Is Starship Troopers Fascist?

 

        The 1990s version of this movie was such a good satire of fascism that most don’t realize it was satire, or that it didn’t accurately reflect the book.

        In the book version of Starship Troopers anyone can participate in government by simply volunteering for the military. In other words, the government in Starship Troopers is a democracy, but suffrage is based upon military service and not simply being born in the country and reaching a certain age. The civics teacher in the book explains why, and it boils down to only those that have skin in the game get to have a say in policy.

        The military service isn't forced or conscripted like you'd see in a dictatorship. In fact, the military gave the main character plenty of chances to back out of their contract, even after they’ve shipped off. Those that didn’t fulfill their term of service weren’t sent to the gulag. They still enjoyed all the rights of being a citizen except voting. Most qualifying terms of service were only two years long in non combat support roles. The main character grew into a such a man that he went career in the infantry.

        The government respected the rights of its citizens including free speech. There were no secret police rounding up minorities and dissidents like a person would expect in a fascist government. The court system, especially for the military, had protections for the accused. The main character witnessed his military leadership trying to help the average soldiers avoid the harshest punishments until they blurted out their crime and it was unavoidable. The main character is Filipino, showing there wasn’t some master race ideology that motivated the government.

        They are fighting a war, but there is almost nothing about higher strategy or the reasons for either side fighting it. The main character's hometown was attacked, so in contrast to the desire for greater East Asian prosperity sphere or “living space”, the war in Starship troopers was arguably defensive. But Rico literally says, the pawn doesn't interrogate the grand master about why its moved so that is secondary.

        The tactics displayed by Rico, particularly in the opening chapter are violent, but comparable to airborne operations from World War II, negating any charges of attempted "genocide." (Ever since Gaza that word has been overused to the point of meaningless anyway.)

        In short, the book is no more militaristic or fascist than the memoir of any real-life veteran. Any veteran reading this book would appreciate its focus on military life and culture but wouldn’t call it fascist. The message of the book was simply: a dumb kid finally grows up and learns how to be a good son, father, and citizen after joining the military.

        I highly recommend you read the book for yourself.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or consider purchasing one of my book posted in the top left. 

Blurred Lines: Why So Many Killers Confuse Terrorism with Justice

 

        The recent shooting at a Mormon chapel in Michigan is part of a disturbing trend: the growing justification of violence. A Catholic church was recently attacked, Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and the murderer of a health care CEO is treated as a romantic figure because of his looks. Even Lori Vallow, the “doomsday mom,” defended her killings by invoking Nephi’s slaying of Laban.

        These examples reveal how dangerously blurred the moral line has become between justified violence and terrorism. Increasingly, those who commit crimes are excused, while ordinary law-abiding people, working unglamorous jobs in average towns or simply attending church, are painted as guilty of society’s ills and, in some eyes, worthy of death. Such thinking only makes sense when guilt and innocence are determined not by individual actions but by membership in a group.

        This logic can be traced through intellectual traditions that divide the world into two hostile camps: the oppressors vs. oppressed of Marx, or the colonizers vs. colonized of Frantz Fanon. Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, praised by Jean-Paul Sartre and Cornel West as a revolutionary manual, has become particularly influential. Its vision of collective struggle and sanctioned violence echoes today in the defense of Hamas atrocities, the celebration of political assassinations, and even in some strands of leftist Mormon thought.

        This post examines Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth to show how violence is sanctioned when individual responsibility is erased and why Just War theory provides a much needed moral antidote.

Violence

        The Wretched of the Earth both justifies and minimizes intense violence. The first line of the book said, “decolonization is always a violent event” (1). Then, “decolonization reeks of red-hot cannonballs and bloody knives” (3). Fanon warned of a “human tide” that sounded like the French Reign of Terror (13.) Fanon says the colonized are filled with “blood feuds” and “fratricidal blood bath(s)” (17, 21). “It is clearly and plainly an armed struggle” (42). “For the colonized, this violence represents the absolute praxis” (43). And finally, “For the colonized, life can only materialize from the rotting cadaver of the colonialist.”

        His theories result in a Manichean view, his words, that erase individual moral virtue and justified murder. Because if a colonized person kills colonizer cops, he is a hero. As Fanon wrote “If the act for which this man is prosecuted by the colonial authorities is an act exclusively directed against a colonial individual or colonial asset, then the demarcation line [between right and wrong] is clear and manifest (30).”

Minimize Western Religion and Values

        When he does quote Christian teachings, he either invalidates or perverts them. According to Fanon, the teachings of love and harmony (3) are simply part of the “confusion mongers” that make exploitation easier (4).  Fanon said, “The last can be first only after a murderous and decisive confrontation” (3).

