Grotius and the Book of Mormon

 Over at Mormon Dialog and Discussion Board there is a detailed discussion about methodology and if the 17th century philosopher, Hugo Grotius, wrote the Book of Mormon. As someone with a book on the subject and significant knowledge of Grotius I got tagged and felt obligated to respond. I also rarely get a chance to discuss the 17th century thinker Grotius and topics like preemptive war and my book so this was a good opportunity. This is copy and pasted from the board so I apologize for any weird formatting. 

        I appreciate being tagged on this. My newest book on just war in the Book of Mormon discusses Grotius a great deal. Its been well reviewed thus far and you can read those reviews and find a link to the book here: https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2024/12/reviews-of-my-new-book.html

        I've been working a great deal so I can't go into extensive detail but I've got a few points worth mentioning about the topic.

        The major thrust of my book doesn't simply show congruency. As Ben has explained (many, many times) I think people tend to see what they want to see so the comparisons aren't very useful. What I did was use the keen insights of Grotius to better explain under studied elements in the Book of Mormon, and then in turn use those extra insights from the Book of Mormon to comment on matters of just war. Its a conversation among great thinkers more than finding comparisons. 

        To cite one specific topic with two examples we might look at the concept of preemptive war. I know most people think the Book of Mormon dismisses the concept out of hand. But the most frequently cited verse in Mormon 4, actually condemns the heart that makes the strategy not the strategy. The Nephites lost a great deal on the defensive too. I found 9 other verses that discuss the concept and show its use. I don't want to get too off in the weeds but if you want you can read more about it here: https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleDeaneKishkumenDagger.html

        Probably the most important scriptures for this discussion are Alma 46:30 when Moroni justifies his capture attempted capture of Amalickiah, and Helaman's servant in Helaman 2 that preemptively kills the assassin before he kills Helaman. 

        These are important for how they interact with Grotius. Most justifications for preemptive war, outside of some more extreme views like Vattel, Gentili, or the Chinese Shizi, focus on the present. According to these theorists, if a nation focused on the past to justify preemptive war leaders would claim that they are reacting to the nefarious nature of the opposing regimes that are warlike and bloodthirsty and thus must be attacked first before they attack again (see Epaminondas for example). A focus on the future would be similar to the Thucydides trap, where Athens, WW1 Britain, WW2 Germany are respectively worried about a rising Sparta, Germany, and Russia. They have to attack now to prevent some greater calamity in the future. But the present is the more accepted position. You can read this from Walzer or in the Caroline Standard, but Grotius' criteria is still the most useful when he said that an enemy must have intent, means  and the defending nation must face an imminent attack. Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Stephen Neff trans., (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 83-84.

        This is where both examples from the Book of Mormon matter. If you read Alma 46:30, you see that all of Moroni's concern's are in the future. Amalickiah has been defeated and is running away, there is no imminent attack, only future problems:

        Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

        This might seem like really obscure theory, but if Grotius wrote the Book of Mormon he wouldn't include details and narratives that contradicted his ideas of imminency. In fact,  many people dissented from the Lamanite king and then seized the "place of arms" (Alma 47:2; 5). So you could argue Amalickiah didn't have means either and many Lamanites didn't have the intent. So Grotius wrote a narrative that contradicts his theory of preemption, and then provided narrative details where Amalickiah fulfilled every worry that Moroni had, thus undermining his own theories even more.      

        The second verse regards Helaman's servant who preemptively killed Kishkumen during his assassination attempt on Helaman. This one is even more clear because Grotius wrote about robbers as a reason for law enforcement and not deadly preemption: if the conspirators “formed a plot, prepar[ed] an ambuscade, poisoning, or readied a false accusation [the planner] cannot lawfully be killed either if the danger can in any other way be avoided, or if [the ruler] thought delays could afford remedies.” (Ibid.) In other words, if the plot can be neutralized by the defenders using other remedies, then they likely haven't gathered the means, shown intent, and attack it isn't imminent enough to warrant deadly force. 

