The Limits of Peace Building Theory

 

        I’ve been interacting with pacifists for quite a while and noticed several patterns.  Rather than addressing any single author specifically, this post identifies the biggest issues in whether pacifist framework clarifies the text or try to rewrite it.

        While ambitious and addressing an important theme, many contemporary “peacebuilding” readings tend to rely more heavily on modern peace theory than on sustained scriptural exegesis. In many cases, key scriptural figures are interpreted in ways that often contradict their divine role as prophets, including the role of rebuking as well as justified force in establishing or preserving peace.

        The strongest sections of these approaches are those that remain closely grounded in the scriptural text and offer direct analysis rather than extended theoretical scaffolding. However, close scripture readings often end up being only a portion of the argument. When that happens, interpretation begins to derive from modern peace theory, instead of peace theory being derived from scripture.

        One consistent oversight is the role of rebuke in scripture, both in the Old Testament and in the teachings of Christ. Prophets were repeatedly commanded to rebuke:

        Nathan confronting David (“Thou art the man,” 2 Samuel 12:7), Elijah’s confrontation with Ahab (1 Kings 18), Isaiah’s prophetic warnings (Isaiah 6), all fit in a tradition where prophetic calling includes direct confrontation, not only reconciliation.

        Christ himself continued this pattern:

        He rebuked the Pharisees directly (Matthew 23), drove out the money changers with force (Matthew 21:12–13; John 2:15–16), and pronounced both blessings and woes (Luke 6:20–26). Even his language toward Herod (“that fox,” Luke 13:32) was not soft consensus-building.

        And this didn't disappear in the apostolic era. Paul rebuked Peter openly (Galatians 2:11–14). Peter rebuked Simon Magus (Acts 8:20–23). John sharply condemned false teachers in his epistles (1 John 2). The apostles are not portrayed as avoiding conflict—they were commanded to teach, expound, and exhort (D&C 20:42), and historically, most are understood to have died violently because of uncompromising preaching.

        Against that backdrop, criticizing Nephi (or any other prophet) for being harsh, seems a fundamental rejection of Nephi’s mission to call sinners to repentance. Nephi was not operating as a conflict mediator in the modern sense; he operated as a covenant prophet, including rebuke, warning, and at times justified force (1 Nephi 4; 2 Nephi 4-5). Readings that suggest Nephi or other prophetic figures ought to have adopted a more consistently “peacebuilding” posture risk missing the claims of the text itself.

        A similar concern appears in readings of King Benjamin. The text explicitly ties peace to both righteousness and defensive action:

        He “gathered together his armies… and did fight… with the sword of Laban, in the strength of the Lord” (Words of Mormon 1:13–14). Yet peace building interpretations minimize or ignore his use of the sword in favor of peace building interpretations.

        There is also a recurring issue where just war reasoning is treated as if it necessarily implies sanctification through violence. In fact, the only mention of just war is often to dismiss it or, provide a strawman of the theory and then dismiss it.

        But just war never makes the claim it is sanctifying. Classical just war theory, as Augustine frames it in City of God (Book XIX), is not about sanctifying violence but about acknowledging tragic necessity under moral constraint in a fallen world. Treating it otherwise risks making a straw man.

        This becomes relevant in readings of Doctrine and Covenants 98 as well, where the Lord says: “I… would fight their battles” (D&C 98:37). The text shows divine sanction of defense, but it does not clearly construct a category of sanctifying violence. Expanding it in that direction goes beyond what the passage itself states.

        A common argument is that responses to conflict worsen under conditions of fear which leads to an escalating “cycle of violence.” There are many problems with that theory, including ignoring just and frequently repeated reasons for war. The argument also seems to cast Nephi as a hapless figure who couldn’t master his fear when the Lord told him to take the sword and get the plates. (In How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian, Dominic Crossan makes a similar claim about God.)

        There are nuances in that story that could support the author’s argument. For example, Lehi may have made a kind of sin offering when Nephi returned (1 Nephi 5:9), but those key scriptures are often neglected in favor of pacifist theory.

        It also ignores other scriptures. Zeniff wasn’t “responding to fear” when he went to the land of Nephi but he was attacked anyway. The record shows someone naively unafraid and dangerously unprepared. He admits he was “overzealous” in seeing good in the Lamanites, failed to make weapons, trusted a “crafty” enemy, and nearly died for it (Mosiah 9:1–17). Only after the first attack did he arm his people (Mosiah 10:1). And the priests' emphasis on scriptural "good tidings" and "joy" when questioning Abanadi seem to indicate the people saw themselves as quit hopeful fullfilment of prophecy (Mosiah 12:21-24).  This example of war being thrust upon non fearful people is aside from clearer passages clearly supporting the just use of force like Alma 43:47; 48:21–23; 61:12–14. Pacifists rarely mention these scriptures, and when they are they are minimized.

        This neglect and radical reinterpretation of scriprures are major reasons why peace theory is rarely convincing to those outside of a small group of pacifists. The framework feels strained, even insulting, toward prophets,[1] suggesting those who take up the sword are merely reacting in fear, rather than acting as righteous, even brave leaders with scriptural support, defending their families.

        The claim that peacemaking is currently absent from LDS discourse is overstated and a result of poor, existing pacifist scholarship. If pacifists wish to frame the topic as understudied, it will help to acknowledge possible reasons for hesitation, including concerns that contemporary peace rhetoric often appear politically inflected or insufficiently attentive (or just dismissive) of scriptural passages that affirm justified defense. They often offer strained alternative readings that are unconvincing. Recognizing these tensions would strengthen their analysis.

        The strongest direction forward is not replacing scriptural categories with contemporary peace frameworks, but letting scripture set the terms, including prophetic rebuke, covenant judgment, repentance, and justified defense. Any model that cannot hold those together risks rebuking the text it claims to interpret.

Thanks for reading. If you liked this research please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or consider buying one of my books, linked in the top left. 

************

---

[1] Speaking of insulting, pacifists often use the phrase, “moral imagination” when discussing peace theory. As though traditional prophetic voices lack sufficient moral vision for peacemaking. The phrase seems to imply implying that the pacifist author’s theoretical commitments place them as a stronger moral arbiter than the prophets themselves, which is not an argument most readers will find persuasive. John Paul Lederach, The Moral Imagination: The Art and Soul of Building Peace (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), ix.

