Where will it lead? Dallin Oaks Supports Preemptive War

 

        Not too long ago the current member of the first presidency, Dallin H Oaks, gave a talk entitled, Where will this lead? He discussed the importance of basing current decisions on future events.

The setting was a beautiful college campus. A crowd of young students was seated on the grass…[T]hey were watching a handsome tree squirrel with a large, bushy tail playing around the base of a beautiful hardwood tree. Sometimes it was on the ground, sometimes up and down and around the trunk…

Stretched out prone on the grass nearby was an Irish setter. He was the object of the students’ interest, and the squirrel was the object of his. Each time the squirrel was momentarily out of sight circling the tree, the setter would quietly creep forward a few inches and then resume his apparently indifferent posture. This was what held the students’ interest. Silent and immobile, their eyes were riveted on the event whose outcome was increasingly obvious.

Finally, the setter was close enough to bound at the squirrel and catch it in his mouth. A gasp of horror arose, and the crowd of students surged forward and wrested the little animal away from the dog, but it was too late. The squirrel was dead.

        Personally, I would have let nature take its course. Any squirrel that wasn’t savvy enough to dodge a dog would probably ruin the gene pool anyway. But President Oaks then discussed the point of this true-life parable, not too different from the parable I offered:  

Anyone in that crowd could have warned the squirrel at any time by waving his or her arms or crying out, but none did. They just watched while the inevitable outcome got closer and closer. No one asked, “Where will this lead?” When the predictable occurred, all rushed to prevent the outcome, but it was too late. Tearful regret was all they could offer…

[This] applies to things we see in our own lives and in the lives and circumstances around us. As we see threats creeping up on persons or things we love, we have the choice of speaking or acting or remaining silent. It is well to ask ourselves, “Where will this lead?” Where the consequences are immediate and serious, we cannot afford to do nothing. We must sound appropriate warnings or support appropriate preventive efforts while there is still time.

        What astounded me about this story is how closely it parallels the arguments that I’ve been making for years. The late 17th century theorist Samuel Puffendorf described the principle as a right to defend yourself from a “charging assailant with sword in hand.” The Book of Mormon implies this principle when it says Nephites were taught “never to raise the sword” except to preserve their lives (Alma 48:14). This is commonly assumed to mean defense. But there is a time between raising a sword and swinging the sword. As well as a time before swinging a sword and striking someone with a sword. Thus, defense doesn’t begin when the sword hits you or hits you three times as some inappropriately apply Doctrine and Covenants 98, but defense begins when the sword is raised but hasn't yet struck. Or as summarized by Grotius: when the attack is commenced but not carried out.

        The basic principle was best explained by the early modern scholar, and founder of international law, Hugo Grotius. He described the principles of intent, means and imminency. This applies personally and intentionally. A short time ago Israel saw thousands of Hezbollah rockets pointed at them. They had an avowed enemy with an expressed intent to exterminate Israel. The means consisted of thousands of rockets pointed at Israel. Those rockets were ready to launch, and Israel had solid intelligence that the launch was imminent. So, Israel exercised their God given right to defend themselves from a raised sword.

        Personally, this is just as applicable. A crazed men enters the subway. He yells about his intent that he wants to stab people and doesn’t care if he goes to jail. He waves around the knife in his hand. And he is so deranged an attack seems imminent. I’m not making any of this up, this was the Neely subway attack. Thankfully, a brave Good Samaritan that deserves a medal put the man in a choke hold and prevented an attack. He and other subway passengers didn’t stand around and say to themselves, “this is really dangerous, lets see where he’s going with this.” They didn’t wait until the attack was carried out, in which they or others would have already been hurt. They acted preemptively.

        Even comedians understand this principle! A young mother was at a sketchy motel in the movie, Manos: The Hands of Fate. When the strange motel employee, Torgo, started palming her hair the RiffTrax comedian jokingly added her line, “This is super creepy but I’ll just stand right here and see where he’s going with this.”

        And now, I found that one of the leaders of the church understands the principle as well. “Where the consequences are immediate and serious, we cannot afford to do nothing. We must sound appropriate warnings or support appropriate preventive efforts while there is still time.”

        This, dear readers, is the essence of justified preemptive war. I’ve been accused of being a warmongering, insane, deranged anti-Christ and war criminal with a stench of death for espousing these views.  All I want is for people to be safe and exercise their God given rights to defense. Now I find this view espoused by President Oaks.

        This principle has one more ironic note. Dallin H. Oaks is often quoted by peace advocates for his story about stopping a mugging by expressing tenderly, fatherly care.[1] The lesson gathered is somewhat misplaced, since an approaching bus distracted the mugger and seemed to have at least as much dissuasive power as Oak’s expressions of “assertive love.” On top of that, it’s rather condescending of pacifists to take one story and make it a general rule that should apply to everyone. Moreover, Dallin Oaks himself recognizes the need for preemptive action or else he wouldn’t have shared the parable of the squirrel years later.

        There is a great deal more evidence for preemptive war than many people realize. It has a strong theoretical basis based on solid reasons. The concept has implied scriptural support through Alma 48:14 and numerous other scriptures or stories. This includes Mosiah 9:1, the events after Alma 26:25, Helaman 1, Helaman 2, and even a careful reading of supposedly disqualifying verses like 3rd Nephi 3:21 or Mormon 4:4 support the practice. It works in the practical world ranging from the subway to missiles and it’s been practiced by everyone from Epaminondas to Moroni. Finally, its fundamental truth is explained by a supportive Dallin Oaks. We must ask where something will lead. When the cost of inaction is too dangerous, we are not only allowed, but commanded to take appropriate preemptive action.

