War Politics in Mosiah?

I was reading Mosiah 9:1-2 this morning and noted some interesting politics going on. Not that I claim to have any insight on how politics works (particularly Nephite politics), nor am I trying to take sides in any issue or imply any connection to war politics going on today...

So, Zeniff's company left Zarahemla to try to re-colonize the city of Nephi. He was not the leader of the company at this time, he was just a spy. (The leader wasn't mentioned by name. I shall call him Bob. ) Zeniff's job was, it appears, to figure out where the Lamanites' weaknesses were so that the company could come down and destroy them. Much is missing from this account that could be very interesting. Zeniff said he saw "good among them" and was "desirous that they should not be destroyed." A vague description. To put it in modern parlance, could he have felt that this would be "genocide"? Perhaps he had been caught up in the "propaganda" of the "evil empire" of the Lamanites, and discovered something shocking-- there was actually some "good among them."

He returned to report to Bob to argue for making a treaty with them. Bob, being "austere" and "blood-thirsty" didn't like his argument and ordered Zeniff's execution. A fight ensued, and apparently Zeniff wasn't executed, although "the greater number" of the army was killed in the internal conflict.

As Zeniff himself later confessed in verse 10, he was duped by the king of the Lamanites into thinking they could live peacefully together. So my question is, if Bob had won the internal conflict, how would he have written about it? "I, Bob, had to put down a rebellion among my army because of a traitor that was fraternizing with the enemy and actively trying to deliver us into the Lamanites' hands." The winner gets to write the history books, right? Not that I'm trying to make any judgments on either side. It is true that they were eventually put into captivity, and many people died, because Zeniff wanted to spare whatever good it was that he saw. An ethical dilemma, to be sure. (And before anyone goes yapping about "imperialism," and how they should have stayed in Zarahemla, I must point out... the Lamanites willingly allowed this colony to exist. Zeniff didn't realize he was being duped, he was probably very excited in this new development in Nephite-Lamanite relations. Hindsight is 20/20. Insert political spin and/or aphorisms here.)

The Tree of Life

Courtesy of President Lunt, in stake conference today:

In Lehi's vision of the tree of life, we tend to associate the fruit of the tree with eternal life, or some future reward. But wait, there were some who left after tasting the fruit (1 Ne 8:24), even though the fruit was "desirable above all other fruit" (1 Ne 8:12). How do we explain that?

He used Alma's sermon on faith to explain. Alma 32:42 does indeed label the fruit as eternal life, but Pres. Lunt tied it in with the "test on the seed." You can't just automatically enjoy and appreciate the fruit, you have to prepare for it. He gave an example of how he went to general conference once when he was young. He and his friend had a really hard time getting there, and once they got there, the benches were uncomfortable and the ushers crowded in so many people that it was unpleasant for him. His friend, on the other hand, could only talk about what a great experience it was. I'm reminded of Henry Eyring's father telling him how he's never heard a bad sacrament meeting talk. (Can't remember exactly what his father did, maybe I'll look it up later...) Anyway, to prepare for the fruit, you have to work on the seed and prepare it and nourish it, as Alma said. And remember that the fruit is symbolic of a process, not of an event. That was the gist of the talk. And once again, we see how Alma 32 is a great lesson on faith.