Prooftexting War: Even the Pope Gets It Wrong

        

        Recently, Pope Leo XIV weighed in on the Iran war and declared that God cannot be used to justify war. Quoting Isaiah 1:15, "He does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war, but rejects them, saying: 'Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: your hands are full of blood.’”

        Calls for peace are understandable. War is ugly, costly, and often tragic and we all want peace. But it’s discouraging to see the Pope of all people prooftext a single verse and present it as if it settles the entire moral question of warfare.

        That kind of selective reading sounds nice, but it doesn’t hold up. The Babylon Bee joked that "God Does Not Listen To People Who Wage War So Long As You Don’t Count Moses, David, Joshua, Elijah, Saul, Gideon, Samson, Or Anyone Else In The Bible."

        I could stop there as the Bee presents the fundamental problem with the Pope's words in that the Bible and LDS scripture are not so easily presented as anti war. If anything, they reflect a strong just war sensibility. 

        That's because I can name Christian fathers like Cyprian, Tertullian, and Origen,[1] who prayed for the success of the emperor and his armies, and many scriptures, such as D&C 98:37, say the Lord will join His people in battle.

        This sentiment is frequently repeated in scripture, including many Biblical verses the Pope didn't include: 

“And I the Lord would fight their battles” (D&C 98:37).

“As I said in a former commandment, even so will I fulfill- I will fight your battles” (D&C 105:14).

“Thou will fight for thy people as thou didst in the day of battle, that they may be delivered from the hands of all their enemies” (D&C 109:28).

“The Lord your God which goeth before you, he shall fight for you” (Deut 1:30).

“The Lord fought for Israel” (Joshua 10:14).

“The battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chron. 20:1-29).

        So it seems odd to say that the Lord doesn't hear the prayers of those who make war and whose hands are covered in blood, while the Lord Himself says so many times he'll fight our battles. The answer in the supposed contradiction is that the verse cited by the Pope, (Isaiah 1:15) described a wicked Israel, condemned not simply for violence, but for hypocrisy, injustice, and unrepentant sin. It is not a blanket condemnation of all warfare in every context.

        Unfortunately, a random scripture taken out of context and used as a sanctiminous bumper sticker is quite common. See, for example, how many pacifists invent a new category of "sanctified" behavior in D&C 98, or how often someone quotes only the first half of Mormon 7:4.[2] 

        But with a full framework that doesn't pick and choose which scriptures to turn into bumper stickers, one that accepts both the pro- and anti-war passages, the real question becomes motives, what is being defended, methods, and the justice of the cause. In that light, it’s not hard to conclude that God hears prayers of those who wage war. His record throughout scripture is one of justified warfare and strengthening his people in battle. The apostle Paul himself describes rulers as “agents of God’s wrath” (Romans 13:4), tasked with punishing evil.

        In short, the quote is nice, and it's ironic to see how many unbelievers suddenly like the Pope because he provided a quote that can bash Trump and their political opponents. But even the strongest sentiment backed by a single scripture, even when delivered from the Pope himself, isn't enough to settle a question as complex as war.

        If we’re going to take scripture seriously, we have to take all of it seriously, not just the verses that fit the mood of the moment and are useful for bashing our opponents. 

**********

1. Tertullian, Apologia 32, 33. Gordon Heath, "The Church Fathers and the Roman Empire," in Empire in the New Testament, Stanley Porter ed., (Pickwick Publications, 2011,) 267 (259-282). David Corey, J. Daryl Charles, Just War Tradition: An Introduction (ISI Institute, 2012), chapter 1. (Page number forthcoming. I packed all my notes for an upcoming move.) 

2. See also, Patrick Mason, David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict, (Deseret Book, 2021), preface. (Page number forthcoming. I packed my library too.) 

Thanks for reading! I work as a free lance author. If you liked this research please consider getting more of it by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. I'm also creative! Feel free to purchase one of my fictions. 

Trump, Moroni, and the Teancum Option

        Reading a take this week praising President Trump’s “decapitation” approach to terrorism, I couldn’t help but think of Book of Mormon — specifically the Amalickiah cycle and the campaigns of Captain Moroni.

        Amalickiah twisted and maneuvered his way to the top and instigated war through private assassination. Teancum tried to end the war by killing Amalickiah and then Ammoron. 

        While the tactic might have been the same, their hearts were far different. Targeted assassination is described as "necessarily offensive" by LDS National Security professional Ryan Chavez,[1] but Teancum's was a offensive tactic within a defensive war and it was aimed at ending the war. 

        Amalickiah was trying to gain power and start a war. The difference in intent is key in any discussion and why its the first chapter of my book. 

        Most importantly here, it diffuses the argument that Trump shouldn't have done this because "what if China or Russia did it too?" Based on intent, the US relying on a decapitation strategy against a state sponsor of terror is as great as the difference between Teancum and Amalickiah relying on assassination. 

        Decapitation strategies are not new. They show up in Roman campaigns against insurgent tribes, in early modern wars of succession, and in 20th-century counterinsurgency doctrine. The Spanish figured out that despite the Aztec's numerical superiority and scary visage, if they concentrated on the leader they could quickly scatter enemy forces.  

        We still don’t know exactly what happens next. We've been warned by isolationists, pacifists, and pointy headed pseudo scholars that we couldn't strike Iran. The risk of blowback or escalating into a war was too great. Or they'll call this a "mission accomplished" moment, invoking the specter of Iraq. 

        As a result, we had 50 years of some nice sounding policy papers as Iranian extremists took hostages, provided insurgents with deadly bombs, rained rockets on Israel and pursued nuclear weapons. 

        Yet there’s solid research that decapitation strategies can shorten wars, reduce violence, and increase the likelihood of victory when done successfully. Studies show that removing insurgent or militant leadership tends to reduce the intensity of conflict and increase chances of ending it quickly rather than dragging indefinitely, even if it’s controversial and not always decisive on its own.[2]

        More importantly, we've had Trump, the real estate developer, smash fears of "endless war", "escalation" and "mission accomplished" in a series of 12 day wars, decisive operations to capture Maduro, and decapitation strikes. 

        Those who read the Book of Mormon shouldn't be surprised. Decisive actions by Moroni weren’t just about winning battles — they broke their will to fight. After Moroni’s victories, Alma 47:2 records how many Lamanite were so afraid of facing Moroni that they fled and rebelled rather than take up arms. 

