Tag: Zion

The New Christian Right and the Language of War

This essay explores how rhetoric that divides the world into ‘good’ and ‘bad’—even in defense of faith—risks becoming a form of the very violence it seeks to oppose.

Respect for Charlie Kirk

Due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter I think it’s important to state up front that I have a fond admiration for Charlie Kirk and for how respectably he stood up strong for what he believed in. Of course, this is an opinion I formed of him from others who I admire who were actually his friends, as I never personally followed him or paid much attention to any of his work.

Charlie Kirk supported free speech. I feel like in that spirit he would applaud any discussion on these topics, even if he would disagree with my point of view. I really appreciate the thoughts expressed by Michael Shermer in his commentary, The Assassination of Charlie Kirk: Shermer Reflects on Political Violence. Starting at 26:32 min:

“If you’re not able to articulate your own position enough that the other side can counter it and then you can counter their counter, then you don’t really know your own position. That’s John Stewart Mill’s classic argument – He who knows only his own side of the case hardly knows that. So the value of having the Charlie Kirks of the world engaging with students actually even if they stay liberal or they become more liberal, at least they’ll be rationally liberal. They’ll have arguments, not straw man arguments, but steel man arguments by which I mean they could steel man the conservative position and then if they can refute it how much stronger their position will be… All of us are flawed. The fallibilism assumption is true. We’re all fallible. The only way to find out if you’ve gone off the rails or if you’re wrong is to talk to somebody who disagrees with you, which was what Charlie Kirk did so masterfully.”

Why I Wrote This Article

On Sep 11th, the day after Charlie Kirk was shot, some friends of mine shared a clip of Charlie speaking, where he said:

“[A] Spiritual battle is coming to the West. And the enemies are wokeism or Marxism combining with Islamism, to go after what we call, ‘the American way of life’.
…
The outgrowth of the scriptures gave us Western civilization. And this is where I think is a great rallying cry. Doesn’t matter if you’re Hispanic, doesn’t matter if you’re Asian, doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. Everybody, if you are Christian and Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, these two threats are combining forces to come after us. And it’s time that the church stands and rises up against it.”1

This essay explores how rhetoric that divides the world into ‘good’ and ‘bad’—even in defense of faith—risks becoming a form of the very violence it seeks to oppose.

I Felt Disturbed by Charlie’s Rhetoric

From the perspective of my conservative friends, this rhetoric resonates deeply. I, however, found it troubling—not because I deny that wokeism and Marxism present real threats, or that it doesn’t matter if one is Hispanic or Asian or black or white. I am a Christian and hope to be able to endure all that that sacred title may require of me. I, too, share the longing expressed by Charlie in that brief clip: to build community with fellow Christians in this nation around the principles of liberty. To experience the simple joys of life—marriage, homeownership, raising children, watching them ride their bikes until sunset, and sending them to good schools—all safeguarded by the foundational principles upon which our Constitution was built.

Kirk’s rhetoric unsettled me because it conflicts with principles from Marshall Rosenberg’s Nonviolent Communication (NVC), which I studied extensively (see my previous blog post, Nonviolent Communication and Crucial Conversations.) NVC identifies judgmental language that labels groups as “good” or “bad” as inherently violent, fostering division rather than understanding.

One instructor of the NVC method gives the example of what he called the “John Wayne effect.” In this scenario, if you walk into a bar and meet someone who is a good guy, you buy him a beer. If he’s a bad guy, you either beat him up or shoot him. This kind of programing makes up most of our entertainment, including that intended for children.

“This violence typically constitutes the ‘climax’ of the show. Viewers, having been taught that bad guys deserve to be punished, take pleasure in watching this violence.” (Rosenberg, Marshall. Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life: Life-Changing Tools for Healthy Relationships, p. 17-18)

As with any good skill, the practice of learning to apply the principals of nonviolent communication requires effort. For those of us who seek to invite a true spirit of compassion and understanding into an increasingly divided world, such skills are imperative. I invite the reader to consider learning more about Rosenberg’s model of nonviolent communication.

With these ideas in mind, watch the Charlie Kirk clip above and consider this question: does Charlie identify any “bad guys” in his rhetoric? To the extent that his words suggest judgment or assign blame, this reflects the kind of language that Marshall Rosenberg describes as “violent” in his book.

