According to the Book of Mormon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies (). IPA-ified from «ăn´tī—nē´fī—lē´hī» were a tribe of Lamanites formed around 90 BC in the Americas, after a significant religious conversion. They made a covenant that they would not participate in war, and buried their weapons. Eventually they changed their name to the people of Ammon, or Ammonites. During a later period of warfare, the young men of the group who had not made the pacifist covenant became a military unit known as the two thousand stripling warriors, and were protected by divine intervention.
Most Latter Day Saint movement denominations, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), believe the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to have been an actual ethnic group living in the western hemisphere in the first century BC. The Community of Christ allows for varying beliefs regarding the historicity of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies.Andrew M. Shields, "Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007," in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007. Among non-Mormon researchers across the archaeological, historical, and scientific communities, a consensus exists that the Book of Mormon is not a record of actual historical events.Simon G. Southerton. Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (2004, Signature Books).
The story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies and particularly that of the stripling warriors is iconic in the Latter Day Saint movement. Some have criticized it for perpetuating negative stereotypes of Native Americans from a eurocentric viewpoint.
Book of Mormon narrative According to the Book of Mormon, around 600 BC, several families of Israelites were led by God from the Jerusalem area to the western hemisphere. Shortly after arriving, the group split into a righteous faction called the Nephites and a wicked faction called the Lamanites. To distinguish between the two, God cursed the Lamanites, causing "a skin of blackness" so they would "not be enticing".
Around 92 BC, four sons of the Nephite King, named Ammon, Aaron, Omner, and Himni, went on a mission with a small group of others to the Lamanites to convert them to Christianity. A significant number of Lamanites converted to Christianity, banded together and took the name Anti-Nephi-Lehies, rejecting the name Lamanite. The king of the newly formed people died, and his son becomes king, changing his name to Anti-Nephi-Lehi (note: the pronouns in the English translation make it unclear if Anti-Nephi-Lehi chose this name for himself or it was given him by his father). Fearful of returning to their past sins and as a sign of their covenant with God, they gathered their weapons, buried them, and committed to being pacifists and friendly with the Nephites. God then lifted their curse of dark skin.
The wicked portion of the Lamanites attacked Anti-Nephi-Lehies, but they did not attack back, instead allowed themselves to be killed while prostrate in prayer. After 1,005 had been killed, the Lamanites felt guilty and stopped attacking. Many of the Lamanites then joined the Anti-Nephi-Lehies. Others were rallied by dissident Nephites to attack the Nephites but are repelled. To avoid further attacks on them, God commanded Ammon to lead the group to join the Nephites, and they changed their name to the people of Ammon or Ammonites. They were given the Land of Jershon by the Nephites.
When an anti-Christ named Korihor tried to teach atheism to the Ammonites, they bound him and took him to the high priest.
Stripling warriors In a subsequent war between the Nephites and Lamanites, when the Ammonites saw how the Nephite army suffered in defending them, they considered breaking their oath to lay down their weapons and defend themselves; a Nephite prophet named Helaman persuaded them not to break their oath. Two thousand of their sons (who had been too young at the time to have made the pacifist covenant) volunteered to fight for the defense of the Nephites and the Ammonites. The young men asked Helaman to be their commander. The young stripling warriors fought alongside the Nephite army and were one of the Nephites' most effective military units. Though every soldier was wounded at one time or another, there were no fatalities among the warriors. Helaman attributed this to the upbringing provided by their mothers and the great faith they exhibited. The original 2,000 "sons of Helaman" were later joined by sixty more, making a total of 2,060.
The last time the people of Ammon are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, a large portion of them migrated to the "land northward" sometime between 49 and 39 BC.
Significance to the Latter Day Saint movement
The Anti-Nephi-Lehies are a well known and popular example of faith within the Latter Day Saint tradition, particularly the story of the stripling warriors, which has become iconic, celebrated in Latter Day Saint artwork, toys, song, and literature.Stripling Warriors are marketed to Latter-day Saint children. https://deseretbook.com/p/stripling-warrior-latter-day-designs-47472?variant_id=55823Patterson, Robert. "Helaman's Stripling Warriors and the Principles of Hypovolemic Shock." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 35, no. 4, 2002, pp. 135–141. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/45226903. Accessed 18 Apr. 2020.