        We are constantly taught that Ammon and the Sons of Mosiah were the peacemakers. But Moroni and King Benjamin show that decisive force can be precisely what ushers in a longer peace. Moroni pacified thousands of bitter enemies and dissenters who moments before were fanatically devoted to killing him and let them leave with a covenant of peace. 

        If Amalickiah had simply been captured before seizing power (Alma 46:30),  the Nephites likely would have enjoyed a period of peace comparable to the golden age under King Benjamin.

        So the irony here, is that after Senator Lee was trolled and ratioed for comparing Trump to Moroni, Trump has acted like Moroni by blending the Teancum Option with Moroni's decisive victory in battle to produce peace.  

        Thanks for reading! If you liked this research please consider buying one of my books linked in the top left. I'm creative too! Please consider buying my creative work! 

1. Ryan Chavez, “The Teancum Option and Modern LDS National Security Thought,” 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.,(Brigham Young University Press, 2003), 87-100.

2. Byman, Daniel. "Do Targeted Killings Work?" Foreign Affairs 85, no. 2 (March/April 2006): 95–111.

David, Steven R. "Fatal Choices: Israel's Policy of Targeted Killing," Mideast Security and Policy Studies 51 (September 2002): 1–25.

Frankel, Matt. "The ABCs of HVT: Key Lessons from High Value Targeting Campaigns against Insurgents and Terrorists." Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 34, no. 1 (January 2010): 17–30.

Jordan, Jenna. "When Heads Roll: Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Decapitation," Security Studies 18, no. 4 (December 2009): 719–755.

Price, Bryan C. "Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism," International Security 36, no. 4 (Spring 2012): 9–46.

Love, Law, and War in the Old Testament

 

        In between their regular insults of me, the Latter Day Saint Peace Studies group on Facebook asked: How do you reconcile the Old Testament God with Jesus of the New Testament? They ignored my response but it’s worth reading here:

        It’s funny you ask this because it shows a point I’ve made for years, that pacifists have to discount scripture, and can't wrap their minds around a God that uses violence. Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher in their book offered convoluted theories about divine violence that relies on texts that called God a terrorist. Or they suggest that you rely on modern scholarship that disputes the "historical reliability" of the Hebrew Bible. Other pacifists call God schizophrenic over the destruction of 3 Nephi 8.

        The top line summary for those that don’t ignore the nature of God argue that violence is regrettable but sometimes necessary and even exhibited by God. With that point of view Divine violence isn't "incongruous" with a merciful God but part of his character.

        Christians for thousands of years thought they should have a peaceful and conciliatory heart, more representative of the New Testament, while showing enough love for their neighbor to wield the sword and stop their slaughter, which is more like the Old Testament. 

        In fact, God commanded Noah after the flood that "by man shall the blood [of murderers] be shed." As explained by Dennis Praeger in his commentary on the Hebrew Bible: When you compare the flood to similar stories you see a God that is imminently concerned with morality and justice. But you can't rely on eventual love and justice from God. You're commanded to use the death penalty, just as God exhibited in the flood.

        Abraham is blessed a prince of peace (Genesis 14:18-20), but he didn't lift a standard of peace or bear three trespasses before he launched a sneak attack as supposedly required by Doctrine and Covenants 98. Praeger in fact, called Abraham a righteous man of war.

        In Exodus 21, a chapter after the Ten Commandments, God gave laws concerning justifiable homicide. That's why a better translation of the Ten Commandants is "thou shall not murder." The text in the two chapters literally describes justified homicide. The Exodus laws give protection to slaves and offers a route to emancipation that was incredibly progressive for its time.

        This law is often diminished as "an eye for an eye." But the law was fairly progressive because often society would seek a scape goat sacrifice. As in, someone that took your eye would have the eyes of their entire household forfeited. Thus it was more more just that only the person who committed the crime would suffer punishment. Moreover, unlike society at large, the penalties didn't vary between the eye of a noblemen or the eye of a commoner. Everyone was treated equally. Finally, few actually took an eye as punishment. There were financial penalties and fines that acted as substitutes. Even in the Old Testament, the whole world wasn't blind. (Thanks to Dennis Praeger for the extensive and enlightening commentary.)

        Overall the journey to the land God chose for his servants is the basis for the City of God and just war described by Augustine.

        Augustine and Aquinas (as well as Captain Moroni if you look closely enough) discussed the ambush in Joshua 8:2 and found Christlike reasons to support ambushes. If it was for a just cause like defending your people, just like Christ withheld some information leaders may move in secret.

        Even the most problematic chapter, Deuteronomy 20 tells us to "proclaim peace" and provides an off ramp to deescalate violence. (Ironically, I only noticed this after reading the Muslim father of international law, Al Shaybani.) The chapter says "thou shalt utterly destroy,” but in practice told the people to lift a standard of peace and give both sides a chance to accept peace.

        The text doesn't focus on justifying violence. It commands you to love your neighbor, (Leviticus 19:18) and through stories like Lot and his guests, or by command in Exodus, strangers and foreigners are to be treated with hospitability and respect.

        The stories of the patriarchs give us extensive lessons in how to be peaceful and recognize the regrettable, but just use of the sword. Unlike pacifists, the above attitude doesn't need to diminish God or ignore the Hebrew Bible to do it. It enhances our understanding and appreciation of God, and we should study the Old Testament more carefully. 

The Church Doesn't Need Your Panic: My Guest Post at Times and Seasons

      

  I wrote this piece in response to a pervasive pattern of despair. Since I was responding to a specific Times and Seasons post I submitted it to them as a guess post and they were gracious enough to post it. You can read it here and its republished below: 

        I read Johnathan Green’s post and because the underlying flaws have been repeated at least three times over the past year, I thought it was worth a substantive response, and it was too long for comments. There’s a lot of heat, hyperbole, and moral posturing in his post, but very little that holds up under scrutiny. I take strong exception to his exaggerations, false equivalence, and the assumption that his political lens should dictate the Church’s actions.

        Screaming “Nazi” louder is not an argument. He treated “warning signs” as functionally equivalent to moral certainty. Using German terms to dress up Nazi comparisons doesn’t make them more persuasive, it just adds rhetorical heat without light. As a result, much of his post rests on false equivalence and superficial similarities rather than serious analysis.