A New Christian Right

To understand why this rhetoric troubles me, it helps to look at how similar frameworks have appeared across the political spectrum.

Another reason I found this clip disturbing relates to an article published by American Reformer, an online magazine founded in 2021 by Josh Abbotoy and Timon Cline. The publication describes its mission as promoting “a vigorous Christian approach to the cultural challenges of our day,” and it often aligns with post-liberal and Christian nationalist perspectives that critique classical liberalism in favor of a more authoritarian, faith-infused political order.

It’s not an article I would recommend; in fact, I found it rather disheartening. For reference, you can read it here:

The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right

The Hoax

What makes this article noteworthy is that it contains the same kind of rhetoric Charlie uses in the clip I referenced earlier. The key point, however, is that this piece was actually submitted to American Reformer as a hoax by James Lindsay — an atheist author and vocal critic of “woke” ideologies. Lindsay rewrote sections of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ Communist Manifesto (1848), substituting Marxist terms such as “bourgeoisie” and “proletarians” with Christian nationalist equivalents like “liberal establishment” and “true Christian Right.” He retained the original’s rhetorical structure and even adapted its famous opening line to read: “A rising spirit is haunting America: the spirit of a true Christian Right.” The essay, submitted under the pseudonym Marcus Carlson, called for a revolutionary “New Christian Right” to overthrow liberal elites — directly mirroring the Manifesto’s call for proletarian uprising.

The Editors’ Response

American Reformer published the piece on November 13, 2024, titled “The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right”. After Lindsay revealed the hoax on X (formerly Twitter) on December 3, 2024, the editors updated the byline to credit Lindsay explicitly, added a note acknowledging the Marxian origins (“The following article was written by James Lindsay, who, as an avowed atheist, is not eligible for publication in American Reformer“), and kept it online. They described it as an “exploitation of our high-trust approach” but stood by its non-Marxist elements, announcing stricter editorial screening.

The article portrays liberals as an oppressive class suppressing Christian values, urging a “rising Christian Right” to seize power through cultural and political revolution. Lindsay later explained this exposed how “Woke Right” rhetoric adopts Marxist conflict theory (oppressors vs. oppressed) but swaps class struggle for religious-cultural warfare.

Lindsay’s Motivation

Lindsay has long been a vocal critic of “wokeness,” even likening it to a form of religious belief, and has described the Social Justice Movement as his “ideological enemy.” So why is he now targeting what’s being called the “woke right”? Lindsay argues that his goal is to keep conservatism from being hijacked by the same vices it once opposed, such as seeing society as divided into oppressed/oppressor groups and justifying extreme measures to dismantle “unjust” systems.

Though he opposed Donald Trump in the 2016 United States presidential election, Lindsay announced his intention to vote for Trump in the 2020 election, arguing that the danger of “wokeness” is much greater than that of a Trump presidency.

Lindsay considered Charlie Kirk a great friend. Even though he does not believe in God, Lindsay was invited to speak at Turning Point USA more than once because of the importance of his message on the dangers of “wokeness”. (See Lindsay’s interview with Allie Beth Stuckey, around 8 min)

Marxixm on the Left vs Marxism on the Right

In the clip that I started this article with above, Charlie associates wokeism with Marxism. He says:

“[A] spiritual battle is coming to the West. And the enemies are wokeism or Marxism combining with Islamism, to go after what we call, ‘the American way of life’.”

In this, Charlie was not wrong—the threat of wokeism on the left does draw from Marxist ideology. But does responding in kind—by adopting Marxist frameworks or tactics to combat what some perceive as leftist threats—make the approach from the right any less destructive or “violent”?

One of Charlie Kirk’s lasting contributions was his commitment to open debate. I must admit that I have not spent extensive time studying his discussions with college students or his broader body of work. As I write this, it has been three weeks since Charlie’s assassination, and much of my free time since then has been devoted to gathering my thoughts for this reflection, inspired by the brief 1-minute and 15-second clip at the start of this article. Spending additional hours analyzing his debate style would only draw focus away from the core message I hope to convey here.

If what we celebrate in Charlie’s work is his commitment to open, constructive, and nonviolent dialogue, then let this example remind us of the same. As we engage in difficult conversations, may we do so with the intent to foster understanding and kindness—even toward those with whom we profoundly disagree.