        Yet the servant of Helaman didn't take any other remedies. He was "out by night" and seemingly had plenty of advanced notice (Helaman 2:6). Kishkumen let his guard down and there was time as they "were going forth" to the judgement seat (2:9). A chapter before Nephite leaders seized incipient rebels like Paanchi  and killed them (Helaman 1:8; notice the preemption of the Nephites leaders as they seized him when he was "about" to flatter). Yet the narrative says Helaman's servant killed Kishkumen. We don't exactly know why he didn't call for the guards instead of killing them. But if Grotius wrote the narrative, we would assume that he would clearly articulate his previously stated beliefs that there was enough time to "use other remedies." Some might argue that the narrative doesn't clearly endorse this story as righteous so why bother. But a recent Interpreter article suggests that Moroni's dramatic use of omission about Helaman's servant, while simultaneously detailing the nefarious Gadianton plot, highlights the righteousness of Helaman's servant: https://interpreterfoundation.org/nameless-mormons-dramatic-use-of-omission-in-helaman-2/ 

        Here are a couple examples where extremely specific details from Grotius are entirely contradicted by the Book of Mormon text. I don't like simply showing congruency, or authorship based on poorly thought out similarities. As you can see just from two small examples, a careful study of scriptures, and using those scriptures to have a conversation with the best philosophers, brings new insights and deepens faith. I know I'm biased, but given the positive reactions to my book, and how I've independently published or presented 7 different times based on material from the book, I think its incredibly fruitful. 

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you found value in my work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page. Or consider buying one of my books linked in the top left. 

The Most Overrated Mormon Scholars

        In the middle of eating lunch at the LDS National Security Conference the person sitting next to me was so sad they missed hearing Patrick Mason speak and without thinking I groaned. The conversation stopped and the table looked at me. I then awkwardly explained that I was rather unimpressed with his scholarship in a number of ways.

        Incidents like this happen on a regular basis as I receive quizzical and sometimes angry looks and questioning when I don’t share someone’s enthusiasm for a given scholar. In many cases that’s because the scholar in question is part of my overrated club. What follows is a list that doesn’t discount the meaningful scholarship of these individuals. The list is more about inflated or misplaced praise and uncritical hype. Yet those behaviors are so pervasive and shape our evaluation of ideas that I need to identify the most frequent recipients of hype.

Michael Quinn

        I attended the same conference as him (War and Peace in Our Times) towards the end of his life and the beginning of my career. The fawning praise he received was closer to worship. Even though he was discussing an issue for which he had no appreciable training or knowledge (military history and ethics), and wasn’t providing anything particularly noteworthy, a reverent hush came over the room when he provided an answer.

        Then the paper he presented had numerous glaring and unexamined implications as I detailed here. I describe how Quin uncritically accepted J. Reuben’s Clark isolationism to such a degree that Quinn failed to notice his subject’s hypocrisy, pro-Nazi stance, and how his views were overruled by other church leaders at the time. The last point is especially egregious since one of Quinn’s book invented disputes among church leadership when it suited his arguments, but seemed to ignore meaningful disputes in this case because of biased favoritism towards the isolationism of J. Reuben Clark.   

        Those are just the problems I found in my personal interaction with him. As summarized by Sarah Allen, he was also known for his tendency to personally attack those he disagreed with, and to play fast and loose with the connections he made between the factual record and its supposed meaning. So I imagine his article about J Reuben Clark probably had even more problems than my cursory review. (As far as I know, no one has interacted with his presentation more than I have.) 

        His popularity seems to result from the good fortune of being from a favored minority group, homosexuals, his writing about the same topic, and his work was thoroughly, and rightfully I believe, dismissed by the ~evil~ “FARMS” crowd. Because Mormon historians are the most biased of any group I’ve ever seen (while ironically calling their opponents biased), he was criticized by the "right" group of people, as a result, those criticisms never carried the weight they should.

Hugh Nibley

        I love Hugh Nibley and his work. His works helped spark my academic journey and often helped me on my mission. But Hugh Nibley was often too sloppy with his footnotes and saw too many vague connections to the point that he embodied the concept of “parallel mania.” Its a real criticism, but I should note that parallel mania is often used by his critics as a pat buzzword to ignore the real connections that he made. Nibley’s work is extremely outdated and there have been often decades worth of additional scholarship that contradicts his work. This is common in academia and not a problem if scholars properly engage and build upon previous scholarship.

        But his fans are often dilletantes instead of scholars. Like a right-wing inverse of the left-wing love for Quinn, too many people uncritically read a Hugh Nibley book and suddenly think they are experts. He is quoted chapter and verse, but there isn’t much thinking beyond seeing a parallel to Nibley’s words, and a quote.