        Fanon says Christianity is the white man’s church, “as we know in this story, many are called but few are chosen” (8). After he told story of rebel that killed colonizers Fanon said it was a “baptism by blood” (46).

        He ignored Western values the same way. Without evidence he asserted that “government agents use the language of pure violence” (4). Discussions of Western values cause the natives to tense their muscles and grab a machete and sharpen their weapons (8). Fanon said the West wages a war in values, that the people don’t care about. All they care about is land appropriation and blowing the colonial world to smithereens (6).

Putting It All Together

        All the above matters because the Western values that he diminishes, which were often promulgated by Christian thinkers, established guardrails against the kind of bloodbath Fanon justified and unleashed and provides moral correction against the abuses that supposedly justify the violent outbursts of the colonized.[1]

        Salamanca school scholar Francisco Suarez wrote that revolt is only violence is just only “if essential for liberty, because if there is any less drastic means of removing him it is not lawful to kill him…always provided that there is no danger of the same or worse evils falling on community as result of the tyrants death.[2]

        Early modern scholar Hugo Grotius wrote about the same right to revolt if the king alienates his people, but also warned potential usurpers that it would lead to gory factionalism and “dangerous, bloody conflict.”[3]

        In similar language, Mosiah recognized the danger of revolt when he argued for the end of the monarchy: [Y]e cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood (Mosiah 29:21).

        In contrast to Fanon, Christian writers espousing what eventually became notable Western values recognized the same danger in revolution and warned against slaughter. At the same time, they recognized the rights of the oppressed and just war often became a catalyst for reform. Fanon dismissed the talk of rights as the “erstatz,” or fake struggle of the elite for the people “insipid humanitarianism” (28). Yet those supposedly insipid beliefs according to Fanon, or beliefs that are insufficient according to multiple LDS scholars,[4] are stronger than any of Fanon’s theories because they clearly address the morality of revolution.

        Despite being minimized by Fanon as abstract values that don’t matter, the Salamanca school scholars advocating for human rights of natives, the Grimke sisters arguing for abolition, the missionaries arguing for abolition, and the Christian missionaries that reported the abuses in the Belgian Congo suggest religion was often a reforming counter agent to colonialism. A focus on individual morality instead of collective guilt promoted by Fanon noticed the stark differences between the philosopher that opposed colonization compared to the politicians that wanted it, the ministers that built roads and bridges and the rapacious tax collectors, and the leaders of the Western Concession in Shanghai that shielded dissidents.

        Using collective accusations that erases individual moral responsibility is why we end up with Hamas apologists. Cornell West said the Palestinians most embody the “spirit of Fanon” (xii), so when they killed, they were simply part of the colonized oppressed and their actions turn them in to “heroes.” I quoted this earlier, but it is worth repeating what Fanon wrote regarding the morality of violence against the colonizers, “If the act for which this man is prosecuted by the colonial authorities is an act exclusively directed against a colonial individual or colonial asset, then the demarcation line is clear and manifest.” Even though their violence was a barbaric campaign of mass slaughter and rape against innocent families, the ideas of Fanon made all Jews guilty and all terrorists innocent.

        That is why Americans witnessed the bizarre spectacle of liberal groups making gliders their logo. (Gliders are how the terrorists travelled to the massacre at the Nova music festival.) And this confused moral logic led to tweets which argued the barbaric savagery of Hamas was “what decolonization looks like.”

        This collective guilt theory is why so many rationalized away the assassination of health care CEO Brian Thompson. (The other reason was the killer’s attractiveness.) He never killed anyone and arguably worked to provide health care to millions. But he was part of a hated industry, attacked for killing thousands. Thus, the nominal morality that opposes murder held less sway for the masses of morally confused. It’s true that the health care system really stinks but relying on collective guilt to indict one person as guilty and worthy of death and justify murder by another, is a dangerous slope and signals a dangerous erosion of clear moral standards.

Bad Categories Escape Morality

        In short, the problem was summarized from my post about the Visions of Glory. As I wrote about Visions of Glory, once a person starts labelling yourself as part of a righteous group, and their opponents as zombies, it becomes easier to justify killing them. When Fanon described an event as naturally violent (1) and a population existing in an “atmosphere of violence” (31) it’s natural to strike out.[5]

        The antidote is not to invent new theories or indulge in vague moralizing, but to return to the clarity of Just War principles and the wisdom of earlier thinkers. As both Christian tradition and the Book of Mormon warn, revolution comes only “through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.” That is not a license to glorify violence but a sober caution to resist collective guilt and hold fast to individual responsibility.