        He said in point three that the Church should “ignore the administration,” yet the post itself spends thousands of words obsessing over it. That contradiction matters, because point four revealed the underlying assumption: that the Church should function as an arm of his political views. I used to think that way too, that the Church should take a forceful position on every partisan controversy. That was twenty years ago and frankly, I grew up. The Church is not my political representative. It teaches principles that allow members to vote, persuade, and act in the public square on their own responsibility.

        He’ll probably respond that his post was a “strategic” argument about institutional survival rather than personal fixation. But strategy still reveals priorities. When every hypothetical risk is filtered through one political diagnosis, that diagnosis becomes the guiding authority, functionally replacing the Church’s own judgment with Green’s.

        The Church’s primary concern is ministering to the members it already has. We saw this in its restrained statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: as strong as possible while preserving its ability to support members and maintain its global mission. That same logic applies here.

        There’s also an implicit claim throughout that Green knows better than the prophets and apostles. If God had a direct, binding political message about Donald Trump, I assume we would have heard it from them. He defined “threats to the Church’s mission” in a way that mirrored his political hysteria.

        He appealed to Abinadi and Bonhoeffer to argue that prophets speak in principle rather than names. I can name a half dozen instances in the Bible where prophets directly name the wicked ruler but let’s go with his point. He went further and treated his interpretation of those principles as if it carries the same moral authority as prophetic judgment. That’s the move I’m rejecting.

        Points five and six repeated the same demand in softer language: he wanted the Church to endorse his position. It hasn’t, because its mission is ministering, not issuing grand political declarations that satisfy a political minority from a single country within a global church. He might claim he only wanted the church to act when faced with a clear red line, but that red line just happened to be what Green’s political beliefs say it was.

        He framed this as setting “red lines,” not seeking endorsement. But those red lines did not come from institutional revelation, global consensus, measurable harm, or even a consensus of LDS national security professionals—they came from his own political risk model. Calling that a moral threshold doesn’t make it one.

        Phrases like “surveillance by a corrupt, vindictive, unchecked personalist autocracy” read less like analysis and more like a political Gish gallop. Voters clearly weren’t persuaded by that framing. Yelling it louder won’t change that.

        He correctly noted that “getting upset over someone else’s silence is actively harmful,” yet most of the post is a sustained complaint about the Church’s silence. That tension ran through the whole piece.

        Point seven genuinely made me laugh. My life is fine under this government. I voted for border security, strict immigration enforcement, and a strong foreign policy. Inflation has stabilized, gas prices are reasonable, and I have the sense that someone is finally in charge. That calm is not a luxury based on my race, gender, or class. Unless a person lets it through their own hysteria or misdeeds, the government doesn’t affect much of your life.

        The discomfort Green described felt less like lived reality and more like a self-reinforcing media spiral: every action is filtered as sinister, which heightens anxiety, which then seeks out more bad news.

        His Gish gallop in the comments about there only being “one side” shows the harm of that cycle. Screaming “concentration camp”, “starving children”, and “torture”, might feel morally righteous or advance a partisan case, but it also heightens anxiety and escalates conflict. In short, it hurts as much as it helps.

        The healthier response is simple: consume less political media, touch grass, respect differing views, and count your blessings—basic Church principles. Screaming, “but he’s a nazi” when you’re asked to calm down and show respect is a ludicrous substitute for reasoned engagement and more of the problem.

        Green insisted that the Church shouldn’t threaten its own mission but repeatedly argue that it should adopt his political mission. “You should be appalled” isn’t a neutral principle—its Green’s emotional filter presented as moral obligation. To people who don’t share it, this comes off as unhinged, and even deranged, not persuasive.

        Green’s Trump–King Noah comparison is another false equivalence. Noah wasn’t elected. He raised taxes to intolerable levels; Trump reduced them and talks about tariff rebates. Noah imprisoned and tortured dissidents; Trump enforces immigration law, including against violent criminals. You can oppose that policy, and perhaps think it’s immoral, but calling it tyranny by analogy doesn’t make it so.

        Green claimed Trump and his supporters “rejoice in bloodshed.” As a former Marine and military analyst, I find that condescending—and a reflection of the privilege of living in peace and security. Wanting a strong defense and feeling pride in providing it is not rejoicing in bloodshed; it’s more like Captain Moroni rejoicing in the welfare and protection of his people.

        You might claim some of Trumps military actions are fascistic. But debates over presidential war powers found in Article II Section II of the constitution have been a feature of our government since Thomas Jefferson. Not part of a fascist dictatorship.

        When Green invoked Abinadi, he placed himself in the role of calling both fellow saints and Church leaders to repentance for not opposing Trump as he thinks they should. That circles back to the same contradiction: he says the Church isn’t political but then condemns it for not being political in the right way.

        He’ll say this is about obedience versus resistance under tyranny, not about Trump. But that only works if the premise, that we are already living under something functionally equivalent to tyranny, is established. He assumed the premise; he didn’t demonstrate it.

        Point 15 mentioned many recent, good talks. But scriptures should be used to examine our own conduct, not to bludgeon fellow members. If we’re staying in the Book of Mormon, Alma’s work of knitting hearts together in unity, even with love towards our fellow enemies, seems the better model.

        I agreed with one line in point sixteen: “Anticipatory despair is not a form of resistance.” That’s the clearest and strongest sentence in the entire post. The answer to despair is more time with family, friends, and neighbors, not arrogantly browbeating them into repentance for voting differently than you.

        Finally, the insider language such as “cringe resist libs” and “MWEG moms” doesn’t clarify anything. That insider framing is telling. It signaled that his argument was aimed less at persuading a broad body of saints and more at rallying a politically fluent in-group that already shared his sense of impending catastrophe.

        The Church has survived lynch mobs, federal invasion, disincorporation, KGB surveillance, and Hitler—it will survive this political moment too, without Green’s help. His post amplifies anxiety, casts fellow members and leaders as moral failures for not sharing his political conclusions and confuses personal panic with institutional necessity. Inflating warning signs into moral certainties and treating his interpretation as Church directive does nothing to build unity, influence policy responsibly, or foster understanding—it is simply noise. If we are serious about clarity, faithful witness, and real community, we need charity and reason, not labels, hysteria, or overreach. 

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. 

