It is helpful to look, for instance at the work of William Reno http://www.amazon.com/Warlord-Politics-African-States-William/dp/1555878830 and David Keen http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Collusion-Sierra-Leone-David/dp/085255883X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253594057&sr=1-3

Both Keen and Reno show that sometimes warlords avoid ‘winning’ conflicts in the classic Clauswitzian sense, because losing — or remaining in a perpetually unstable stalemate — can be more advantageous politically or economically. For instance, by keeping your constituents constantly insecure, they are less likely to question your rule. Some have argued that the ‘War on Terror’ played this role for the Bush Administration — ‘winning’ the ‘War on Terror’ would have been less useful politically than keeping it at a constantly low level, enabling the electorate to be more easily manipulated by fear.

And vice versa. The potential political costs of winning a war can be demonstrated by the first George Bush or Winston Churchill. Once the war was over, electorates figured a wartime leader was no longer necessary.

That is a long digression, but my point is that Jos. Smith’s seemingly lack of military prowess may actually be an indicator of political prowess. It is possible that by keeping members in a constant state of flux and insecurity, they grew more loyal to him. The scholar (and now Canadian politician) Michael Ignatieff has talked about the tendency for ethnic groups to solidify and become more exclusive “communities of fear” during wartime.

In short, Jos. Smith may not have been an effective military strategist in the classical sense. But the explanatory power of classical military strategy only goes so far when faced with the far more complex politico-military conflict and collusion games that occur in areas of fragmented political authority. In such situations war is less like a football game and more like a game, with three or four teams, players playing for multiple sides simultaneously and referees who make calls according to the highest bidder.

In short, the military mind needed to write the martial narratives the Book of Mormon is not seen anywhere in Smith’s actions, writings, or words.

James E Elliott

I find the parallels you make between African warlordism and Joseph Smith Jr as a warrior prophet interesting. Clearly 19th century America and 21st century Africa can be characterized as societies in serious upheaval politically, socially, economically and even spiritually. Several leaders responded to the need for charismatic figures with the ability to organize their surroundings and with the promise of a better world.

Are followers of charismatic warrior prophets, through their leaders’ messianic ‘theology’, less secure than if they were not part of the movement? Possibly, but there is a tendency for ‘violent’ religious groups like Hamas, the Lord’s Resistance Army and 19th century Mormon militias to provide food, clothing, shelter and health services to dependent populations and members of the group. This in turn gives legitimacy to the ’cause’ and adherence to the movement’s ‘visionary’ leadership. Other structures having failed – this might seem to be the only alternative.

I choose to believe however that in the case of Joseph Smith, and possibly in the case of the other movements as well, violence was not the first attempted strategy for group survival, but external pressures, internal lobbying, and the use of violence when justified by a liberation theology/just war theology, this strategy seems both effective and, without doubt, also empowering. Although many Quakers were converts to Mormonism in its early beginnings, the strategic use of nonviolence in the fight against injustice has only become a viable option in later years – and even then, many oppose it because it appears ineffective or with slow or no results.

It is your father who argued that, ‘What if the Mormons – with all their visionary leadership, their positive Zion-building energy, their organizational and administrative genius, and their opportunity for a frontier haven – had responded from strength with nonviolent love? Would they have failed miserably, losing their lives and their vision? Or would they have transformed the world?’

There is a danger in painting a very dark picture of the early 19th century Mormon movement without appreciating (1) the power of community and economic solidarity that the movement embodied (both through Joseph and Brigham), and (2) the profoundly humane and humanizing attributes of Mormonism and its theology’s imperative to follow the Savior’s example.

Like all religions, there are moral constraints imposed on intolerant and violent behavior, but there is also a danger to fail to admit that an authentic religious precept – a sincere Mormon response to the sacred – may end in subordinating human life to a higher good, albeit either a willingness to die, or a willingness to kill’ (http://mormongandhi.com/2009/09/06/what-if-the-spirit-tells-you-you-should-kill-should-you-obey/).

In that regard, Martin Luther King Jr said: ‘We live in a day and age, where we have the choice between nonviolence and nonexistence’.

Sounds like you think Joseph Smith Jr was a megalomaniac. There are a lot of people who would agree with you and a lot who wouldn’t. It’s a controversial topic as you know. Do you think that the Community of Christ gives too much allegiance to JSJr and want to warn people about that? In the places I have visited I have hardly seen much status given to JSJr. Maybe your experience with the church is different.

What I have always liked about him is that he was willing to risk having an intimate relationship with God, speaking prophetically, and inspiring other people to get to know God in a way that hadn’t been tried before. Of course my theology is quite different from his.

One of the things I like about our church, Matthew, is that people can have diverse things about things. I think that whenever we try to eradicate other peoples’ views, (especially using a divine rationale for doing), so we are on very risky territory, whether that is Joseph trying to stop printing material that disagreed with him, the government silencing opposition, unnecessary violence, or the church telling people what the correct stance on an issue is…likewise, we have to be true to the best of our abilities about how God’s Spirit directs us.

However, I really like the phrase “Warrior Prophet” that you have chosen. A lot of the Bible prophets were warrior prophets, so he is in good company there (Not to mention those in the Book of Mormon).

I was a little concerned that you used seeing angels as evidence of him being mentally disturbed. I’m trained in psychology, so I get the hallucinations/delusions argument that I think you are trying to make, but I certainly hope that you haven’t ruled out angels. Otherwise, the whole aaronic priesthood is out of luck, as they’re given special dispensation to handle angelic ministry.

That said, as Foucault argued, madness is partly a social construction, not simply an objective psychiatric condition (http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/madnessandciv/summary.html). Indeed, people who says things that radically differ from the social norms are often labelled as mad — demonstrated brutally in the former Soviet Union (http://www.amazon.com/Dissidents-Madness-Soviet-Brezhnev-Vladimir/dp/9042025859). Indeed, in ancient Greece, certain kinds of madness were considered divine, as they were creative, mystical and allowed insight into the transcendent that were inaccessible to those stuck in the mundane and rational world. As Socrates said, “The highest goods come to us in the manner of the mania.” (http://books.google.com/books?id=U0_AHDaxqKQC&dq)