Consider one simple example. I recently came across this meme on my Facebook feed, and it left me feeling agitated:

“When George Floyd died they burned down cities.
When Charlie Kirk died we host vigils.
We are not the same.”

Ask yourself—does this kind of rhetoric promote nonviolence and compassion, or does it instead fuel the dangerous fire of polarization and hostility? If we truly desire peace, how can we learn to discourage, rather than feed, the language of violence?

Mark Jurgensmeyer explored how religion and violence seems to be so often linked together in his book Terror in the Mind of God. He notes:

“What puzzles me is not why bad things are done by bad people, but rather why bad things are done by people who otherwise appear to be good – in cases of religious terrorism, by pious people dedicated to a moral vision of the world.” (Terror in the Mind of God. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003, p. 7.)

It is no less violent when Marxist tactics are used to turn the right against the left than when those same tactics are used to turn the left against the right.

As Christians, I believe we are called to do better.

Joseph Smith gave sound counsel when he said:

“If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven, and if you will follow the revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours—for charity covereth a multitude of sins.” (History of the Church, 4:445)

Satan’s accusations against us are not said to be unwarranted or unsupported. He is not necessarily accusing his victims unjustly. If any of us were measured against an absolute standard of obedience, faithfulness, or virtue, we would all necessarily fail. Satan does not need to use an unfair standard to accuse and condemn us. (all have sinned and fall short – Rom 3:23)

When we take it upon ourselves to condemn others, we risk mirroring the spirit of accusation rather than Christ’s call to forgiveness. What Christ has asked us to do is forgive, or as Joseph put it, not to accuse each other.

Doesn’t The Book of Mormon Contain a Lot of Violence?

The Book of Mormon comes into this era with the longest and most robust scriptural treatment of violence of any other scriptural record, including the Koran. The numerous “war chapters” of the Book of Mormon provide us with greater instruction on this subject than any other single source of God’s word on violence.

If Christ’s message is one of peace and forgiveness, why does the Book of Mormon—which claims to be a special witness of Christ—contain so much violence? Moroni answers this question by giving us this chilling warning:

“Any nation that upholds such secret conspiracies, to get power and wealth, until they spread throughout the nation, will be destroyed. … Therefore, you Gentiles, it’s God’s wisdom for you to be shown these things, so you’ll repent of your sins and not allow these murderous conspiracies, that are always set up for power and money, to control you, so that you won’t provoke your own destruction. Indeed, the sword of the justice of the Eternal God will fall upon you, to your ruin and destruction, if you allow these things to continue. Therefore the Lord commands you, when you see these things come among you, to wake up to a sense of your awful situation because of this secret society that’s come into existence among you. Woe to this conspiracy on account of the blood of those who have been killed; they cry out from the dust for vengeance upon it, and upon those who make and support it.” (Ether 3:18, Covenant of Christ Edition)

Marxism in the Book of Mormon?

In the Book of Mormon we read an account of a city that was completely destroyed by Lamanites in a single day. “[I]n the eleventh year of reign of judges… on the fifth day of second month”, the city of Ammonihah is destroyed by Lamanites. (Alma 16:1-2). These Lamanites were mostly Amlicites and Amulonites2 who were after the order of Nehor (Alma 21:4). The people of the city of Ammonihah were also after the order of Nehor (Alma 16:11).

For those familiar with the story, it is interesting to note that the native Lamanites who were killing the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi end up joining the people of God (Alma 24:25-26), but the Amlicites and Amulonites, who were native Nephites that had rejected Christ, end up destroying those of their own Nehor belief in Ammonihah.

Nehor is introduced in Alma 1. He advocated priestcraft, where priests should be paid and supported by the people rather than laboring for themselves (Alma 1:3). He taught that all will be saved, denying the need for repentance, which contradicts the Nephite prophets’ teachings about Christ’s atonement and accountability (Alma 1:4). When he was confronted by Gideon who stood up against his teachings, Nehor attempted to enforce his teachings through violence by killing Gideon with the sword (Alma 1:9).

Nehor’s brief but impactful presence establishes a pattern of apostasy and priestcraft that challenges Nephite society throughout the Book of Alma.

I wouldn’t argue that the teachings of Nehor can necessarily be classified as Marxist. However, in the context of this article, it’s worth noting that both Nehor’s teachings and Marxism share a similar tendency: they divide people into opposing groups and set them against one another. Throughout the Book of Alma, the followers of Nehor repeatedly attempt to impose their beliefs through both violent language and violent acts.