Throw Granny in Front of the Bus: The Ethics of Violence in Gaza

        

        Many people claim that all violence is equally wrong, as if harm alone defines morality, but this is a misunderstanding; violence must be judged by context, intention, method, and purpose, and failing to make these distinctions obscures the difference between deliberate terror and defensive action, which is why comparing Israel’s military campaign to Hamas’ attacks demonstrates how moral evaluation depends entirely on circumstances and objectives.

        This is precisely why, in my military ethics class, we spend time on examples that force students to confront how intent, circumstances, and foreseeable outcomes shape moral judgment.

        One example we use is the case of the grandmother and the bus. Imagine you are standing on a street corner and a grandmother is about to be struck by an oncoming bus. You push her out of the way, she breaks her hip but survives, and you are rightly called a hero. Now imagine an almost identical situation, except this time the bus is a few seconds earlier and the grandmother is still standing near the curb. You push her, she breaks her hip, falls into the street, and is run over and killed. You are now a villain.

        The physical action is the same, a grandmother being pushed. The injury is nearly the same, a broken hip. Yet the moral evaluation could not be more different. The difference lies entirely in context, intention, and the relationship between the act and its outcome. Ethics has always understood that harm alone does not determine moral guilt, and anyone pretending otherwise is either unserious or willfully evasive.

        This distinction matters when discussing Israel and Hamas. There is a profound difference between deliberately moving through civilian neighborhoods like Kfar Aza and Kibbutz Be'eri, burning families alive, including infants and children, beheading civilians with garden tools, and taking civilians hostage to torture, starve and kill them, and conducting a military campaign in one of the most densely populated urban environments on earth against those same terrorists who use their own people as human shields and deliberately embed themselves in churches, hospitals, and schools.

        In both cases women and children die, and that fact is tragic, but tragedy does not erase moral distinctions. One campaign is targeted butchery pursued for the sake of terror itself. The other is a state under siege attempting to dismantle an enemy that openly celebrates rape, torture, and slaughter, while trying, however imperfectly, to protect its own population and limit civilian casualties under extraordinarily difficult conditions. Complaints about Israeli settler violence or other Israeli imperfections are largely attempts to obfuscate that difference and function as apologies for terrorists rather than serious moral analysis.

        The goals, attitudes, and methods used by the two parties remain entirely different, despite both using violence, and those differences matter. Israel’s use of force and the resulting deaths of Gazans are regrettable, they are still just in the moral sense because they are directed at stopping future atrocities and defending a population from an enemy that has made clear its intent to repeat them.

        Ultimately, the responsibility for the suffering of Palestinian civilians lies with Hamas. Israel’s campaign is imperfect, as all wars are, and many of the alleged crimes attributed to Israel rely on casualty figures and narratives produced by wildly Gazan sources and uncritical and even propagandist international organizations. Even where mistakes occur, a mistake made in pursuit of a just cause is morally different from deliberate evil.

        Hamas deliberately uses its own people as shields, operating from hospitals, schools, and residential buildings precisely because civilian deaths serve its propaganda goals. Despite this, Israel takes measures that are historically rare in urban warfare. According to John Spencer at the Modern War Institute, Israel has fought the most careful war in history. Israel provides advance warnings of operational zones, allows vaccination campaigns for children, and according to the United Nations itself facilitates the entry of millions of tons of food into Gaza. Israel possesses the military capability to kill the entire population of Gaza several times over, and supposedly seeks their genocide, yet it continually restrains itself and conducts a limited campaign aimed at dismantling a terrorist organization while simultaneously providing aid to the very population that organization endangers.

        In a perfect world violence would not be necessary, but we do not live in that world. In the end, recognizing the moral difference between deliberate terror and measured military defense is not a theoretical exercise but a practical imperative; Israel’s campaign is imperfect and tragic, but it is conducted with restraint, guided by the goal of protecting its citizens and dismantling an enemy that celebrates mass murder, while Hamas’ violence is indiscriminate, celebratory, and aimed at civilians, and anyone who refuses to distinguish between the two fails to grapple with the realities of war and the obligations of moral judgment, and the only responsible stance is to condemn the perpetrators of terror rather than those who act to stop them.

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. 

When Pacifism Met Reality: A Response to Ward Radio's Jonah Barnes

      

         I recently spent over an hour watching a debate among Jonah Barnes and Luke Hansen at the podcast, Doctrine and Governance. It was illuminating mostly for what was left out and engaged. Since I literally wrote the book on the subject I felt it was worth explaining those points.

Failure to Define

        Barnes never defined pacifism beyond vague gestures toward “having a peaceful heart” and disliking violence. Having a peaceful heart is important, it's literally the first chapter of my book, but he never fully explains his position which makes it more sentiment than consistent theology. Nor did he ever explicitly state if he believed all violence is immoral. If he does believe that he’ll have to explain many, many, examples of divine violence. This is usually done using the pacifists’ favorite tactic of minimizing or discounting most scriptures.

        Barnes claimed, many, many times, he took a “non-accusatory” position on pacifism, even as he accused others of “twisting the scriptures” or just being “idiots.” Yet when he claimed he was on “The Lord’s Side” the moral framing was clear: if his view is the righteous one, then those who disagree must be immoral. That’s a great deal of posturing that might be good for a debate but makes for very poor dialog and ignores the need for justice in this world. In a massive case of projection he minimized clear war chapter verses (Alma 48:14; 43:47) a great deal, offered a tortured reading of D&C 98 and ignored clear statements that we are not command to lay down our arms (Alma 61:12-13).  Barnes never considers that if warfare were inherently sinful, why would the Lord direct His people in how and where to defend themselves (Alma 48:15; Exodus 14:14; Deuteronomy 20:4)? Why would the Lord join them in battle in DC 98:37, and bless them with victory if warfare was so sinful?

        I’ll return to this below, but a better reading is to see how all the scriptures fit together. So instead of discounting the Old Testament, the war chapters, and the command to use force in DC 98, a person should understand what it means to renounce war, proclaim peace, and know when to wield the sword. The answer to that seeming contradiction is the center of my writing, the first chapter of my book, and a subject of frequent discussion.

Pacifism Meets Reality

        The greatest weakness of Barnes' position was the failure to offer hypothetical but likely real world examples, even while claiming that pacifism “thrives in the real world.” To me, that was a tacit admission that pacifist theories don’t work in the real world. Reading scripture isn’t designed to articulate grand castles in the sky, it’s supposed to help us “liken the scripture” to everyday life (1 Nephi 19:23).