        We are judged by our own sins, not by the accidents of class, race, or category. If we truly wish to resist the age of blurred lines and confused morality, we must recover the values of love, harmony, and conciliation that Fanon dismissed, and recognize that peace is found not in collective vengeance, and random shootings, but in clear moral standards rooted in justice.

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] Morgan Deane, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War and the Book of Mormon, (Arsenal of Venice Press, 2024,) 104-106.

[2] Andre Azevedo Alves, Jose Moreira, John Meadowcroft, The Salamanca School, (Bloomsbury Academic Pro, 2013), 53. 

[3] Grotius , 73-76. Grotius also placed limits on potential usurpers that included another warning that it is difficult to determine the morality of a rebellion. He suggested that individual shouldn’t take it upon themselves to decide a question on their own, which involves the whole people.

[4] Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 135. Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 223. Boyce states “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.”

[5] There is an absurd double standard here as well. When conservatives do something as simple as enforce immigration law, they are attacked as evil for creating a “climate of fear.” But when a third world nation is on the verge of a horrific orgy of violence they honor scholars that call that violence natural, necessary, and heroic.

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.

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. 

Book Review: How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian

        

        Domonic Crossan is the expert on the “historical Jesus” but wrote a book that was severely flawed. Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies (types of justice, radical nonviolent God verses normal civilized God), dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image.

The Historical Jesus

        The foundation of his argument is the nonviolent teachings of the historical Jesus. But his interpretation rests on a house of cards. He points to a general historical trend in the first two centuries AD that he calls “the matrix,” or general cultural and societal attitudes within Jewish society. Yet these attitudes are selectively chosen and amplified. For example, he points to the attempt of Caligula to install a pagan statue in the temple (146-148). In response, a crowd of Jews not carrying weapons gathered in the square to oppose the action. This is supposedly an example of nonviolent resistance but doesn’t account for how militant they seemed simply using the power of an angry crowd. These Jewish people weren’t calmly nonviolent resisters proudly bandied about by modern pacifists. They were militant agitators, that even without weapons were on the verge of a violent and deadly riot. The unarmed Lamanite prisoners, for example, were so violent the Nephites were forced to slay 2,000 of them (Alma 57:13-14). Yet Crossan massages the incident to make readers assume the example supports a nonviolent ideology. (For someone who builds their case on the “historical” Jesus this sloppy understanding of history is especially egregious.)

        His use of the Q source is even more dubious. This is the name of the anonymous source that may have inspired Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Because Matthew and Luke both contain polished expansions of Markan material using the same wording, many scholars conclude that Matthew and Luke relied on the Gospel of Mark and a second, unknown, or Q source (Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13; Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9-10). Yet some scholars argue that maybe Q didn’t exist at all. Others think that perhaps Mark was first to write his gospel but relied on some of Jesus’ unpolished sayings written in Aramaic, that may have been from an earlier Q source and polished by Matthew and Luke. Others think Mark was a later and abbreviated “summary” gospel. There is so much disagreement among scholars concerning which source inspired what and when each was written that it usually needs a chart to explain it. See the chart on this page for example.

        It’s all as plain as the sun in the sky!! Crossan takes this ~settled~ debate and looks at Jesus’ militant statements recorded by Matthew and Luke deriving from Q. Combined with the idea that Matthew and Luke use Q to “update” the original Jesus of Mark with militant statements he concludes that Q had the unsanitized version of the radical nonviolence of Jesus that was changed to the normalcy of violent civilization by Matthew and Luke (see 174-179 for example). The previous sentence sure is a mouthful, but simply stated without Crossan’s buzz words, he claims the historical Jesus was corrupted with bad theology derived from cultural attitudes of later writers. Crosson’s over reliance on Q to try and separate a pure Jesus from a corrupted one within the gospels is unsatisfying from an evidentiary standpoint.

Selective Theology

        It is even weaker from a theological standpoint. His weak arguments that reconstruct the so called, “historical Jesus” are used an excuse to lop off entire segments of the Bible. He somewhat admits this problem when he contends that Christians follow Jesus, not the Bible. Yet outside of living prophets that add living eye witness testimonies, the holy texts that describes God’s dealing with His people are the only information we have about God. So Crosson claims to follow Jesus, while he picks and chooses among the texts that authoritatively describe Jesus.

