Podcast

 

        You might have noticed I don’t have a large online presence. I don’t have a podcast. You don’t hear about me. No one makes reaction videos to my material. I’ve simply operated a blog since 2009, which in itself is a bit of a time capsule from the late 2000s.

        With this background you might think I’m simply a dinosaur that can’t adapt to new technology. But I’ve seen the new landscape, and deliberately said no. The current podcast environment is reactive, inferior to writing, and backwards looking. To illustrate those points we might consider the controversy of the day (at least it was when I wrote this). A youtube personality, Jacob Hansen recently discussed Mormonism with a prominent atheist, Alex O’Conner. I didn’t watch the interview, but since then I have encountered half a dozen posts, reaction videos, and memes across the internet that in turn generated hundreds of comments. This includes the Mormon and ex-Mormon reddit, several facebook groups, Mormon Book Review podcast, and the ex-Mormon called Cultch (formerly cultural hall.) I’m sure there are more out there I haven’t seen but I only lurk around a few corners of the internet. (I only like Cultch for example, because he hate watches Jacob Hansen and that’s entertaining.) This controversy of the day crystallizes everything I hate about the podcast and reaction video culture.

        The discussion is incredibly reactive to the point that if I did start a podcast I’d probably call it the reaction, to the reaction, to the reaction video. (Or I’d just call it Podcast.) Jacob’s single conversation video has inspired countless hours of commentary and hundreds of comments. But there is nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the original item to begin with. The major takeaway is that he wasn’t an effective apologist, and he’s an intellectual light weight. That isn’t news. He didn’t make my list of overrated scholars for example, because I’ve never considered him a scholar. I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned him on this blog before.

        You take an original copy that isn’t very informative, and every reaction video is simply a copy of a copy with the resulting loss in quality. So the hours of content, especially for the podcasts, seems like little more than a shiny new object to debate and way to vent negative emotions. They react, react to the reaction, and react to the reaction of a reaction, to the point that they it’s the definition of a tempest in a teapot. That is how someone writing a good, but relatively unimportant blog about Heartland theories can be transformed into the definition of Mormon perfidy.  

        In the process of reacting and doing so quickly enough to have their reaction matter, it is often thoughtless. In many cases it takes me longer to read and reflect on a single book about the topic in question than it takes them to make a video. I prefer texts because I can read about 60-100 pages an hour of dense academic text, while I’ve seen podcasts where I can summarize the first 20 minutes with a single sentence. Then I have to consider the question or idea carefully, and then it takes many more hours of writing and revisions, peer revisions, and publication schedule to have the piece published. That’s why I expect the online world to be arguing about something different by the time I publish this piece. I’m not writing this piece to gain clicks by commenting on a hot topic, so I don’t care about its timing.

        Podcasts have the advantage of being faster, but I have yet to see a video that provides the knowledge gained from a thoughtful article or book. Even when they say something approaching academic insight, like a recent podcast from Cultch which discussed divine command theory, they remain relatively superficial in their points and they spent a significant amount of time discussing a particularly petty tweet from Hansen. Their discussion mostly talked in generalities that didn’t include specific verses, philosophers that explained the concept, or careful revisions to hone their points. These are all features of a paper I wrote which addressed how the scriptures seem to have both deontological and utilitarian systems and discussed the safeguards in scripture that restrain divine command theory. The podcast was so long, two hours, that I could rewrite that paper or reread most of the academic sources in the time it took them to make a few hasty generalizations.

        Speaking of my academic work, reaction video culture looks backwards. It not only goes back in time to the most recent “event,” like Jacob’s video, a news article, a prominent excommunication, etc. But it argues about the same things over and over again. Various YouTube personalities and podcasters give their zingers and catch phrases. Then the various ex and anti-Mormons give theirs. They go on like this is a perpetually breathless cycle of action and reaction that doesn’t provoke any new, substantive ideas. When not discussing people, the content is only arguing about stale issues like changes to the temple ceremony, the necessity of tithing, or differences in first vision accounts. These are all issues I first encountered decades ago. I remember reading an article about the differing first vision accounts on my mission in 2002. Some people might think those issues are a silver bullet for or against the church, and they might like deeply polemic arguing. But I find it all so pedestrian.

        My favorite part of being a scholar is looking to the future. When I applied to grad school, I had to show schools that I could make the transition from simply being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. Reactive culture doesn’t produce anything. I’ve never seen a podcast that approached the quality of an academic text, let alone one that blows my mind. The reaction video crowd simply consume knowledge that already exists, and then like carrion birds they fight over the carcass of that knowledge with other consumers. I’ve never seen anything new or original from them except increasingly click bait worthy hot takes. That is how you get videos with two buffoons discussing how ex Mormons are morons that the church couldn’t work for because they wanted to do drugs and have orgies. That is outrageous enough that it drives clicks, and even I heard about it, yet that doesn’t produce new insights or knowledge. Like an overworked ad executive, they simply came up with a new gimmick to drive engagement.