        Moreover, Jesus used parables, and the hypothetical example of the Good Samaritan, Lost Sheep, Talents, Wise and Foolish Builder, and Sower, to explain His principles. The Book of Mormon is full of examples where hypothetical beliefs met the sharp edge of the sword where faithful believers were commanded to defend their families and freedom. Alma 43:47, 48:21–23, and 61:12–14 all affirms the divine duty to protect the innocent, “even unto bloodshed.”

        I’m particularly interested in Abraham’s rescue of Lot. D&C 98:32 says the Lords Law of War was also revealed to Abraham. And yet when raiders captured Lot, Abraham didn’t lift a standard of peace and wait for three trespasses. He launched a sneak attack! But he was blessed by a prince of peace (Alma 13:18). Clearly, the Old Testament's explanation of D&C 98 differs from that of Barnes. The famous command “thou shall not kill” should read, “thou shall not murder.” That’s because Exodus 21–22, immediately after the Ten Commandments, discusses multiple instances of justified defensive killing.

        Discussion of the New Testament often focuses on the supposed pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount, but Jesus supported the use of force as well. When talking to soldiers neither John the Baptist (Luke 3:10-18) nor Jesus commanded soldiers to lay down their arms (Matthew 8:5-13). (John the Baptist addressed hypothetical future situations when told soldiers to be content with their pay instead of extorting the people for more.) Jesus praised the centurion for his faith!  Jesus described parables where the master used force to compel servants to enter during a hypothetical banquet (Luke 14:23). All four gospels describe Jesus using whips to cleanse the temple. (Mason and Pulsipher tried to explain this away as “only” violence against objects and animals. But similar violence in the Book of Mormon was enough for Ammon to main and kill people.) Jesus said that he didn’t bring peace but brought the sword (Matthew 10:34), and in another instance, fire and division (Luke 12:49). Jesus killed a fig tree for not being fruitful (Mark 11:12-14). When struck, Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23).

        Expanding to look at New Testament more broadly, Paul says the rulers are appointed by God as “agents of his wrath to the wrong doer” (Romans 13:4; see below). And Jesus promises in revelation that he will kill so many people that the blood will flow like a wine press for 200 miles (Rev 14:20).

        Last but not least, our new prophet, Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk where he described how we must ask ourselves, "where will it lead?" His entire talk was based on hypothetical situations where a person might take preemptive action. 

Twisting

        In addition to misreading scriptures, the claim of twisting scriptures with overburdened reasoning is a frequent tactic of internet sophists to sound simple but decisive, and make opponents look manipulative and weak with mental gymnastics.

        But matters of war and peace are not decided by who has the best slogan. That might sound strong on a discussion board, but ethics of war and peace are best determined by how dozens of scriptures interact with each other. (Such as how someone might “renounce war” and “resist bloodshed with your sword” at the same time.)

        For those who claim to be experts on peace and love, and pacifists are among the most arrogant people I've met, they should be able to move beyond bumper stickers to explain their point using scriptures, including likely hypotheticals. It’s not quite a bumper sticker, but Barnes’ catch phrases are an indictment of his shallowness, not my depth.

Moral Logic and Justice

        Finally, there was a singular point where Barnes declared: “Justice is the last thing I want.” That is an astoundingly privileged comment from someone who has never experienced a grave injustice. The victims whose blood “cries from the ground” (Genesis 4:10; 2 Nephi 28;10) deserve more than passive compassion. It sounds a bit like Game of Thrones but it’s accurate, until the afterlife, the only justice a person receives is what is delivered to people by a secular government. That is why God said that rulers are “agents of wrath to the wrong doers,” and Thomas Aquinas cited ruler’s need to “deliver the poor and needy” (Psalms 81:4).

        Justice entirely deferred to eternity is justice denied on earth. In short, tell the families of 9/11 victims or Jews in Europe during the Holocaust justice is the last thing they should receive.  They should be okay with the perpetrators of heinous rape, mutilation, and murder living their entire lives, smiling with the sun on their face, having meals and every joy they could have. Meanwhile the victims spend countless hours in tears, feeling like a storm cloud is always raining on them…all because Jonah Barnes has a vague aversion to violence to the point he says that he doesn’t want “justice.” But the Book of Mormon directly repudiates that opinion when Alma taught that mercy can’t rob justice (Alma 42:25). That is even more important in matters of war and peace, and explains why Bib Netanyahu, for example, seems so motivated to pursue war. Only eliminating Hamas, (or the less perfect peace deal that disarms them and bars them from power) was justice for the innocent victims of Hamas’ barbaric rampage and a defense against future attacks. 

Conclusion

        I didn’t even get to many other topics. For example, Barnes drew shaky parallels between modern conflicts and ancient wars, equating acts like Hiroshima or Pearl Harbor defense with evil. War is terrible but pretending that all use of force is immoral doesn’t make us holy, it makes us irresponsible and idle witnesses to slaughter. Scripture, history, and reason converge on a simple truth that peace sometimes requires courage.

        We can wield the sword with clean hearts, but we cannot lay it down while evil thrives. We should abandon bumper stickers like “war is bad” or Barnes’ favorite, “we aren’t commanded to pick up arms.” And realize that we must love our neighbor enough to stop their slaughter using our God given right to defense ourselves. 

Thanks for reading. If you liked this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

You can find my thoughts on war and politics on twitter @DeaneOnWar 

I'm creative too! You'll find my fiction under the pen name MT Deane. 

Just War: Common Complaints

        Through 25 years of writing and thinking about war, I keep running into the same mistakes. People either treat war as always immoral, or they toss the term ‘war crime’ around as a catchall. This post explains the common misconceptions about just war, show how medieval and modern theorists actually enlarged moral protections for civilians, and argue that force, in narrowly defined circumstances, can be a needed last resort to prevent slaughter.

War is clearly wrong

        Who watches the destruction and heart ache on the evening news and believes that God wants that? Yet just as quickly one might remember the abject slaughter of the helpless and we must ask, what happens when the absence of force results in even greater evil than war? Yazidi sex slaves, kidnapped Ukrainian children, cartels sex trafficking immigrants, to the slaughtered innocents on October 7th, and those still tortured and starved by Hamas in captivity all show us the evil that men do. If the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the middle of the attack and not after, he would lift the sword to protect his neighbor. Like the Good Samaritan, we should love our brothers enough to raise the sword in their defense. The need for force and God given desire to “deliver the poor and needy” (Psalms 82:4) then becomes a good thing, because it stops or prevents abject slaughter.