        For example, he talks a great deal about distributive justice. He doesn’t account for the injustice that derives from nonviolent impulses. If people stand idly by because of their vision of the historical, nonviolent, redistributive Jesus, then their innocent “wives and…children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren” (Alma 48:24). Moreover, it’s immoral to have a personal choice by individuals impose unjust and immoral consequences on others. For example, Patrick Mason and David Pulispher used the example of Dallin Oaks talking down a mugger holding a gun as evidence that people should adopt their non violent proposals. This is a heartwarming story and I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t need to use violence. Having someone hold a gun on innocent family members and relying on a speech to save them from gunfire is not a reasonable or safe standard for families. But pacifists expect their passive standards from a selective reading of scripture to guide other’s foreign policy and personal safety with innocent victims at stake.

        Instead of acknowledging that different parts of the Bible reflect different attributes of the same God, Crosson refers to “parallel tracks” of a “bipolar” and “schizophrenic” God (71). At one disgusting point he calls the God of the flood a “terrorist” (71).[1] He claims that God was “sucked into” the escalatory violence of the world (71-72), as though God isn’t in charge, he is simply led around by the nose and provoked by His creations.

How Weak a Foundation

        Unfortunately, Crosson’s attitude that judges God based on his concept of nonviolence reminds me of LDS scripture and pacifists. They are so interested in seeing a “God made in their own image” that they minimize and misunderstand God (D&C 1:16). One LDS writer, David Pulsipher, complained that God and His prophets lacked the “moral imagination” that the writer and his favorite pacifists had.[2] It is our job to understand the divine, not try to limit or diminish God because he doesn’t have our “imagination.” (Also, see Helaman 16:22.)

        In another instance, Pulispher and Patrick Mason suggest that we use modern scholarship to dispute the historical accuracy of the Bible, thus “eroding any moral authority that might be gleaned from scriptures that endorse human violence.”[3] Unsurprisingly, just a few pages earlier the same authors cited Dominic Crosson,[4] who not only undermines any moral authority for violence but doubts the character of God to such a degree that he calls him a genocidal terrorist. That is putting the cart before the horse. It uses modern tools of scholarship, themselves a reflection of cultural concerns, to dispute God, who commands us to put aside small-minded cultural attitudes and follow Him.

        Of course, the Bible isn’t a clear manual about God and mankind’s concept of deity is often misunderstood and used to commit awful acts of violence. Still though, Latter Day Saints should be especially wary of a methodology that diminishes God’s character that reduces him to a figure head for an ideology. And an ideology that forbids the use of force actually perpetuates injustice. Rather than showing a schizophrenic God, the Book of Mormon’s account of the destruction immediately preceding His ministry and Christ’s teaching reveal a consistently loving God that recognizes the need to use force. Right before Jesus’s personal ministry among the Nephites he violently destroyed many cities (3 Nephi 9:3-12). Then he lamented that His people didn’t listen to him (3 Nephi 9:13), and he offered a tender example of how he would gather them as a hen gathered her chickens before offering the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek (3 Nephi 10:4-6; 3 Nephi 12:39). Then he finished by reminding his audience of Isaiah's violent prophecies of a militant God executing his “vengeance” (3 Nephi 21:14-21).

        One version of God shouldn’t be believed over the other. Both versions ARE GOD and worthy of study. We are reading about different aspects of his personality, that is just, merciful and loving while God recognizes the need to use violence, often as punishment that compels men to be humble (Alma 32:13), and lead them to repentance and redemption (3 Nephi 9:17).

        Dominic Crosson’s book relies on several false dichotomies, dubious historical reconstructions, lops off large segments of scripture and fails to truly study the character of God. Instead, like pacifist LDS writers he uses his own ideology to create a God in his own image. I can’t recommend his book unless you want to see the “playbook” that LDS pacifists attempt to run on scripture.

**********

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal link below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. My latest, is a book length treatment of the above ideas. 

---

[1] I was seriously tempted to stop reading at that point. Terrorist is an overwrought, emotional term and directed towards God it revealed a great deal of Crosson’s character. I no longer wondered why he was a disgraced ex priest.

[2] Pulsipher, J. David (2021) "Defend Your Families and Love Your Enemies: A New Look at the Book of Mormon’s Patterns of Protection," BYU Studies Quarterly: Vol. 60: Iss. 2, Article 6. (179-182)

[3] Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Ancer to an Age of Conflict, (Deseret Book, 2021), 167-168.

[4] Ibid., 150 fn 7.

Book Review: Proclaim Peace

I'm proud to present my review of Proclaim Peace! The whole thing is too long to repost on this blog but see the whole thing here. The following is a few thoughts I had on its release: 

 What I found is that Latter Day Saints usually don't think about these matters that much. They have some gut reactions and at most, they add some new scriptures to what is a very old debate. But very few have read the great thinkers who informed the debate. Most people probably think Francisco Suarez is a nice place to visit in Mexico. As a result the scriptures they cite, even the new ones that seem clear, are asserted in isolation from other verses and from that rich tradition, which makes the ethic weak and unconvincing.

