a desire to make sure that their enemies are safe and that their enemies are taken care of and that their enemies can feel the love of God in their life in some way. And that's what makes this an extraordinary story, I think.

(27:22-28:51) Patrick Mason: And maybe that helps answer this question, but I'm interested in hearing you talk a little bit more about it. That as there are different interpreters of this story, and people have come at it from different directions, and you know, any story in scripture can be interpreted multiple ways. But some people read this act of burying their weapons, burying their swords, as an act of pacifism. This is just straight up, when you're converted to Jesus, because of this concern that you have for other people, you renounce violence completely and you refuse to do it in any way, shape or form. So they are the great examples of Christian pacifism. Other people have said, no, no, no, it's not that. It's really, this is an act, a remarkable act of covenant making. The sin that had really bothered them, or if it was really dragging them down, was the sin of murder, which is a fairly serious one. But this violence, this enmity that they had, and so burying their weapons was both burying the violence, but really burying the enmity that they had. with the Nephites. And that's what this is about. This is about a new life in Christ. This is about covenant making. This isn't really about pacifism, especially because we see their children, you know, take up arms, you know, down the road and so forth. So how do you think about this? And oftentimes these two positions, you know, people can be a little sharp sometimes in their disagreements with one another. So how do you think about this?

(28:51-31:03) David Pulsipher: Well, I'm not sure why we have to choose. I think that why can't it be both and? Clearly it's motivated and I think you can't read the king anti-Nephi-Lehi's address any other way than we are so grateful to our great God for saving us from who we were and giving us a new life and we don't want to go back to who we were. and we're going to put our sword. So in that sense it's a wonderful story of repentance. It's a wonderful story of covenant making and doing it in a very symbolic way just like baptism and everything else and burying their swords in the earth. And I think that it's an entirely legitimate way to interpret the story and the way that it's often taught in primary, you know, what swords do you need to bury in your life, right? What weapons of war against your God do you need to put? Or against other people. Right, or against other people. I think it's beautiful, but I think it can also be read, and again, I think if we read this within light of the motivations that both Mormon and Ammon ascribe to this, it's out of a sense of love, and that sense of love for their enemies has led them to the idea that because of this love, we can never really raise a sword against them. we can't kill them and in that sense it's pacifist, it's saying we love everyone including our enemies so much that we cannot even imagine using our swords against them and in that sense it is a pacifist statement, maybe not a pacifism in the way that sometimes gets talked about which is they're rejecting war per se, I think what they're rejecting is the idea that they, in their state of transformation and conversion, could now ever do acts of violence against people, including people who are attacking them.

(31:03-31:15) Jennifer Thomas: So I know that you've shared with us that you love the phrase from chapter 24, verse 19, weapons of peace. Why does that resonate with you beyond just the teachings of the Book of Mormon?

(31:15-31:37) David Pulsipher: I guess it's getting at some of the things we've been talking about already, which is, I think it's a mistake. I think it's a writing error. Peace is on Mormon's mind, or whoever's writing this, if it's Alma, and to say that they buried their weapons of peace. Oops, I mean weapons of war for peace.

(31:40-31:43) Patrick Mason: I mean, there's no eraser on gold plates.

(31:43-31:52) Jennifer Thomas: It just reminds me of taking a final exam and you're like, okay, that's wrong, but I'm going to run with that a little bit and just hope no one notices, right? Because I can't go back.