Can We Make Room for Faith and Nonviolence?

In my personal journal from an entry in Aug of 2020, I confided in a co-worker with this lament:

“Am I being too idealistic? Since the beginning of this world, all the major prophesies point to us in our day. We are physically living in the time where Zion is supposed to come before the end of all things, and here we sit – where Enoch and Melchizedek had the faith to stop the mouths of lions, quench the violence of fire, have the dead restored back to life, etc. – and we are relying on the 2nd Amendment and our guns to save us?”

The violence of today is another sign along the downward trek into corruption that will mirror the days of Noah (Matt 24:37-39). It will eventually become more widespread. So much so that there will be a single place, alone and apart from the anger and corruption that leads to violence:

“And it shall come to pass among the wicked that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety, and there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven, and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.” (D&C 45:68-69)

If Charlie Kirk’s legacy is one of bold conviction, may ours be one of courageous compassion — the willingness to confront division without replicating its violence.

  1. The source of the video short clip is an X (formerly Twitter) post by Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) from August 13, 2025 (Post ID: 1955752635971330419). The full speech is from a Turning Point USA Faith “Freedom Night” live event on August 13, 2025. ↩︎
  2. The book of Mormon identifies the two groups as “Amalekites and the Amulonites.” (see Alma 21:4 and 24:1). Royal Skousen argues in his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon (Part Three, pp. 1605–1609) that the Amalekites referenced later in the Book of Alma (e.g., Alma 21:2–3) were the same group as the Amlicites (followers of the Nephite dissenter Amlici from Alma 2–3), with the difference arising from scribal spelling inconsistencies in the original and printer’s manuscripts. I adopt Skousen’s view. ↩︎

Zion’s Camp: Part 2

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction?

If we are to make sense of the events surrounding Zion’s camp, we need to understand the parable given in D&C 101:44-62.

According to the account in Matthew, the reason the Lord taught in parables was because the people were not open to truth in its plainness (see Matt 13:10-17). Therefore, that the saints were given this parable can be seen as an indication of the stiffneckedness of the people to whom the parable was given. In the account in Matthew, the disciples were blessed with an explanation of the parable of the sower by the Lord. Fortunately for us, the Lord has also give a few keys to help us interpret meaning from this parable of the nobleman in D&C 101.

Keys to Understanding the Parable of the Nobleman

In this parable we read of a tower that was commanded to be built, watchmen to be set round about olive trees in the vineyard, as well as a watchman upon the tower. The parable also speaks of one servant to whom additional commandments were given.  In D&C 97:20 we are given a definition of who the tower represents:

And he hath sworn by the power of his might to be her salvation and her high tower.

Later, in D&C 103:21, we are told plainly that Joseph Smith is the servant in the parable. By this I think it is safe to infer that he is also the watchman who was to be on the tower.

Additionally, in verse 12, before we arrive at the parable itself, we read:

And in that day all who are found upon the watch-tower, or in other words, all mine Israel, shall be saved.

Here we have “all who are found upon the watch-tower” equated with “all mine Israel“. It is apparent that the intent is that there be more than one watchman upon the tower.

Remember the account of Eldad and Medad:

And there ran a young man, and told Moses, and said, Eldad and Medad do prophesy in the camp. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of Moses, one of his young men, answered and said, My lord Moses, forbid them. And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them!

(Num 11:27-29)

That “all mine Israel” are to be found upon the watch-tower should remind us of the day referred to by Jeremiah:

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them

(Jeremiah 31:33-34)

Parable of the Nobleman

Now I would like to take a look at the parable, starting at verse 43:

And now, I will show unto you a parable, that you may know my will concerning the redemption of Zion.

A certain nobleman had a spot of land, very choice; and he said unto his servants: Go ye unto my vineyard, even upon this very choice piece of land, and plant twelve olive trees; And set watchmen round about them, and build a tower, that one may overlook the land round about, to be a watchman upon the tower, that mine olive trees may not be broken down when the enemy shall come to spoil and take upon themselves the fruit of my vineyard.