All of that occurred in the book I reviewed. They have thought through their position more than most, but mostly as a way to have Mormons, mostly liberal scholars like themselves, be accepted into the pacifist club, instead of really developing a broad and comprehensive ethic using restoration texts.

So on that note you can consider this review a sneak preview of the book I've got coming out on just war. As you can read below, I use much more than the preaching of Ammon and section 98. I never really considered myself an ethicist. But I've been trained by the best, from Sunzi, to Francisco Vitoria to Mormon so here is it is. Please like, read, and share. 

Book Review Saints: Volume One

George Orwell to rockers Rage Against the Machine have commented on the power of history and the wars over its interpretation. As a professor of history I constantly try to give my students the power to see the difference between a solid narrative and one that is manipulated. Saints: The Standard of Truth (1815-1846) is the first volume of a much needed update to previous attempts at church history and does a magnificent job of juggling many hard tasks.

The book starts with the eruption of a volcano in Indonesia which affected the weather of the indigent Smith family and necessitated their move to upstate New York. In 500 plus pages anchored by first person narratives and stirring vignettes that often focus on concern for loved ones, the book moves through the most tempestuous and still contentious years of church history. The first hurdle overcome is that the book discusses complex issues such as 19th century American folk religion, seer stones, census data, danites, plural marriage and legal proceedings, and keeps the prose at an accessible level. The ease of reading I would compare to Harry Potter which is a good thing. I’ve read many volumes that have too many ten dollars words in a one dollar sentence that bogs down the text.

The flow is helped immensely by interesting vignettes. From Thomas Marsh obtaining sample pages of the Book of Mormon from the printer, the introduction of the Book of Mormon to Brigham Young’s family and the reaction of the Hales to their son in law’s money digging, the historians and writers picked evocative examples that contextualize the historical events and often controversial issues being discussed. But the text isn’t mind reading or offering faith promoting rumors because these narratives and vignettes are well grounded in extensive primary and solid secondary sources.

The account of the first vision provides an excellent example of this. This is a story that (members formerly known as) Mormons could quote from Joseph Smith history even decades after they completed their missions. But in this volume the account draws on sources ranging from an interview with Smith done by the Pittsburgh Weekly Gazette, an Orson Hyde tract written in German, an Orson Pratt tract, and the journal of Levi Richards on top of copies of primary sources in the Joseph Smith papers (chapter 2 foot notes 2,4,8,9,11.) I read each footnote and their sourcing is incredible and impeccable and there are reproductions of them in the Joseph Smith Papers and online. The extensive research results in a narrative that provides little known details, such as Joseph praying at the location where he left an axe in a tree stump. It also weaves in answers to repeated criticisms such as different first vision accounts, divining rods and peep stones. Again, it does all of this in a concise, readable, and engrossing manner. (Please note, before September 4th I’m limited in discussing material in the book that is already made available. As a result I’m only using examples from the first few chapters.)

This volume shows the power of history in using an intimate knowledge of primary sources, and judicious use of secondary sources like Richard Bushman’s Rough Stone Rolling. The limits of the discipline and often fragmentary sources can be frustrating. This volume does an excellent job at looking back, lightening a window into the past, and providing a solid example for future volumes of church history and how members can talk about it today. It addresses often repeated criticisms. But they talk about it in matter of fact language and in the middle of excellent contextualization which will make the sensationalist presentism of critics seem even weaker. It also looks to the future, by addressing supposedly controversial issues in a matter of fact way in the middle of their historical context; it will strengthen member’s faith and provide room for them to address tougher issues the church faces today.

The truth claims of the church remain a matter for thoughtful reflection and prayer. Critics will still find room to offer cynical rebuttals, though the excellent research and availability of sources will leave many of them impotent. Many members of the church correctly feel they don’t need a testimony of history, just a testimony of the church. Just like members of the church feel the need for geographic and cultural commentary on the New Testament, the history of the early church matters and interested readers will find this illuminating and a masterful, must read history that represents the best the discipline has to offer in pursuit of knowledge.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page. Thanks again. 

Book Review: Even Unto Bloodshed

The Interpreter posted my review of Even Unto Bloodshed. I thought the book was an excellent discussion of LDS scriptures and thought on war, and a vital resource for understanding the need and legitimacy of just war, but you should read the whole review of course.  There is already a comment there and several on Dan Peterson's blog where people want to re litigate the war in Iraq or continue to promote their anti war views.  Three cheers for doing a gospel topic search of the word peace! That should settle the matter haha.  These tendencies only underscore how vital it is that Latter Day Saints have serious and substantive discussion of the topic, without needlessly charging the issue.  (Like calling people war mongering propagandists or saying they have a "hatred and unquenchable thirst for revenge" if they disagree with you.)  Anyways, I can highly recommend the book.