        While no one wants war, because you need to stop a slaughter, many people recognize the tragic need for war on an intuitive level.

Anything I don’t like is a war crime

        People believe, like Paul Ramsey described, that civilians are roped off from harm like the ladies at a medieval tournament.[1] So, any time civilians are killed, churches struck, or some other tragedy occurs it must be a war crime.

        But real war crimes require actual laws of war. Augustine, the first just war theorist, talked about right intention including a desire to restore a just and peaceful order.[2] The medieval thinker, Gratian in the Decretum named protected groups like pilgrims, clerics, women, and unarmed peasants.[3] Salamanca school scholar Francisco De Vitoria wrote that indigenous people can’t be slaughtered simply for not being Christian. He said: “War is no argument for the truth of the Christian faith.”[4]

        Civilian deaths are tragic, but not every tragedy is a war crime. Intent, environment, and proximity to combatants all matter. Terrorists like Hamas exploit this by hiding behind civilians. The laws of war are clear: using civilians as shields is a violation; unintended strikes, even on churches or those that kill children, are not. That tragedy remains awful, but Hamas chose it when they launched terror attacks and then hid beneath hospitals, schools, and churches.

        Some use every tragedy to reject force altogether, but that simply guarantees victims will be slaughtered. Pacifism often implies it is better to let atrocities continue than to risk civilian harm. Outrage over an accidental strike can overshadow the deeper outrage that started the war but it shouldn't. 

Moroni was militaristic and not a source of peace

        Moroni has been cited for militaristic means. During my mission in Texas, I visited compounds with pictures of Moroni on the wall. But closely reading the text we see that Moroni repeatedly brought peace to such a degree that the Lamanites rebelled against their king rather than take up arms.

        In the face of an implacably murderous ideology, Moroni showed that battlefield defeat discredits that radical ideology that led to war and produced peace. He was such an expert peacemaker that he converted committed fanatics during battle numerous times. Based on those battlefield covenants he arguably converted more people than the missionary preaching and the self-sacrifice of the Anti-Nephi Lehis. As recorded in Alma 47:2 and Helaman 4:3, those that didn’t make that covenant were still inclined towards peace years later. His actions didn’t result from or instigate a cycle of violence but led to long eras of peace and more peace, defiance of cultural stereotypes, and generosity than produced or showed by Ammon and his brethren. The righteous example of Moroni suggests a path to peace that comes from decisive victory we must recognize and apply, regardless of how uncomfortable his example might make some people.

Anyone I don't like is a simp for war 

        This is usually wrapped up in insults like I’m an insane, warmongering anti-Christ that hasn’t met a war criminal I won’t simp for. These insults contain multiple ironies.

        First, I’m old enough and have been studying history long enough I remember wanting actual war criminals like Slobodan Milosevic and Uday and Qusay Hussein locked up and executed.

        Second, it’s always the least educated people I met, those with limited education and no publications, who insult my intelligence, education, and publications.

        Third, Augustine warned “the passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit” leads to war.[5] But I see this war like spirit every time I explain basic ideas about just war, defend Israel, and simply disagree with a pacifist. I’m the “war monger,” but they show more passion for war by their cruel thirst for insulting me.

        Aside from all that irony, I’m pro war to the extent I’m anti genocide and mass rape. When Putin launches the most nakedly aggressive war of my lifetime (and I’m old enough to have lived through the Soviet Union), it’s easy to stand against it. When I see the worst holocaust since the Holocaust, I must stand against it. Just war grounds me in the conviction that I am aligned with God’s justice, and equips me to answer objections without fear. (Though, I'll confess, not without annoyance.) 

Just war only justifies war

       Just war has always critiqued governments as much as it has supported force. I already mentioned the concern of the just war theorists towards civilians but there is more. Vitoria criticized Spanish policy towards colonials he and his fellow scholars led to reforms.  This was during the age of discovery and conquistadors. So, what many people consider the worst abuses of the West were being critiqued and changed by just war theorists.

        Decretalists in the Middle Ages and those like Gregory IX increasingly moved society from settling disputes by combat to settling them by lawsuit and the rule of law.[6] They did this by aiming just war principles at wars of aggrandizement. For example, they argued that losses in wars of dubious morality, such as the armor and horses of a lord’s knights, could justify a legal claim requiring the lord to provide reimbursement. Since arms, armor, and horses were costly to replace, this made war far less profitable and thus discouraged campaigns unless there was a strong justification, such as repelling a rival king’s invasion, defending against robbers, or fulfilling duty to the crown. Again, during what many people consider a darkened age of unrestrained violence just war theorists were using a careful reading of religion and the law to limit the bloodshed.

        Far from sanctioning violence, just war thinkers used theology and law to restrain war and promote peace. Their concern for civilians laid the foundation of today’s laws of war. The irony is that medieval scholars had a more nuanced and devout grasp of thorny issues regarding war and peace than many modern critics who dismiss them.

Mormons have the restored truth, why bother with medieval Catholics?

       If you’ve read this far, you already know medieval Catholics were serious thinkers wrestling with the very questions we still face. Just war theorists like Aquinas, Vitoria, and Grotius have addressed revolution, civilian casualties, war crimes, and complex questions of law centuries before us. Their work still sharpens debates today. Duane Boyce’s argument about preemptive war, among others, could have been much sharper had he relied on the criteria of Hugo Grotius. Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher could better understand scriptures like Moroni 7:26 by using just war principles. Mark Henshaw could find additional material about just peace from those medieval Catholics.

        Mormonism is young. We don’t yet have a systematic theology, let alone our Augustine. Much of our debate unintentionally echoes older Christian conversations, only with different proof texts and less rigor. To dismiss their wisdom while boasting about “restored truth” is more chauvinism than confidence.

        As Brigham Young counselled: 

Whether a truth be found with professed infidels… it is the business of the Elders of this Church to gather up all the truths in the world pertaining to life and salvation…and bring it to Zion.[7]

This war seems politically motivated and grey

        I call this the bio lab defense.[8] When Russia invaded Ukraine, everyone suddenly became an expert on history, NATO, and bioweapons labs, muddying the waters until it felt acceptable to doubt the justice of the war.