(31:53-34:01) David Pulsipher: Well, it's sort of like Bob Ross. There's a happy accident here, right? I think this is a happy accident. And I have loved this phrase, although I've run into some resistance from some people, even sympathetic people with the word using weapon at all. But I guess part of this goes back to, again, what I said about Martin Luther King, and he talked about the weapon of love, which is a phrase that just seems so kind of paradoxical. How can love be a weapon? I mean, other than, you know, passive-aggressive, you know, you really love me, you'll do this. Kind of, you know, that's not the way, of course, that Martin Luther King and others are using the term. But I love this idea that they buried their weapons of peace Or rather, they buried their weapons of war for peace. And I think there's one way of kind of a creative reading of this is that the correction is not that they buried their weapons of peace, that they actually kept their weapons of peace. Or rather, they buried their weapons of war. So in other words, some weapons are actually retained. And the weapons that they retain are weapons of peace. And the weapons they buried are the ones that are the destructive, violent weapons. But they're going to hold on to some tools. And again, it goes back to this idea that they are planning about how to defend themselves. They are talking with one another, you know, about the preparations that they're going to make for this army that's coming against them. So they retain all of those weapons of peace. So, I mean, you could read it in that way that the correction is not that the phrase is wrong, But the correction is that they didn't bury their weapons of peace. They buried their weapons of war. And then we're going to see next is what weapons of peace they actually kept in their arsenal, so to speak, and what they're going to do with those weapons of peace as they go out onto the battlefield, which is, of course, I think the thing we sometimes forget. And it didn't just sit waiting for people to come and attack them. They actually went out and met as an army would. They went out as an army. and met their attackers on the battlefield.

(34:01-34:17) Patrick Mason: I was going to say, talk about that a little bit more, because this is like the dramatic moment. I guess there's the two. There's the bearing the swords, which is such a great image. But then there's this moment when this Lamanite army, that it says it is intent on destroying them, right? That this is not a friendly parlay.

(34:17-34:24) Jennifer Thomas: Or we're going to take you prisoner and then take you back into the right way, right?

(34:24-34:37) Patrick Mason: Right, right. Yeah, this is an all or nothing type situation. And as you said, their homes, their wives, their children, their faith, everything is on the line here. So what do they do?

(34:37-35:46) David Pulsipher: Well, as they said, they go out and they meet them. They confront them as any other army would. But the weapons they take with them are, I think, twofold. One is explicit and one is implied. If we read it, it says, Now when the people saw that they were coming against them, they went out to meet them and prostrated themselves before them to the earth and began to call on the name of the Lord. And thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them. And so the one explicit weapon of peace that they've taken with them out of the battlefield is prayer, right? They've taken their worship, their sense of their love of God, and they are praying. Now, it doesn't explicitly say what they're praying for, but I have a strong suspicion that what they're praying for is their enemies. And then that's the other weapon they bring with them, is they bring not just their love of God and prayer, but they also bring a love for the people that are coming against them. And they're armed with love and prayer, and that's all.

(35:46-35:50) Patrick Mason: Just like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, right? Pray for your enemies.

(35:50-38:55) David Pulsipher: Exactly. Pray for those who despitefully use you, right? Do good to them that hate you. And that's what they're doing. They're going out and they're meeting. Before the Sermon on the Mount's ever been delivered, they have somehow intuited that this is what they have been called to do. Their conversion is such that they are loving their enemies. I think they, in many ways, are going beyond the teachings. Their transformation is going even beyond the explicit teachings, at least of what we have in the Book of Mormon, of what the missionaries from the Nephites have brought them and they have been so converted that they can now love their enemies in the way that Jesus calls for in the Sermon on the Mount. And the thing that I find so Amazing, and this is the part of the story that really affected the people that I was at the nonviolence training for, is that it works. It transforms their enemies. It protects their families. The people stop the killing. Such beautiful and kind of vivid imagery, right, that that the Lamanites see that they're not going to flee. They're not doing what the script says they should do, which is either run away or fight back. They're doing neither of those. They're standing their ground. They're standing their ground with, well, in this case, they're prostrating their ground. Right, they're now standing. But they're not fleeing, they're not moving. The army has to go through them to get to the community that they're trying to attack. And when they would see that they would not flee from the sword, neither would they turn aside to the right or the left. but they would lie down and perish and praised God even in the very act of perishing of the sword. When they saw this, it says their hearts, many whose hearts had swollen. That idea of this kind of, well, you know, Alma talks about the swelling motions in the breast, right, in chapter 32 of Alma and that this notion that something's happening, it's moving them in a way that they had not anticipated being moved. And then they kind of throw their weapons down almost like they were stung for the murders. It's almost as if the weapons that they had were now like they couldn't hold them anymore. They have to get rid of them. They drop them. And then they come down even as their brethren relying on the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them. They join the very people they were intent on killing. In an instant they have said, we are with you and we are one of you and you are our brethren. and we are your brethren, and we will now die with you instead of trying to kill you." I mean, that's just a phenomenal moment, right?