Another Footnote: Even Unto Bloodshed.

I had the pleasure of receiving a review copy Even unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War.  That review coming out soon in the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Studies. The book was an excellent discussion of scriptures regarding warfare and provides a firm foundation for an LDS theory of just war.  I particular enjoyed his thorough and powerful dismantling of pacifist arguments. I've run into annoying proponents of those theories before and its always nice to have articulate arguments support what you've been arguing for a long time.

He also made some good arguments in defense of preemptive war, including a moral obligation to wage that kind of warfare on occasion.  (Some people suddenly dropped their nachos during their apoplectic rage.) While defending preemptive war he said in footnote 4 on page 298: Morgan Deane covers the topic of offensive tactics in warfare more fully than I do here, and with a focus on different examples.

I appreciate the comment, and I do focus a bit more on military history and historical practice. That is one of the things I didn't notice as much in his book.  I'm glad I'm able to contribute to the conversation.  Its a bit frustrating to realize that I have so many good ideas that don't seem to get noticed, but my words are getting out there. I do have a highly praised book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon. I have a journal article under consideration at Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought describing the unexamined consequences of the great war; and I'll shortly submit another to the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies about the arguments Amalickiah used to gain power. (Frequent readers will notice how those sound familiar. I figured if my second book is finally published these will make great advertisements for it. Not to mention that each publication will include a byline mentioning my current book.)

I'm also trying to get into contact with somebody at FairMormon for a presentation next year on insurgency. I already have a good title for it taken from my current research: Climbing a Tree to Find a Fish: Insurgency in the Book of Mormon.  Of course, I just presented the results of that new research in London.  I have great things happening and I'm happy to participate in a wider academic discussion. Thanks for reading.

Book Review: War: A Book of Mormon Perspective

As a military historian with an interest in the Book of Mormon I enjoy staying aware of current research in the field. I recently read the book, War: A Book of Mormon Perspective: How the War Chapters of the Book of Mormon Warn Against Wars of Aggression and the Warfare State. Unfortunately, the torturous title isn’t the only problem as Kendal Anderson’s book suffers from weak scholarly arguments, lack of research, and shallow research into the Book of Mormon. Moreover, Anderson’s work suffered from clichés,[1] sloppy typos, vague descriptions of historical events, lack of proper academic tone,[2] anti-intellectualism,[3] and slight engagement with scholarship.  This review will examine 4 brief examples from the many possible which underscore these serious flaws.

Civil War

                Anderson’s weaknesses are shown through several areas, and this was one of the most prominent. As part of his over reliance on marginal scholars he argued that the only just wars are the Revolutionary War and the South’s failed attempt to secede.  This was Anderson’s attempt to describe a form of defensive or just war combined with a thin veneer of cherry picked scriptures and simplistic analysis.

                Anderson failed to consider the moral cost of the South’s victory. The immoral practice would not have been abolished by the anarchist capitalism positions of ridiculous libertarians.  Anderson faces the same problem is his criticism of World War II.  As I pointed out in my criticisms of J. Reuben Clark, Anderson’s decisions would have left millions in slavery and millions more killed in genocide.  That is hardly just, and doesn’t take into account clear verses in the Book of Mormon that support a variety of military action.[4]

                The author also turned into a Southern apologist for slavery and states’ rights.  This is a trope brought out by those that deny the Civil War was fought over slavery, but proponents of the discredited “lost cause” school of thought don’t realize that the only right of states in question was the right to practice slavery. Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, said in his Corner Stone Speech said that the “corner stone” of their new country was the fundamental truth that blacks were inferior to whites and slavery guaranteed. The state secession conventions echoed this sentiment as well.  Anderson seemed so narrowly focused on the principle of coercion in the North’s fight against the South that he failed to realize the cost of inaction and the moral power of the Northern position; he also echoes those that supported and defended slavery.  Of course government conduct during war is often contemptible, but there is an importance difference between the moral cause of the war and immoral conduct during the war.  This difference failed to appear in Anderson’s contribution to the libertarian echo chamber.[5] 

                Another debate is the role that Lincoln played during the war. I often ask my students the ways in which Lincoln was a dictator.[6] But I ask those questions to illustrate the seeming contradiction that Lincoln had to bend the constitution in order to save it.  Again, this is part of the debate that real academics and serious student have as they grapple with questions that contain no easy answers and seeming contradictions within history.  It also supports the idea of a constant tension between security and freedom, and how the pendulum often swings between the two.  Libertarians dogmatically focused on a radical ideology fail to have this kind of comprehensive and nuanced awareness of the wider debate. After all, Anderson admitted that he didn’t care for school or pay attention, nor did he like reading obscure texts (8).   