        Chinese theorists had the same annoyance with people quoting Sunzi. They ended up writing about it, and if you change the subjects to Hugh Nibley, it is surprisingly accurate:

Even though the mouth recites the words of [Hugh Nibley], the mind has not thought about the mysterious subtleties of the discussion...[they] merely recite the empty words and are misled by the enemy...

The study of [any subject] must be from the lowest to the middle and then from the middle to the highest, so that [the learners] will gradually penetrate the depths of the teaching. If not, they will only be relying upon empty words. Merely remembering and reciting them is not enough to succeed.[1]

Patrick Mason

        Given my specialty in ethics and just war I encounter Mason a great deal. I’m sorry to say, I’m just not impressed. He has all the credentials, praise, institutional power, and seems to publish or present in every conference imaginable. But I find his scholarship lacking. His book, Proclaim Peace, ignored or minimized many important scholarly points regarding just war. He tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming the non violent ethic of Jesus from the New Testament is "absolute", while also acknowledging verses that clearly support just war. But the latter is clearly lip service forced on him because he spends so much time supporting the former. 

        In a Maxwell Institute funded piece he ignored King Benjamin’s speech, distorted his preaching and policies, and invented an offensive war to imply the Nephites were colonialist. After reading about Michael Quinn’s lapses in scholarship, I might even say the invention of an offensive war whole cloth from the scriptures sounds like what critics called Quinnspeak. At best, he just didn’t read the text carefully.

        After noticing his failure to read texts carefully, I started to wonder if he read some texts at all. I carefully started looking over some of his work, and I see a pattern where he relies on secondary sources when quoting church fathers.[2] For example, every footnote in “Zionic Non Violence” referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. Based on his footnotes, he doesn’t read the works of major just war theorists, he stumbles across an occasional quote in various pacifist books. Yet he feels imminently qualified to call them “insufficient” and he is celebrated as some kind of guru on peace making.  

        Privately many people tell me that he gives vibes that he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He asked a smarmy gotcha question to me during a conference I attended that was poor form. The peace studies program at BYU-Hawaii held a peace conference about his book, which I’m sure didn’t help his self-admitted arrogant smugness, and he and his peace studies friends in the audience actually snickered when discussing arguments from people like me. 

        I found that behavior rather unseemly, especially for someone who claims his attitude will bring a Zion like peace. It’s especially hypocritical considering the attacks levelled against FARMS for the same behavior. Anti Mormons included an incident at a conference as one of the “top” events of 2011. #3 on that list described how the ~evil~ Maxwell Institute “scholars” (the scare quotes added by the author) were seen “sniggering” before they lobbed a series of “aggressive and mean spirited” questions in their “verbal assault” on Mike Reed. But when I’m “verbally assaulted” by Mason’s smarmy gotcha questions and heckled by a hostile audience, they remain celebrated peacemakers.

        I liked his book about 19^th century lynchings and his advice designed to help struggling members. But his academic work on peace has numerous methodological gaps and is celebrated far beyond its actual merit. Even more importantly, his unseemly behavior ranging from his poor research into Church fathers, to gotcha questions and sniggering run contrary to the unearned praise he gets for supposedly building bridges and a peaceful Zion.

Conclusion 

        Many of these scholars are household names. But a close look at their scholarship suggests perhaps they shouldn’t be. The biggest flaw is that we often uncritically accept the arguments of a celebrity scholar, when we should be thoughtful and critical readers of any argument and engage their thoughts and arguments. In short, we substitute their reputation for our thought. The result is that we spend more time praising than thinking. I hope this post will help check that tendency. And maybe if you hear something from me during lunch at a conference, you'll understand. Thanks.

I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

*****

---

[1] Questions and Replies Between Tang Taizong and Li Weikong in The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, Ralph Sawyer trans., (Westview Press, 1993), 338, 360. 

[2] Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War, fn1 reads: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77. See also: fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason, "Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 2020.

Reviews of My New Book!