Now, the servants of the nobleman went and did as their lord commanded them, and planted the olive trees, and built a hedge round about, and set watchmen, and began to build a tower. And while they were yet laying the foundation thereof, they began to say among themselves: And what need hath my lord of this tower? And consulted for a long time, saying among themselves: What need hath my lord of this tower, seeing this is a time of peace? Might not this money be given to the exchangers? For there is no need of these things. (v. 44-49)

Here take note how these servants twist words from an earlier parable to justify their neglect to do what has been asked of them. In the parable of the talents (found in Matthew 25:24-30), it was the Lord who told the slothful servant he should have put his money to the exchangers. Here, in this parable of the nobleman however, these slothful servants justify their actions by quoting something the Lord said in the earlier parable. Does quoting the Lord or using scripture to justify wrong actions make one any less slothful of a servant? It is obedience to the Lord only that matters.

Also take note how the reference to “seeing this is a time of peace” relates to the words earlier in this revelation, “In the day of their peace they esteemed lightly my counsel” (v. 8).

And while they were at variance one with another they became very slothful, and they hearkened not unto the commandments of their lord. (v. 50)

Again, note how these words relate to what we read earlier in this revelation, “there were jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires among them; therefore by these things they polluted their inheritances.” (v. 6)

And the enemy came by night, and broke down the hedge; and the servants of the nobleman arose and were affrighted, and fled; and the enemy destroyed their works, and broke down the olive trees. (v. 51)

What is the significance that “the enemy came by night“? Why does the Lord come “as a thief in the night?” (1 Thes 5:2) What is it about night that we need to be aware of as it relates to being ready for when the enemy or the Lord appears?

Now, behold, the nobleman, the lord of the vineyard, called upon his servants, and said unto them, Why! what is the cause of this great evil? Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you? (v. 52-53)

“… and not have fallen asleep” What’s wrong with falling asleep? Should we not sleep? Isn’t needed rest and sleep a good thing? What is it about being “watchful” that suggests we be willing and ready at a moment’s notice to be inconvenienced in our sleeping hours to “awake and arise”?

And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer.

And the lord of the vineyard said unto one of his servants: Go and gather together the residue of my servants, and take all the strength of mine house, which are my warriors, my young men, and they that are of middle age also among all my servants, who are the strength of mine house, save those only whom I have appointed to tarry; And go ye straightway unto the land of my vineyard, and redeem my vineyard; for it is mine; I have bought it with money. Therefore, get ye straightway unto my land; break down the walls of mine enemies; throw down their tower, and scatter their watchmen. And inasmuch as they gather together against you, avenge me of mine enemies, that by and by I may come with the residue of mine house and possess the land. (v. 54-58)

If Christ is the tower of our vineyard, and Joseph Smith is the watchman there, then what is the enemy’s tower and who/what are their watchmen?

If the enemy’s tower is the devil or the devil’s kingdom, then how do you throw that down?

It is a misnomer to speak of the “kingdom of the devil,” because the description presumes something more organized than is the case. It is difficult to organize when fear, hatred, and anger are the primary motivations. Love is a far more cohesive, creative, and loyalty-producing motivation. All that Satan does is designed to destroy itself, as well as all those who follow him.

Satan’s aim is to cause division and create contention and anger and keep us in fear. So how do you scatter those watchmen and break down that tower? Can you do it with the same tools of anger, accusation, and contention that Satan uses? Will that work?

What if the tools you employ included persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, and love unfeigned? (see D&C 121:41-42) Could that be effective in breaking down the enemy’s tower?

How would having a prophet on the tower help the situation? Do messengers of God shed light on things? Do they reveal the truth? What affect does that have on lies and deceit?

When truth is revealed, and people turn their attention to it, then what is untrue dissolves. Then that kingdom simply fades, it can’t stand, because you’ve revealed its motive. You’ve shown it for what it is, and when people see that and recognize it, and respond to the truth of it, then it just goes away. Darkness flees from light, not the other way around.

So how does this approach relate to the call for Zion’s camp to arm themselves and march forth to rescue their bretheren in Missouri?