(38:55-40:23) Jennifer Thomas: One of the things that I love about this particularly is that when these people actually took the Savior at His word, right? When they tried to orient themselves to Him and make the choices that He would make, and like me, suggested the kind of choices that the Savior later preached about on the Servant on the Mount, there is both a temporal and a spiritual victory. And I think so often we can get a temporal victory, we might pray to the Lord, and even if our cause is justified, be victorious over our enemies. But it's rare that in that occasion our enemies suddenly are like, yes, thank you so much for shooting back at me. I feel transformed, right? And so one of the things that is, I think, that is just so amazing to me is they won in both ways. They won in the immediate way. They protected their families. They were able to kind of stop a slaughter and a war. But then they also absolutely won on a spiritual playing field in a transcendent way and changed the hearts of all of the people that they had been praying for, right? The outcome that they had wanted happened. And that is just so, that has always touched me so much because I think sometimes we are willing to settle for an immediate victory without trusting the Lord and going all the way to get the ultimate victory, which is the transformation spiritually. And God is just inviting us saying, don't stop halfway, right? Like, don't be content with what's limited and won't last, but get with me to a place that is transformational.

(40:24-42:33) David Pulsipher: That's so beautifully said, really captures I think what's going on here. And the thing that to me is also beautiful and surprising is that it even works with the people that they don't convert, the people whose hearts are not swollen, the people who are not stung by the murders that they are committing, and yet they cannot because You know, violence requires a good rationalization and a justification. And when people don't fight back, you can't rationalize your violence, even if you kind of want to keep doing it. And so the Amulites and the Amalekites and all the hard-hearted Lamanites that are with them also stop. they also turn around and go back. And so in that sense, they protect the community, not just by converting their enemies, but also by turning back those that they didn't convert, who turn around and walk away from this. And now, of course, they get angry and go off and do horrible things because of that, and again, demonstrates that they weren't fully converted. But some people can look at this and say, but it was a slaughter, 1,005 people that died But if you look at other Book of Mormon battles, ones that Captain Moroni and others were engaged in, this is a really low body count. It may not be the least number of casualties in a war or a struggle. And this is a struggle, right? It's a struggle of love. But it's certainly among the very lowest of the casualty rates. And they do it without losing a single angry, upset person in the process. Nobody dies cursing God that day. Nobody dies cursing anybody that day. The only people who die are those who are praising God and loving their enemy. And so, as Mormon says, we're pretty sure we know where they're going.

(42:35-43:19) Jennifer Thomas: So we're living through a period of pretty significant violence. It's permeated our society and just even now politically, it's often the way we turn to solve problems or we have people in our society that do. And one of the things I'm interested in hearing from you is your thoughts about the fact that this doesn't have to be this way. that there are different ways that we can find solutions to problems. And I think this is what the anti-Nephi-Lehi's are demonstrating for us, not just in the solution, but they are showing us, hey, we can be creative about finding new solutions to problems. We don't have to always revert to the traditions of our fathers. So could you share with us some thoughts about how we can be creative or how we can think in new ways in terms of peacemaking?

(43:19-45:57) David Pulsipher: Yeah, I think, That is such a great question because the anti-Nephi-Lehies, and one of the things they do best for us is they show us possibilities we probably have never imagined. And especially given the ways our cultural narratives work, the cultural narratives in politics, in war, even in family dynamics is a sense that if you don't hit back the way you're being hit, then you're being weak. you're letting people walk all over you, you're not demonstrating any sort of strength that can actually resist the aggression that is happening. And what the anti-Nephi-Lehi's demonstrate for us is there is actually a way that looks in some ways like it's weak, you know, going out and laying down and praying doesn't feel instinctively like a strong response, and yet turns out to be an extraordinarily powerful response in hindsight. And it's something that John Paul Lederach, a great peace scholar, called moral imagination. One of the things that we're lacking as a community is that we jump to kind of the usual narratives, the ruts that we're kind of comfortable in when it comes to conflict and violence. And we can't think in much more creative ways about how we can do this. I think the anti-Nephi-Lehi's just kind of break open this kind of present, if you will, this gift of possibility that there are other ways of thinking about conflict and defending our families and preparing for an onslaught that can be extraordinarily effective. Again, they're not the intuitive things. They're not the things that are, I mean, I don't intuitively think, oh, yeah, I'm going to go love that person who is attacking me. But we can train ourselves in that way. And the Anti-Nephile has just demonstrated that it's kind of the sheer power of conversion can get you to that space. And I think it's rare, but it's so beautiful when it occurs. And it leaves that wonderful glimpse that we don't have to just stick to the same old playbook, to the same old script.