 

        Reviews for my new book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon have arrived. I’m proud to announce they are universally positive, and I appreciate the time the reviewers spent reading and thinking about my ideas. I still have a few more outstanding so hopefully I can add to this list. I know Scripture Central is working on a review, and Public Square, where I published a version of chapter 4, might have one. Without further ado, hare are some things that people are saying about the book:

Square Two, reviewed by Kerry Kartchner. “sophisticated, enriching, well-written, and worthy of study.” “Refreshing…authenticity and subtly of a soldier’s perspective.”  “A significant contribution to the discourse.” A great final paragraph that I repeat in full: 

[Deane's] volume offers a substantial, detailed, and nuanced explanation of military and strategic issues in the text of the Book of Mormon, and a vigorous defense of the imperative to sometimes wield the sword to defend oneself and one’s neighbors. Deane brings a formidable knowledge of warfare, the development of Christian just war theory, and the military history of ancient China to bear on this material. He is also attuned to contemporary American defense and foreign policy issues, with frequent references to how the principles he expounds in this book apply at the policy level in today’s world. This book is an important contribution to the discourse among LDS national security scholars and practitioners. Its message of how a righteous people may sometimes be reluctantly compelled to take up arms to stop the slaughter of their innocent neighbors deserves careful consideration in our day as we confront “wars and rumors of war.”

Times and Seasons, reviewed by Ivan Wolfe. Morgan Deane is “probably our #1 expert on Ancient war and the Book of Mormon.” You may not agree, but his book demands “you should at least fully understand what it is you aren’t agreeing with.”

Interpreter, reviewed by Craig Foster. “interesting and informative”…the book “demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the literature pertaining to war, the philosophical and theological reasons for war, and the conduct of war.” “provocative topics that encourage fascinating and meaningful discussion.”

Substack, reviewed by Michael Towns. “Offers substantive answers and insights into these moral questions [about war and peace.]”…“Morgan Deane is steeped in all the philosophical and academic foundations needed to understand Just War Theory.”

        I encourage you to read the reviews for yourself and of course, buy the book. If you’re a regular reader you probably already have a copy but maybe buy one for a friend or family member. If you’re tight on money just send me an email and I’ll give you a free copy. For those in the Las Vegas area I’d be happy to sign it for you. Feel free to peruse my author page and consider purchasing some of my other books. This is Christmas time, and my books are well priced stocking stuffers and enhancements for your library. Thanks for reading!

I work as a free lance author. If you find value in my work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or again, please consider buying one of my books linked in the top left. 

Even Unto Ignorance: Boyce Wrongly Dismisses Just War Theory

        

        Duane Boyce wrote that the “modern just war framework …makes no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to address the concerns of Latter-Day Saints.”[1] This is a stunning admission and great error which abandons great thinkers throughout history that have direct bearing on the Latter Day Saint views of war. Reading just war thinkers allows a person to realize the contours of the LDS debate, organizes LDS thinking into a powerful core, and adds specific application and advancement of LDS thought.

The Contours

        One of the biggest ironies of reading just war theorists and thinkers from the last few thousand years is the realization that LDS debates are not new. We bring new scriptures to the debate, but they are proof texted in support of the same arguments. Christian pacifists quote the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek, while just war proponents cite Jesus overturning the tables in the table and the Lord’s support for rulers who are agents of his wrath to the wrongdoers (Romans 13:14). Latter Day Saints offer “renounce war and proclaim peace” and “defend your families unto blood shed (D&C 98:16; Alma 43:47). Yet, it remains the same debate.

        Christian just war theorists offered an answer to that debate that became the first chapter of my book on just warfare. This was a command for warriors to have a peaceful heart, while recognizing the tragic, and occasional need to use the sword. This was espoused by just about every theorist from Augustine to Locke. With this in mind, Latter Day Saints can renounce war, proclaim peace, AND defend their families unto bloodshed.

        In a later piece he shows some awareness of the core of just war (see below), but it is in the third appendix of his piece, only one page long, and still almost exclusively focused on Augustine and Aquinas. Even though his entire piece is devoted to resolving a scriptural tension between Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount, he presents the solution as though it wasn’t articulated by theorists for thousands of years before hand.[2]

        His ignorance concerning the contours of the debate is especially glaring in his discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. He spent an entire chapter discussing its personal application without mentioning the easily applicable question about the Good Samaritan, or the ample evidence of the need for a peaceful heart (see below). His solution, that the Sermon describes a personal attitude that doesn’t exclude the use of the sword, repeats one of the most common of the 36 different interpretations that theorists have offered in the last thousand years.[3] With a knowledge of the contours of the debate he might simultaneously have more humility and confidence in advancing his opinion while transcending the perception that LDS thinkers are “restricted to the (metaphorical) mountain valleys as Mormon communities once were.”[4]