Lost (About) China

                Again relying upon a handful of fringe and conspiratorial scholars, Anderson revealed a woeful ignorance of Chinese history and American foreign policy. Anderson stated that the Chinese Civil War started in 1931.  But only the Nationalist counter insurgency campaign started in 1931. The Communist insurgency really started with the failed uprising at Nanchang in 1927. Anderson also said they were in the “northwest” (149) but that didn’t happen until after the Long March of 1934.

   

Even worse than factual errors, Anderson presented a very tendentious history of the region.  For example, he presented Chiang-Kai Shek as a democratic reformer. Unfortunately, Chiang wasn’t nearly as good at reforming as he sounded.  Chiang’s strongest military forces were shattered during the Battle of Shanghai (1937) and he had to rely heavily upon warlord troops for the rest of the war.  Reforms were very difficult to implement due to this reliance, and of course a total war of survival against a vastly superior Japanese army.  The Communists, moreover, followed 3 Main Rules and 8 Points of Discipline that deliberately set them apart from the Nationalists and won the favor of peasants. They were much more adept at guerrilla warfare and highlighting their successes which further enhanced their prestige with the masses.[7]  After World War II the U.S. believed in a largely hands off policy that tried to broker a united front between the Nationalists and Communists similar to the 1920s and early period of the war with Japan from 1937 until the New Fourth Army incident of 1941.  In contrast to Anderson’s attacks that simply parroted other scholars, instead of “meddling”(150)the U.S. was too interested in peace, and as result they didn’t do enough immediately after World War II.

 

Thus Anderson is woefully ignorant of the history in this region. He relied upon a narrow group of scholars from the dated and tendentious Naked Communist of Cleon Skousen to the admittedly conspiratorial Jack Monett (134).   Its also a bit odd how Anderson argued in the rest of his book that America was immoral for intervening in world affairs, such as having bases in 130 countries (38), except in his (ignorant) view of China, where America should have picked sides in a 20 year long civil war to support Chiang Kai-Shek. 

Paranoid Style

                As an undergraduate I was a Marshall Scholar who had the opportunity to examine the archives at the George C. Marshall foundation at the Virginia Military Institute.  My award winning paper examined the confirmation of Marshall as Secretary of Defense during 1950. I bring this up because the fiercest critics of Marshall were isolationist Republicans such as William Jenner and Joseph McCarthy. During an epic rant on the senate floor Jenner invoked a long list of conspiracy theories ranging from FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, to the betrayal at Yalta, the loss of China, and finally the 1950 invasion of South Korea.

 

During my research I noticed that those like Jenner used what Richard Hofstadter called the paranoid style of American politics to attack Marshall and the loss of China as part of some wide spread conspiracy to aid Communism. Hofstadter used this theory to discuss right wing isolationists and how “no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy” that they used to argue.[8] 

This summary of the paranoid style was somewhat discursive but its important because I wanted to show how perfectly it describes Anderson’s approach. He admitted to using conspiratorial authors. He used heated exaggerations throughout the book but especially the chapter on World War II.  He echoed the arguments of radical right wing politicians that accused Democrats of secretly aiding communism from FDR’s recognition of the Soviet Union, to the betrayal at Yalta, loss of China, and dereliction of duty that led to the invasion of South Korea. Not every historian is expected to know every facet of every time period.  But Anderson shows such a stunning ignorance of history that he ended up mirroring the paranoid style of McCarthyites, sometimes almost word for word, without a trace of self-awareness.

Book of Mormon

                Anderson showed little awareness for items in the Book of Mormon, which is most grievous considering the title of his book.  Half his book was devoted to reprinting the works of various libertarians in very long appendices; the substance of his book relied far too heavily on shallow and paranoid summaries of history.  When he did get around to discussing the Book of Mormon, he confessed to only studying for “several months”(9) and his analysis was both superficial and scant. To cite a few examples, he claimed its unethical to perform seek and destroy missions (11), but didn’t notice the Book of Mormon says the Nephites “searched and destroyed’ without negative editorial comment (Helaman 11:28). He attacked Lincoln for his indefinite detention of prisoners (32),(as he typically did so using a block quote from a questionable scholar), yet failed to notice Moroni did the same (Alma 51:19; Alma 62:4).[9] He argued that the Nephite system of judges was “not unlike our constitutional system” (45). This statement is made in ignorance of the excellent article from Richard Bushman who explained, among other items, that early Americans would have balked at monarchal qualities such as life long tenure of chief judges and the seemingly hereditary nature of the position.[10]