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

**********

---

[1] Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict, Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, 2021) 109-113.

Why is Visions of Glory Killing People?

 

         Visions of Glory is a controversial book that details the near-death experiences of a man named Spencer. The controversy comes from how people like doomsday mommy Lori Vallow Daybell relied, at least in part, on books like this to justify murder. The cousin of Lori Vallow, Megan Conner even said, “my family members are dead because of Visions of Glory, how is that okay?”

        I just happen to specialize in military history and ethics. To answer the question the book contributes to deaths because it provide a blueprint for a community of those who have near death experiences and arrogantly claim they have special spiritual powers, they can see the righteousness of people around them and the demonic forces influencing them, and then the book used opaque language that minimized killing in the name of God. The result is a perversion of spiritual language and ideas to justify murder.

        The general tone of this book reeked of arrogance. This person claimed that he was an elite member of a small group within the church. A member of the 144,000 mentioned in the Book of Revelation, he called himself a first citizen of Zion that received personal missions from the Lord from his office in the temple (194-195). These descriptions refer to a future event after he is translated and before the millennium, but as with everything discussed in this review, if someone believes they are eventually the first citizen of Zion with an office in the temple and ability to see the souls of those around them (161), it’s easy to feel a sense of superiority now. In addition to seeing the souls, he discussed how translated being used the portal that let them travel from Zion, healed the sick, and raised the dead. These gifts only worked according to the faith of those wielding them. Miracles based on faith is a safe Biblical principle, but the way Spencer was better at it, discussing the shortcomings of other translated beings reinforced a feeling of superiority I found emanating from him.

        His visions included seeing dark spirits roaming among the people of the world tempting them (23). The most dramatic moment was watching a young man view pornography and the misshapen minions and spirits working him into a frenzy of desire that Spencer likened to dogs fighting over a carcass (94). This incident left me questions. If he were in the room, and knew the individual was following the suggestion of the minions to look up more and more scintillating material, wouldn’t Spencer have scene pornography as well? Did his vision include special pixelating software? Wouldn’t seeing a man in a sexual act also have been porn? But that’s using critical thinking. I’m supposed to be impressed with his spirituality and anti porn crusade. Most importantly, given the way that convicted child abusers Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt created pornography groups that castigated men, and abused children in the name of fighting demons, this vision of pornography use seems more like an excuse to abuse porn users than a warning against evil spirits. 

        The final ingredient for murder is the casual way he talks about killings. As a translated being fully knowing the will of the Lord he felt “free to deliver men from mortality” (199). He said that “death was a divine blessing” because the wicked men “no longer added iniquity to their divine ledger.” Even though the Book of Mormon directly disagrees when it said that the Nephites were “sorry” top send “so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God” (Alma 48:23). Spencer said “they were rarely consumed by fire” (thanks?), the translated beings simply “started them on their immortal journey”… and they “just fell to the ground and slipped into the eternities.”

        That is an astounding use of language to minimize killing. This is where arrogance becomes important. It’s one thing to meet a Loran Blood type person online who judgmentally lectures you about judgment. Its another when you combine that arrogance, with a sense that you’re already the elect, who also has the (eventual) power to let people “slip into eternity.” Like I said, what originally becomes a promised power is warped into current power by the spiritually arrogant who share the near death experiences of Spencer.

        Lori Vallow had similar near death experiences to the person in this book that convinced her she had a connection to the spirit world, and ability to see spirits.[1] Chad Daybell, whom she married and in whose yard she buried her murdered children, said they were part of the 144,000, just like Spencer. Also like Spencer, Lori claimed she could see dark spirits in her children, and if she was already translated as she claimed, she likely felt enabled to “let the slip into eternity” lest they “add iniquity to their ledger.”

        So you take someone who is spiritually arrogant, claims a special connection to God and power to see the wicked, and then claims a license to KILL the wicked, while minimizing death, and it seems pretty obvious how Visions of Glory kills people. It’s not the book itself. The book was a fairly informative read that read like a mix between an extremely detailed dream and the Mormon version of The Stand. But the creepy deaths come this radical subculture of those who claim near death experiences and then arrogantly assert special powers as they murder those around them.

        A general rule to remember is that the scriptures should challenge our beliefs. As I said in the last chapter of my latest book, we might see the principled right of just war but should be wary of certainty and look for ways to avoid asserting the right to use force. The theorist Grotius pointed out that if a person can avail themselves of the legal system, then they still have recourse short of war or violence.[2] In other words, if we can rely on court orders, the legal system, and the police, we can safely abandon the need for force. And while Nephi relied on the word of the Lord to behead Laban. We are not Nephi, we’re unlikely to ever face such an exceptional event, and unlikely to ever hear the word of the Lord that requires us to abandon conventional morality. As a result, beware of those like Lori Vallow Daybell or Spencer form Visions of Glory, who claim such special insight and authority while using minimizing language around killing.

Thanks for reading. 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] Did the article really have to quote Patrick Mason in four paragraphs? What special qualifications does he have besides being first on the reporter’s rolodex?

[2] if the attackers “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.” Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Stephen Neff trans., (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 83-84.

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.