It’s interesting to me God’s use of aggressive language in this parable. Why has God illustrated these things using vocabulary that conjures up imagery of war and destruction? Will God give us what we ask for? (See D&C 50:29-30)

Recall that by virtue of the fact that these teachings are being presented in the form of a parable is an indication of the stiffneckdness of those to whom it is being given. Take a look at the Lord’s explanation:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

(Matt 13:10-15)

Consider the example of John Whitmer’s response to what is now section 84:

Some readers may have missed the implications of the priesthood revelation. John Whitmer was most excited by the verse warning Boston, New York, and Albany of coming desolation. Those verses reflected the millenarian thinking of the gathering to Zion and constructing the New Jerusalem, which had occupied the Saints for the last two years. The part about “exaltation” – the preparation to stand in God’s presence and commune with Him – did not register with Whitmer. Eager as the Saints were for spiritual gifts, not all were ready for the mysticism of the priesthood revelation.

Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 204-205

Continuing with the parable:

And the servant said unto his lord: When shall these things be? And he said unto his servant: When I will; go ye straightway, and do all things whatsoever I have commanded you; And this shall be my seal and blessing upon you—a faithful and wise steward in the midst of mine house, a ruler in my kingdom. And his servant went straightway, and did all things whatsoever his lord commanded him; and after many days all things were fulfilled. (v. 59-62)

In a scriptural sense, a ruler is a teacher of truth. We were spirits before we were born. We were all there when some were chosen to be rulers, or in other words, teachers. (see Abraham 3:22-28). To rule is to be responsible to teach all those in one’s dominion. A ruler is a teacher responsible for instructing others (see 1 Nephi 2:22).

If, on the other hand, we view the term “ruler” in a modern day gentile sense, we get an image of one who rules with a fierce strong hand, tearing down walls, taking the offensive, and aggressively conquering an enemy.

If you are more like John Whitmer, focused on the condemnation of New York over the beauty and light of exaltation … if that’s the mindset from which you approach things, then this parable has all the elements in it that would justify an aggressive offensive approach.

In fact we see this was the case for some, in response to the revelation disbanding the camp:

Others protested, feeling that it denied them a chance to do more for the Missouri Saints. A few people were angry and ashamed that they had to return home without a fight.

Saints Vol 1, p. 205

By using the kind of imagery in this parable that He did, God exposed their hearts. If we are to do better in our day, then we need to have different hearts.

Zion’s Camp: Part 1

After gathering their forces for two months and marching over 800 miles for another month and a half more, God gave a revelation that essentially disbanded the camp without accomplishing the mission they set out to do?

Was Zion’s Camp a failed mission? This last week’s Sunday School lesson on D&C 98-105 focused on the trial of the saint’s march in 1834 on a rescue mission to Jackson County Missouri to “redeem” Zion. There were some important takeaways I gained from my reflection and lesson on this topic.

Historical Sketch

I am assuming the reader will be familiar with these events from Church history, but to give some context, here is a brief sketch of a few highlights:

Tension between local Missourians in Jackson County and the growing body of Mormon immigrants was rising to a point where in July of 1833, demands were made that the Mormons leave on threat of physical expulsion. On July 23 they were given 6 months to leave Independence. In August, over 800 miles East in Kirtland Ohio, Joseph Smith recorded two revelations where God gave direction and counsel regarding the situation with their fellow saints in Missouri.

In November 1833 Missouri saints were expelled from Jackson County. On December 16-17 Joseph received another revelation known today as Doctrine and Covenants section 101. In it the Missouri saints are told that their sufferings were in consequence of their transgressions, and a parable was given, “that you may know my [the Lord’s] will concerning the redemption of Zion.” “Zion,” referring to the place, Jackson County Missouri, and “redemption” being understood to mean recovery of the lands that had been lost to them. In a revelation given on February 24 of 1834, Joseph Smith was directed to gather a number “of the strength of [God’s] house” to “go up with you unto the Land of Zion.”

A body of volunteers (close to 200 men and a number of women) gathered and in early May, left on the near 900 mile journey toward Missouri. The main purpose of the mission does not appear entirely clear from what we read in D&C 101:35-36, but the call to go was given and men and women responded.

“The redemption of Zion must needs come by power,” is what the D&C 101 revelation says, and the Lord would “raise up unto my people a man who shall lead them as Moses led the children of Israel.” As one historian put it, “It sounds like a call to action, but the comparison was to Moses leading Israel out of bondage, and not Joshua invading Canaan.” (Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 236)

The trek took over a month. As might be imagined, when an organized and armed band of Mormons began to approach the territory where Missourians had driven their fellow adherents away (and with no intent of letting them return) it had all the makings for an impending armed conflict. Joseph had no desire to engage in a battle of arms and hoped that his petition for help from Governor Dunklin to assist in the saint’s cause, would result in assistance from the state militia to help recover their lost lands. No such help was granted, and on July 22 a revelation (D&C 105) was given, and the camp was disbanded. Some stayed in Missouri, while others, including Joseph Smith, returned home.