The Core

        With the understanding of how we can both proclaim peace and wield the sword, we can simply ask, if the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the midst of the attack, what would he do? This is a simple but powerful question that cuts through the proof texts and demands that we ask what would Jesus do in a given situation. His example of perfect love wouldn’t stand idly by while someone is attacked. Thomas Aquinas called that an “evil peace.” We can reasonably conclude that the Good Samaritan would have a peaceful heart, but also feel morally compelled to intervene. In fact, despite peace advocates like Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher talking endlessly about love, and calling their theory, “assertive love,” they don’t mention Jesus’ example of how we should love our neighbor and fulfill the second great commandment. I suspect they don’t mention this because of its powerful implications.

        Additionally, I first read this argument while reading Catholic Theologian Paul Ramsey.[5] Along with Michael Walzer, he is the leading theorist of the modern age. Thus, this is a modern application of the just war framework, using a clear scripture, that is imminently applicable to modern problems and Latter-Day Saint questions. Once readers notice the importance of the heart they can see it permeates all of scripture. Boyce noticed this as well, but he missed a chance to place this argument as simple but powerful core, buttressed by some of the brightest thinkers of the last thousand years. I put this core in the first chapter and returned to its importance throughout the book. Even after summarizing just war at the beginning of the book, Boyce left a discussion of the heart until chapters 13 and 14. In discussing “right intent” on page eight, he mentioned defense of rights, but not the state of the heart. In chapter 14, the heart is only one of many points included in a discussion of Alma 48, and its brief because he also discusses Doctrine and Covenants 98. In short, despite nearly approaching this core and describing its features, he presents this as just one of many ideas when it could be a simple but powerful summary of the whole argument. He misses its importance because he only has an acquaintance with just war theorists.  

Specific Applications

        Being familiar with just war thinkers I immediately noticed several areas where Boyce’s analysis would have been enhanced by applying them. In discussing preemptive war he discusses the complexity of judging the immediacy of attacks and the intent of the attacker. After a lengthy, and needlessly complex discussion of philosophy he added the example of a machine gun armed attacker that is about to attack a person's family.[6] He does all this to show some examples where preemption is allowed.

        If he read just war theorists, though, he could simply use the example of a “charging assailant with sword in hand” described by the 17th century German thinker Samuel Puffendorf. The father of international law, Hugo Grotius, talked about intent, means, and imminency. Or all the elements listed by Boyce, but Grotius did so in more succinct fashion. These are not scriptures, but still a brilliant insight that forms the foundation of modern international law, and their keen insights make them relevant today. (I show how they are relevant and provide numerous scriptures about the principles in my article with Square Two.) The omission of Grotius seems especially odd because Boyce included Grotius in his bibliography. I can only guess the reasons for the omission, but it must be some combination of not reading Grotius carefully, excluding him due to some kind of dismissive attitude towards non restoration leaders and scriptures,[7] or a desire to explain the concepts himself.

        This section of his book is one of the densest philosophically, but scripturally sparse. It didn’t have to be with a knowledge of just war theorists. I’ve since found at least nine scriptures that discuss the topic which aren’t included in his book. For example, Puffendorf discussed the charging assailant with sword in hand, which made me think of the phrase, “raise a sword” in Alma 48:14. This verse describes when the Nephites could preserve their lives by "raising a sword" to their attackers. Only the text doesn't use the words attack or defense which is vitally important to the concept of preemptive war. The text instead says, “raise the sword,” not smite, strike, slay, or any other word to denote that the sword had been swung and met flesh. That isn’t simply an evocative phrase but illustrates a fundamental truth. Mormon didn’t have to explain the distinction between a raised sword and a sword strike because the two concepts are so closely related that they are the same.

        Thus, while not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, if a Nephite attack is called “raising the sword,” Alma 48:14 suggests that righteous defense applies when a Lamanite soldier simply “raised his sword” to attack, and not after the first (or third) actualized attack. That means the Nephite standard for defense only requires an incipient attack, or someone that “raise[s] the sword.” The basic premise applied to both thought Alma 48:14 and Pufendorf, is that an individual who sees an attack in progress doesn’t have to wait for the first blow to assert their God-given right to defend themselves. They can preemptively defend themselves.