        At best they have an author on their show that discusses their book. But even then it’s still reactive because the content is being driven by a semi substantive academic work. (Not every book is created equal.) So even at their best and most substantive, they are dependent on the work of academics to generate their content.

        In short, I might be relatively unknown, even after all of these years. I’m not the target of reaction videos. But I’m also not the subject of dramatic personal attacks. I may do some interviews based on my academic expertise and books because I’m happy to talk about my work, even if I don’t like the medium.

        Mostly, I spend my time writing to produce new insights with an eye for the future. I just released a book on Just War in the Book of Mormon that represents the first attempt to systematize Mormon thought on the subject. During that process, I found a master’s thesis from over 100 years ago.[1] I imagine that the author was less popular than the authors of dime novels and the hosts of radio programs. He might have even sighed a few times, sitting alone in the library, sad that his hard work seemed to be ignored. But a century later, his insights aided my analysis, enhanced my thinking, and produced new understanding that I shared to a world that also doesn’t seem to care that much. In as little as a few weeks from now, no one will remember the controversy of the week from a random youtube personality. In contrast, my books will influence writers for years and hopefully like the writer I found during my research, scholars in the centuries to come will find and appreciate mine. When you measure success by insights gained from decades of studying which can then be studied centuries from now, a podcast and podcasters that generates buzz for a few days or weeks just don’t seem attractive.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or buy one of my books in the top left. 

*********

---

[1] Chen Queh King, Doctrine of Military Necessity, master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1918.

Give War a Chance: Moroni as a Peacemaker

      

        There are several exciting projects on which I'm working. This is the introduction of my piece on Moroni as a peacemaker. I'm not quite sure where to submit it but I think its unique and incisive:  

        One of the major arguments from peace advocates against the use of force concerns the supposed “cycle of violence.” I first heard this sitting next to John Scott Graham who saw Gaza in the Book of Mormon.[1] In their book, Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher discussed how the constant warfare between the Nephites and Lamanites represent a cycle of violence.[2] While not using the exact phrase, Eugune England clearly expressed the idea when he discussed a nonviolent ethic that furthered peace and built trust instead of fueling the threat of war.[3] In one particularly ridiculous case, Connor Boyack conflated two different cliches to say, “cycle of blowback.”[4]

        The theory sounds attractive on its face. It says that in response to encroachment on boundaries, the violated side often responds with fear, anger, and selfishness which is then often expressed in violence. In turn, this leads to what philosopher Terry Warner called “mutually provocative collusion” in which both sides have narratives they tell themselves that justify an increasing cycle of violence against the other.[5] Both sides feel the others are the aggressor and they are the justified defender. Martin Luther King summarized the danger of escalatory violence when he said “the line between defensive violence and aggressive or retaliatory violence is a fine line indeed.”[6] The belief in retaliatory violence forms a core argument for reading of the Book of Mormon as a pacifist text that warns us about the reliance on force, and turns our attention away from the clear support in the text for military leaders like Moroni and instead turns our attention towards Ammon and his brethren that supposedly changed that narrative.

        Yet there is another path that shows how Moroni’s military success in Alma 43 and 44 led to the Lamanite desire for peace in Alma 47:2. It wasn’t the preaching of the word and turning away from the supposed cycle of violence that secured peace. Moroni’s righteous desire to protect his people and inspiration from the Lord led to his decisive victory in battle. That victory was so decisive that he made the murderous dissenters like Zarahemnah depart with an oath of peace (Alma 44:20), and it made many other Lamanites reconsider their murderous ideology to the point that they refused the next call to war (Alma 43:53-54; Alma 47:2). This lesson suggests we should reject interpretations based on theories about the cycle of violence and Ammon’s missionary service and instead give war a chance by considering how Moroni’s battlefield victories created peace.[7]

Thanks for reading! I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

*********

---

[1] John Stott Graham, “Reading Gaza in the Book of Mormon?”, War and Peace in Our Time: Mormon Perspectives? Claremont Graduate University March 18-19, 2011.

[2] Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict, Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, 2021),74-80.

[3] Eugune England, “A Case For Mormon Christian Pacifism.” In Wielding the Sword While Proclaiming Peace: Views from the LDS Community on Reconciling the Demands of National Security with the Imperatives of Revealed Truth, Kerry Kartchner and Valerie Hudson eds.,166-167 (163-168).

[4] Connor Boyack, Sunday Musings, October 15^th, 2023, 11:30. https://youtu.be/dXw9KjOpUFI?si=6-NaEwd1meXQeWwh&t=690 at 7:53 it should be noted he also used the anti-Semitic slur, “pound of flesh.”

[5] Terry Warner, “The Path to Peace is a Peaceful Path,’ lecture delivered at “Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Peace is Possible.” 26^th Annual Conference of the LDS International Society, April 6^th, 2015, BYU, Provo, Utah.

[6] Martin Luther King Jr., “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom,” in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World, ed. James Melvin Washington (San Francisco: Harper Press, 1992), 130.

[7] I recognize Ammon travelled with a group of missionaries, but for ease of reference I will only refer to Ammon.

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.