Rebellious Hearts

So, what are we to make of this account? In response to the suffering and loss of property from persecution that the saints in Missouri were enduring, Joseph was called by God to organize a body to go redeem their brothers in Zion (D&C 103:1). Then, after gathering their forces for two months and marching over 800 miles for another month and a half more, God gave a revelation that essentially disbanded the camp without accomplishing the mission they set out to do.

In the hours of reflection over the course of a month of study and preparation for the lesson I was to give in Gospel Doctrine class, I was drawn to conclude that the outcome, known by the Lord from the beginning, was immutable, and any attempt to change the course of things would be futile. This, because of something Joseph later wrote from his own conclusion of what took place at the end of the journey. As the camp disbanded, a devastating outbreak of cholera attacked its ranks.

“Long afterward, Joseph remembered the suffering that week. ‘While some were digging the grave others stood sentry with their fire arms, watching their enemies.’ The camp was trapped between the hatred of the Missourians and the onslaught of cholera. Responding to the shrieks of pain that filled the camp, Joseph gave the victims flour and whiskey and ministered by laying on hands. Nothing worked. Each time Joseph laid hands on a victim, the diseased passed into his own body. ‘I quickly learned by painful experience,’ he later wrote, ‘that when the Great Jehovah decrees destruction upon any people, makes known his determination, man must not attempt to stay his hand.’ … Joseph remembered the unsettling contradictions. ‘Elder John S. Carter was the first man who stepped forward to rebuke it, and upon this, was instantly seized, and became the first victim in the camp.’ The men who buried Carter ‘united, covenanted and prayed, hoping the ideas would be staid; but in vain, for while thus covenanting, Eber Wilcox died.'”

(Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling, p. 245-246. emphasis mine)

I reasoned that perhaps the attempts to mingle in something that God had already decreed applied to more than the cholera outbreak. What if Joseph’s prayers and attempts to intervene were futile gestures, even from the onset of the trek to Missouri?

It was because of their “jarrings, and contentions, and envyings, and strifes, and lustful and covetous desires” that they “polluted their inheritances” (D&C 101:6). They had failed to bring forth the required fruit, remaining heedless of the Lord’s warnings (see for example the Lord’s warnings in D&C 97:25-26; 98:21-22; 103:8-10). The Lord used the Missouri citizens as His hand of judgment to scourge the condemned saints in His attempt to persuade them to repent and no longer treat lightly His word (see for example D&C 97:25-27; 101:1-2, 51; 103:3-4, 8; 105:2, 6). Still seeing no Divine purpose behind their distress, they railed against their Missouri persecutors. Despite their suffering, they were not sufficiently humbled to repent. Instead, they breathed out threats and expressed hope to gain vengeance against the same Missouri mobs to whom the Lord had given power to afflict and inspire them to repent.

Why, then, would the Lord call the saints in Kirtland to go on a rescue mission? In Joseph’s position, can he simply sit back and do nothing? Even as late as February when the call was given to gather their strength and march (D&C 103), the saints were told they could still repent and turn things around and recover their lost lands. We read how it was “in consequence of their transgressions” that the Lord “suffered the affliction to come upon” the saints in Missouri (D&C 101:2). But also remember that similar words of condemnation were given to the Kirtland saints, “For they do not forsake their sins, and their wicked ways, the pride of their hearts, and their covetousness, and all their detestable things.” (D&C 98:20). Were there lessons and testing and trial that those who were called to march needed to learn as well?

Prayers of the Righteous

It wasn’t until the morning of the lesson, as I sat reflecting and revisiting the lesson material, that a new perspective of these events emerged from the pages I was reading. While it was certainly true that sufferings were “in consequence of their transgressions“, I began to see that among them there was a category of “many of whom are truly humble and are seeking diligently to learn wisdom and to find truth.”

Verily, verily I say unto you, blessed are such, for they shall obtain; for I, the Lord, show mercy unto all the meek, and upon all whomsoever I will, that I may be justified when I shall bring them unto judgment.

(D&C 97:1-2)

A distinction was being made between two types of people who were enduring persecution and suffering.