        Boyce quotes the first half of Alma 48:14 in a discussion of offensive and defensive war.[8] Without a knowledge of just war theorists his arguments sound more strained and needlessly complex, while missing scriptural support a mere clause away from the scripture he cited.

        He not only repeated the contours of an old debate while thinking he was original, but he also diminished the most important verses about warfare in the Book of Mormon. In a chapter separate from the Sermon on the Mount, and in a chapter that centered on Alma 48, he lists the important qualities of a peaceful heart. Only at the end of that section, perhaps as a capstone, but seemingly because it was least important, he describes how the Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms but reluctantly compelled" to do so(Alma 48:21-23.) With a knowledge of just war that should be the lead in the first chapter and constantly reinforced and referenced in every other part of work. For example, when Boyce rebutted the use of Mormon 7:4, “lay down your weapons of war,” he would have known that the second half, “and delight no more in the shedding of blood,” was a direct application of just war theorists on the war, and an easy refutation of a pacifist proof text. One searches in vain for any mention of a peaceful heart in the bibliography.[9]

Conclusion

        I endorsed his book in my review and I don’t withdraw that endorsement. Yet the text is most useful as a philosophical rebuttal to pacifist theories and rather short about an LDS framework for just war. Since I first read his book, I realized that a knowledge of just war vastly enriches LDS discussion on the topic and we should make a positive and thorough case for it because it’s so strong and easy to do. (I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I'm a leading LDS thinker on the topic, I've published or presented eight times on the topic in the last two years, because I seem to be the only one that has actually read just war thinkers.)  Boyce missed a similar chance in his book. Sadly, like pacifist writers such as Patrick Mason,[10] he only includes a smattering of just war theorists in his writings, such as Augustine and Aquinas while demonstrating little to no awareness of the applicable theory.[11] It is sad to see another writer diminish the importance of just war as “insufficient” at the same time his arguments and understanding of LDS scripture would benefit from those dismissed theorists.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer and if you liked these ideas please consider supporting my research. You can use the paypal button at the bottom of the screen or buy one of my books in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, (Greg Kofford Books: 2015), 223.

[2] Duane Boyce, “Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount: Resolving a Scriptural Tension,” BYU Studies, 60:2 (2021), 127-162.

[3] Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Social Rhetorical Commentary, (Erdmans: 2009), 160-162.

[4] Benjamin Hertzberg, “Just War and Mormon Ethics,” Mormon Studies Review, 1:1 (Article 15) 2014.

[5] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (New York: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, 2002), (New York: Scribner, 1968),143.

[6] Boyce, Bloodshed, 194, 197, 202.

[7] Perhaps he has similar views to Mark Henshaw, who gave lip service to the importance of just war theorists but never applied them in 20 years, even though his work would clearly benefit from those thinkers. He did take time in those decades to scoff at those thinkers for being “medieval Catholics.” Mark Henshaw, Murder to Get Gain: LDS Thoughts on US Elements of National Power, 6509. Mark Henshaw, “A Response to ‘Kishkumen’s Dagger: First Strike in the Book of Mormon’ by Morgan Deane,” SquareTwo, Vol. 16 No. 1 (Spring 2023). Mark Henshaw, “On just peace,” in Perspectives on National Security in a Time of Upheaval, Latter Day Saint National Security Conference, Provo Utah, March 2023.

[8] Boyce, Unto Bloodshed, 238.

[9] Boyce does list peace in the index, but since his book is largely designed to philosophically oppose pacifism that is expected and too broad.

[10] Patrick Mason often uses secondary sources to quote church fathers which suggests he isn’t familiar with or hasn’t read them. See fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason, "Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 2020. In fact, every footnote in that piece referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. See also fn. 4 in, Patrick Mason, “Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War,” Public Square Magazine, August 4th, 2023. That footnote lists the primary and secondary source, suggesting he only found it in the latter: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77.

[11] The mentions of historical just war thinkers across LDS literature often seem limited to perfunctory references of St. Augustine and Aquinas before much longer analysis of LDS scripture or descriptions of modern international law and the UN charter. Michael Young, Chapter 19, Times of War Times of Peace: LDS Ethics of War and Diplomacy, Valerie Hudson, Eric Talbot Jenson, Kerry Karchner, (BYU Kennedy Center, 2018.) line 6509.