(45:57-46:06) Jennifer Thomas: I think this is something we can and should turn to the spirit also to sort of infuse us with this kind of vision. And if we ask regularly for it, my guess is we'll get it.

(46:07-47:58) Patrick Mason: Well, and I think, and we can turn to history too, right? It's, as you said, you understood this in a new way after studying the civil rights movement or after studying Gandhi and his movement. There are lots of examples of people, especially over the past century, using nonviolence to resist evil, to resist tyranny, to resist violence, and it works. So we have it here scripturally and we have it historically as well. OK, well, David, we've saved maybe the toughest question here towards the end. And I want to be sensitive about this, but I also think it's important that we wrestle with some of the hard questions. And I know that this is a question that you've been asked before. So what are we supposed to do with this story in 2024? Are we supposed to follow it literally? Are we supposed to actually, we've talked about the sort of, you know, the symbolic or analogical ways of talking about bearing our swords, but are we supposed to actually do that? Are we supposed to put down our actual physical weapons? Are Latter-day Saints supposed to put down their weapons and leave the army or leave the police forces? Is this what the Book of Mormon is calling us to do? Lots of people are uncomfortable with that. What about Latter-day Saint Ukrainians? Were they supposed to do what the anti-Nephi-Lehies did and pray and prostrate themselves as Vladimir Putin's tanks rolled into their country? So I think a lot of people love this story. A lot of people want to love this story. But there is this sense that there is real evil, that there is real violence in the world. And can we actually do this? You know, just, yeah, how do you respond to that?

(48:00-52:41) David Pulsipher: It's a fantastic question because it really is the ultimate question of what, is there anything kind of normative about this experience, right? Is there something that's saying we should do it as you were saying? I think the Book of Mormon also helps answer that to some degree. It's going to take a little bit to unpack, but the Book of Mormon tells us that the Nephites were taught that they should defend their families. Now, most people put on the next few words, which is, even unto bloodshed. And that, of course, is a legitimate way of defending families. In Section 98 of the Doctrine and Covenants tells us, that if we wish to defend our families by shedding the blood of the person that's attacking, then that is justified. Of course, and I think we've talked about this. I can't remember if we talked about it on this podcast. I've talked about this a lot. A few times. and written about it, which is that something that's justified doesn't make it necessarily good. It just means that it's actually a bad thing that under certain circumstances is not going to be bad. It's not necessarily good, but it's not bad if that nuance is good enough. But certainly that kind of defense, and we see that with Moroni, we see that with the sons of these anti-Nephi-Lehi's. and Helaman and others and Mormon himself all of which are using justified violence, violence is a bad thing except in certain circumstances when it to defending enemies or defending our families. But I think that even under bloodshed is actually an interesting way of saying that may be one way that you have to defend but that's not the only way. that you can defend and again the anti-Nephi-Lehi's settle on a different way and that imagination is opened up in a different way. So I am reluctant to say that people should do what the anti-Nephi-Lehi's are doing but I think It's certainly always an invitation that there is a, and I would also call it a higher and holier way to defend, which is a defense that focuses as much on the safety and the humanity and the future of the enemy as it is on the family that we're defending. And I don't think that you should sacrifice the defense of the family for the enemy, but that both of them are being held at the same time. And when we get to the level where we can love the person who's trying to hurt us, and of course that's the hard, hard saying of Jesus to love our enemies, that's when it opens up new possibilities. That's when the moral imagination begins to crack open and we begin to see ways that we can do this without killing, without hurting, without maiming. The Ukrainians in some ways in the initial moments of the Russian invasion were doing that. Grandmothers that were going out, you know, and meeting the soldiers that were coming in over the borders and And in many ways, kind of discombobulating the invaders because they weren't being met with what they expected. Now once, you know, the shooting starts, then that's, of course, that's what we expect. But over and over again in Gandhi and King and and the anti Milosevic movement in Serbia and also so many different examples throughout history have demonstrated that when you can think more creatively It actually opens up more possibilities for defense and, interestingly enough, more likelihood of success, as has been demonstrated by some really sophisticated political science research that's been done. When we read this, I don't think, people who say that means that we should do this, I think it should be rather that this is a possibility. and it's something we should, maybe we should at least consider, or if we can get to a space where we can consider it, then we might discover that there are all of these other beautiful alternatives out there.