Usage prior to 1900 The Anti-Nephi-Lehi pacifism story was barely referenced in the first fifty years of the LDS Church. In 1880s, during the height of the United States government crackdown on the LDS Church practice of polygamy, church leader George Reynolds gave the first serious interpretation, by using the Anti-Nephi-Lehi story of passive submission to Lamanite armies as an object lesson to support the church's policy of civil disobedience being both moral and effective. His writings were later incorporated into education materials.George Reynolds, “History of the Book of Mormon: Contents of the Records, II,” Contributor 5/3 (December 1883);
Usage from 1900 to 1950 Though pacifism was not an official doctrine, in the first half of the 20th century there was a significant strain of pacifism within the LDS Church. In the 1920s, LDS Church scholar Janne Sjödahl and author John Henry Evans both used the example of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies complete rejection of violence as a matter of superior moral principle.Janne M. Sjödahl, An Introduction to the Study of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1927), 268–70John Henry Evans, Messages and Characters of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: printed by author, 1929), 207–8. In 1935, the official Sunday School curriculum said of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies that "there is a suggestion in the Record that it is better to take a pacific stand in time of war," and concluded with "our attitude, then, toward war should be to avoid it when and if we can."Deseret Sunday School Union, Book of Mormon Sunday School Lessons (Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union, 1935), 88–89. The 1939 manual, on the eve of World War II advocated clearly for pacifism,
"There is no place in a Christian life for war....If one should question the wisdom of the decision of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi made on the occasion of this lesson, let him remember that they did as a nation what Jesus did as an individual when he gave his life for mankind ... there was something 'godlike' in the decision of both Jesus and the Lamanites to sacrifice their mortal existence that the standards of righteousness might be preserved. ...The people of Ammon would rather be slaughtered than to take the life of another in their own defense. The Nephites on the other hand justified their defense of their families and liberties on the ground that it was the will of God that these things be preserved. However the readers of these lessons might feel on this subject, it seems clear that if war has any justification at all in the eyes of God, it must be a war of defense, not aggression—a war where the right to worship, and to live in family units, and in safety are being fought for."Deseret Sunday School Union, The Quorum Bulletin and Gospel Doctrine Sunday School Quarterly 6/1 (January–March 1939): 11–13.
After the beginning of World War II church manuals commended Anti-Nephi-Lehies for their righteousness, but did not imply pacifism as being superior, instead using the story as part of the definition for what constitutes a just war.
Usage from 1950 to 1980 In 1950, Professor William E. Berrett wrote a critique of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as part of his study of the Book of Mormon that would become a dominant narrative for the next several decades, calling their pacifist actions, "an interesting experiment in non-resistance" but ultimately not effective. "Although the Anti-Nephi-Lehies received a short respite it was not long before it became apparent that to save their lives they must flee to the land of the Nephites and be protected by Nephite arms."William E. Berrett, Teacher’s Supplement: Teachings of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1950), 34. The LDS Church translated Berrett's book into several languages, and it became the Melchizedek Priesthood manual in 1962, and appointed Berrett as vice president of Brigham Young University, giving him responsibility over high school and college age church curriculum's.William E. Berrett, Teachings of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1962)Eldin Ricks gave another view critical of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies at almost the same time as Berrett. Eldin Ricks, Book of Mormon Study Guide (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1955). The Anti-Nephi-Lehi vow of non-violence came to be seen as an anomaly, applicable only in rare circumstances, and discussion of the topic in manuals usually included examples that justified armed self-resistance.
Although a strain of pacifism existed within the LDS Church that used the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as an example, pacifist ethics have not been part of Church Education System curriculum since that time. Brigham Young University professor Hugh Nibley was representative of the exception, speaking out against war and using the Anti-Nephi-Lehies as pacifist examples worthy of emulating.Hugh Nibley, Since Cumorah, 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1988), 295–96; see also “Freemen and King-men in the Book of Mormon,” in The Prophetic Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1989), 356; and “Leaders to Managers: The Fatal Shift,” in Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1994), 499. The critical interpretation of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies decision to be killed rather than fight was notable in that it coincided with the a significant segment of the church that opposed the Civil Rights Movement and the tactic of civil disobedience in particular.Pulsipher, J. David. ""Prepared to Abide the Penalty": Latter-day Saints and Civil Disobedience." Journal of Mormon History 39, no. 3 (2013): 131–62. Accessed April 24, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/24243855.Prince, G. A., & Wright, W. R. (2014). David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. e-book location 1546 of 12104As examples of the anti-Civil rights attitudes, Elder Howard W. Hunter noted in General Conference: "This is a day when civil disobedience seems to be prevalent and even advocated from some pulpits, but the position of this Church and its teachings is clear...There is no conflict between that which is owed to Caesar and the obligation to God." April 6, 1968, Conference Report Ezra Taft Benson spoke out often against the Civil Rights movement and civil disobedience in particular, calling it "bloody blackmail of America by permitting, even encouraging, mounting civil disobedience" April 6, 1968, Conference Report