[N]evertheless, there are those that must needs be chastened, and their works shall be made known. The ax is laid at the root of the trees; and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. I, the Lord, have spoken it.

(ibid v. 6-7)

While on the other hand:

Verily I say unto you, all among them who know their hearts are honest, and are broken, and their spirits contrite, and are willing to observe their covenants by sacrifice—yea, every sacrifice which I, the Lord, shall command—they are accepted of me. For I, the Lord, will cause them to bring forth as a very fruitful tree which is planted in a goodly land, by a pure stream, that yieldeth much precious fruit.

(ibid v. 8-9)

Four days later, in the August 6 revelation, the Lord addressed the saints in Missouri with some words of encouragement:

[I]n everything give thanks; Waiting patiently on the Lord, for your prayers have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, and are recorded with this seal and testament—the Lord hath sworn and decreed that they shall be granted.

(D&C 98:1-2)

A promise is given that “prayers” have been heard and a decree given that “they shall be granted“. Followed up with this powerful covenant from the Lord:

Therefore, he giveth this promise unto you, with an immutable covenant that they shall be fulfilled; and all things wherewith you have been afflicted shall work together for your good, and to my name’s glory, saith the Lord.

(ibid v. 3)

In unmistakable language that cannot be taken lightly, the Lord has promised and decreed that He will answer …

“prayers”.

We are not given any additional information or specifics about what these prayers contained. In a letter to Edward Partridge and other church leaders several days later, Joseph gives one other key of what is included in this powerful covenant that the Lord promised:

“I verily know that he will spedily deliver Zion for I have his immutible covenant that this shall be the case but god is pleased to keep it hid from mine eyes the means how exactly the thing will be done.”

(“Letter to Church Leaders in Jackson County, Missouri, 18 August 1833,” p. [1], The Joseph Smith Papers, emphasis mine)

In the language of scripture, “speedily” often means “surprisingly,” “in an unexpected way,” or “being caught off-guard.” (See e.g., Isaiah 48:3).

Four months later, in response to further requests for information from the Lord regarding the saints in Zion, the December 16-17 revelation was given. Section 101 opens with:

Verily I say unto you, concerning your brethren who have been afflicted, and persecuted, and cast out from the land of their inheritance— I, the Lord, have suffered the affliction to come upon them, wherewith they have been afflicted, in consequence of their transgressions; Yet I will own them, and they shall be mine in that day when I shall come to make up my jewels. Therefore, they must needs be chastened and tried, even as Abraham, who was commanded to offer up his only son. For all those who will not endure chastening, but deny me, cannot be sanctified.

(D&C 101:1-5)

As it relates to the two types or categories of people being tried, take note of the phrase “my jewels“. This phrase occurs four times in the standard works. In the instance found in 3 Nephi, Christ is quoting from Malachi chapter 3:

And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.

(3 Ne 24:17-18)

I want to ask the question, if God is using the Missouri mobs to inspire the saints to repent, what of the more righteous among them? Is it fair for them to suffer these indignations as well? I believe God is addressing this very thing by including the parable of wheat and tares in this revelation:

That the work of the gathering together of my saints may continue, that I may build them up unto my name upon holy places; for the time of harvest is come, and my word must needs be fulfilled. Therefore, I must gather together my people, according to the parable of the wheat and the tares, that the wheat may be secured in the garners to possess eternal life, and be crowned with celestial glory, when I shall come in the kingdom of my Father to reward every man according as his work shall be; While the tares shall be bound in bundles, and their bands made strong, that they may be burned with unquenchable fire.

(D&C 101:64-65)

Gem formation requires five things for mineral crystallization to occur. Ingredients, Temperature, Pressure, Time, and Space. To become the Lord’s “jewels“, the righteous will need to be proven by being subjected to testing, alongside the chastisement being imposed upon the unrighteous. Another way to look at it is, the response to the trials and testing can be a determining factor in which type or category of person you will become.

As we look at the conclusion of this Zion’s camp story, in the revelation where the camp is disbanded, we read that God again confirms the promise that we looked at earlier in section 98:

But inasmuch as there are those who have hearkened unto my words, I have prepared a blessing and an endowment for them, if they continue faithful. I have heard their prayers, and will accept their offering; and it is expedient in me that they should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith.

(D&C 105:18-19)