(52:41-52:58) Patrick Mason: Yeah, and that even if it's not telling us that we must do this, I think what it's pointing to is we shouldn't rule it out, right? That this has to be within the framework of our moral imagination to think about this as a possibility.

(52:58-53:41) Jennifer Thomas: Well, and I think, you know, we frame this, probably unfairly to you, David, as a binary. Like, are we going to go to war and shoot everybody up? Are we going to be anti-Nephi-Lehi's and lay down our weapons? And I like the way that your nuanced answer said, well, regardless of what we feel called to do or feel like we have to do within our society, we will never go wrong if we start from this transformed heart. Even if we do feel like we have to go to war, if we have had a truly transformed heart that cares about the people that we are at war with and is seeking to do the least harm to them while protecting ourselves, my guess is that even in times of war, you would find much more creative solutions to advance your cause that don't just rely on raw slaughter.

(53:42-54:43) David Pulsipher: Yeah, I would agree. And just to piggyback on that and what Patrick had said, I think one of the biggest challenges we have in our society is that we think there's only one answer. And so one of the biggest challenges is not actually to say, abandon violence and adopt this, but to even consider that there is an alternative. Too many people look at things like what the anti-Nephi-Lehi's do and they say it's just impractical, it won't work, we don't even need to consider this as a response. So getting to a place where we can at least leave open that there are these other options would to me be an enormous improvement on our current general Yeah, a general sense of what has to be done and to think that even violence doesn't have to be done. It's one among many options that can be considered.

(54:43-55:05) Patrick Mason: Well, David, this has been so rich. Thank you so much for walking us through this story. And again, I can't think of anybody who's thought more deeper about this. And so thank you for just revealing so much more about this and how we can apply it in our lives. So we want to leave with the same question that we ask all of our guests to leave with. How do you find peace in your life?

(55:05-56:42) David Pulsipher: I've been thinking about that. in preparation for this and thinking, and actually because of some interesting things that have happened this week, as I have thought about not just the piece that occurs kind of in families and in small groups, but this kind of larger piece that occurs. I have found, and this should come as no surprise, and I'm sure almost everybody says some variation of this, But I find peace in Christ, I find peace in the Prince of Peace and this week in particular as my heart has been drawn out and more towards Jesus Christ than maybe ever before. I have found peace and not only within but I have experienced a sense of peace about the world, about the community, about the future. Christ brings hope and with that hope comes a very deep peace about the ultimate trajectory of our culture. of humanity, of where God is ultimately going to lead us as we allow him to. I have a great sense of peace about the future despite all of the challenges that we're facing as a world, and it comes entirely through the Savior.

(56:42-56:47) Jennifer Thomas: Well, I love that so much, and let's just all commit together to do just that and allow him to lead us there.

(56:48-57:12) Patrick Mason: Exactly. Thank you, David. Thanks, everybody, for listening today. We really appreciate it. We just want to invite you to subscribe to the podcast and also to rate and review it. We love hearing feedback from listeners, so please email us at podcast at mweg.org. We also want to invite you to think about ways that you can make peace in your life this week. Thanks for listening, and we'll see you next time.

(57:17-57:32) Jennifer Thomas: Thank you for listening to Proclaim Peace, a proud member of the Faith Matters Podcast Network. Faith Matters holds expansive conversations about the restored gospel to accompany individuals on their journey of faith. You can learn more about Faith Matters and check out our other shows at faithmatters.org.