Anderson asserted that “the fruits of the Nephite war of defense against the Lamanites were peace, liberty, freedom of religion, the mass conversion of Lamanite POWs, and the restoration of Nephite lands and property (144).” This is stunningly ignorant of the text. As soon as a single chapter after the war ended the Nephites lost their capital to the Lamanites. By Helaman 4, Moroni’s son could only regain half the land. And the Book of Helaman is replete with wicked chief judges, the constant quest for money (Helaman 6:7, 18; 7:5, 21), and Lamanites that were more righteous than the Nephites (Helaman 6:1). This is hardly the golden age of peace and liberty that Anderson claimed.  My new book shows how the reforms of Moroni such as heavier armor and more fortifications changed Nephite strategy and tactics for the worse, allowed the robbers to flourish, likely required rapacious taxation, and probably fueled the insurgency.

   

Conclusion

                Everybody has different opinions about warfare but the strongest opinions are based upon diligent study, careful reading of primary sources, solid analysis, and rational arguments.  I chose these four topics because they respectively represent research done for my Master’s thesis, Marshall award, research grant, and critically acclaimed book.   In contrast, War: A Book of Mormon Perspective does not even show an awareness of many crucial sources, let alone a thorough study and sound assessment of them.  Anderson showed a dilettantish approach as he relied upon a small group of fringe scholars and tried to squeeze the round Book of Mormon into the square hole of libertarianism.[11]  I cannot recommend this book except to provide examples of how to have an appearance of scholarship while denying the power thereof. 

Anderson justified quitting college in part because he didn’t want to read “obscure texts.” Some texts are obscure because we are still learning and haven’t come across them yet; or because we are simply too lazy to obtain, read, and reflect upon them.  Others are obscure because they are justifiably relegated by the larger academic community to the dusty margins of book shelves occupied by inconsequential, fringe pseudo scholars.  Anderson’s book will remain obscure for the second reason.

*****

---

[1] See pg. 13 for Satayana’s cliché about repeating history if you don’t remember it. On pg. 25 he cites the cliché about the winners writing history. pg. 75 contains the clichéd Ad Hiterlum fallacy. See pg. 83 where he used Lord Acton’s cliché about absolute power corrupting absolutely, misspelling Acton’s name in the process.  And on pg. 157 he cites Ben Franklin's cliché  that those who give up liberty for security deserve neither.     

[2] See for example, pgs. 41-42, 163, and 166.

[3] See pg. 8 where he “shirked college study” because it was riddled with “pap” (8), also see pg. 69.

[4] See Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015) and my forthcoming review for Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture for an example of a serious and comprehensive discussion of LDS scriptures on war.  

[5] He gives lip service to the distinction but his only comments concerning misconduct in war served to condemn all war outside of the two approved by libertarians.  He never mentioned the idea that wars can be just even if unjust actions occur during them. For example, in graduate school I read arguments regarding the “first war of war” that arose because the widespread and common practice of frontier warfare during the colonial era which deliberately targeted civilians and destroyed villages.   http://www.amazon.com/First-Way-War-American-1607-1814/dp/0521732638/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434257759&sr=8-1&keywords=first+way+of+war

[6] Of course I only ask these probative questions when I’m not brainwashing my students.  http://www.obedientanarchy.com/2015/01/28/a-writer-proving-the-book-of-mormon-defense-of-preemptive-war-or-just-another-war-mongering-propagandist/

[7] See for example, Yang Kuisong, “Nationalist and Communist Guerrilla Warfare in North China,” in The Battle for China: Essays on the Military History of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, Mark Peattie, Edward Drea, Hans Van De Ven eds, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 308-327.

[8] Hofstadter, Richard (November 1964). "The Paranoid Style in American Politics". Harper's Magazine.

[9] He somewhat acknowledged this later in his book, but still said that Moroni did not exercise “the slightest degree of unrighteous dominion” (174).

[10] Richard L. Bushman, “The Book of Mormon and the American Revolution,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1982), 189–212.

[11] He acknowledged in the first paragraph that he spent a long time trying to “reconcile my Mormon theology with secular libertarianism”(8). An honest and fearless researcher will spend years allowing the text to challenge and even change his beliefs as they try to move past their superficial understanding of it. Not spend months trying to see his favored philosophy within the text.