        The same thing happened with Israel after the October 7th attack, the worst slaughter of Jews since WWII. People brought up radical Israeli terrorists from the ’90s or questioned the Jewishness of the victims.

        Many other good people, who are generally inclined to help, are left confused and like Joseph Smith, they hear a war of words and tumult of opinions and don’t know which side is correct. But just war is no simpler than this: do you feel genuine sadness and a desire to stop the injustice? That is love and compassion. Then ask: do you love your neighbor enough to act, or do you follow distractions—NATO, labs, space lasers—that let you ignore that call? 

       A country’s history may be imperfect, its leaders questionable, and the issue complex, yet there can still be an unmistakable duty to stop a slaughter. Jesus chose a despised ethnic rival and bitter enemy, a Samaritan, to show the kind of love we should have for our neighbor.

Conclusion 

        The lessons of just war theory are not just historical curiosities or sophistry. They are tools for moral clarity in our own time. Study the thinkers who wrestled with the limits of force, the protection of civilians, and the pursuit of peace. Reflect on scripture, history, and contemporary events, and ask yourself whether your compassion compels you to act. Challenge your assumptions, weigh difficult moral questions, and let a spirit of just peace guide your words, your judgments, and your actions. True moral courage comes not from avoiding conflict, but from confronting injustice thoughtfully, decisively, and ethically.

Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (Rowan and Littlefield, 2002),145.

[2] Contra Faust. xxii, 69

[3] On the poor: D. 86 c. 21; On windows and orphans: D. 21 d.p.c. 5 and C. 15 q. 8 c. 4.

[4] Principles of Politics and International Law in the work of Francisco Vitoria Antonio Sera ed. (Madrid Edicicues Cultura Hispania 1946), 68.

[5] Contra Faust. xxii, 74

[6] Frederick Russell, Just War in the Middle Ages, (Cambridge University Press, 1975), 148, 153, 174-177, 212.

[7] Doctrines of Brigham Young, 248.

[8] The Ukrainian biolab worked to decommission large quantities of Cold War Era biological weapons.

Captain Moroni: The Just Warrior

 

        In the annals of the Book of Mormon, Captain Moroni stands above all other military leaders. Though not without controversy, he stands as a paragon of righteous military leadership. Naturally, we should examine his leadership in the light of just war. His actions and decisions provide a framework for understanding the principles of just war, demonstrating that warfare, when conducted with moral clarity and divine guidance, can be a force for good.

Reluctance to Engage in Battle

        Moroni's reluctance to engage in battle underscores the principle that war should be a last resort. Alma 43 through 45 repeatedly contrast the Nephite’s “better cause,” and simple desire for defense of their lands, liberty, and church with the Lamanites desire for aggression, plunder, and slaughter (Alma 43:29-30,45; 44:1). Once the Lamanites attacked the Nephites and the latter were faced with that massacre, they had a duty to love their neighbors enough to stop their slaughter. This is summarized in what is one of the most important verses in the Book of Mormon since it describes the duty and burden of a peaceful heart forced to wield the sword.

        In Alma 48:21–23, we read:

"Now they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God."

        This passage highlights that the Nephites, under Moroni's command, were compelled to fight reluctantly. Their sorrow was not rooted in fear but in the moral weight of taking life. Moroni's leadership was characterized by a deep sense of responsibility and a desire to avoid conflict whenever possible.

Mercy and the Pursuit of Peace

        Even in the heat of battle, Moroni sought opportunities for reconciliation. In Alma 44:1, after a significant victory, he addressed the Lamanite leader Zerahemnah:

"Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you."

        When he infiltrated the city of Gid he could have slain the drunken Lamanite warriors but he “did not delight in murder or bloodshed” (Alma 55:19).

        These statements reflect Moroni's commitment to mercy and the pursuit of peace. Latter Day Saints praise Ammon for offering the king mercy. But Moroni offered entire armies mercy shortly after the heat of battle. He offered the enemy a chance to make a covenant of peace, emphasizing that the Nephites' goal was not to destroy but to defend and preserve life.

Transforming Enemies into Allies

        Moroni is often attacked and dismissed as too militaristic. But Moroni's approach to warfare was not merely about defeating enemies but about transforming them. After battles, he allowed Lamanites who accepted the covenant to live in peace. This act of clemency not only reduced the number of adversaries but also integrated former enemies into society as peaceful tributaries, fostering long-term stability and unity. It can be called the Nephite version of the peace dividend.

The Danger of Overzealous Militancy

        While Moroni's actions were largely characterized by restraint and righteousness, there were moments when his fervor for justice led to harsh words. In his letters to Ammoron, he threatened severe retaliation, including the possibility of a war of extermination (Alma 54:12). These instances serve as a reminder of the fine line between righteous indignation and overzealous militancy. It should be remembered, however, that these are just words. While he threatened blood for blood, when given a chance a mere chapter later he spared Lamanite soldiers. Perhaps he knew Ammoron only responded to force and that weakness would simply encourage him to walk away from negotiations. While most people see anger, his letters contain sophisticated arguments and rhetorical skill.

Strategic Preemption Against Threats

        This item is rarely noticed. But Moroni recognized the imminent danger posed by Amalickiah and took proactive measures to neutralize the threat (Alma 46:30). The standard interpretation of Nephite thought is that they were exclusively defensive. But the Book of Mormon is replete with preemptive action, and when meeting the criteria, it aligns with the just-war principle of ensuring security and peace despite its controversy. The rest of the war chapters support Moroni’s concern. Moroni asked, where will this lead, and his foresight in addressing potential threats before they materialized demonstrates strategic wisdom and a commitment to the safety of his people.

Mormon's Endorsement of Moroni

        Despite all his flaws, Mormon, the record keeper, provides a powerful endorsement of Moroni's character and leadership. In Alma 48:17, he writes:

"If all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men."

        This statement underscores Moroni's exemplary nature and the righteousness of his actions. While modern audiences might chafe at its militarism, and pacifists dislike his message. Mormon's praise indicates that Moroni's leadership was in harmony with divine principles. War itself is rarely as neat as we would like it to be. And when tragically faced with tough decisions, Moroni made them and brought peace. His leadership should be studied as a model of just conduct despite its flaws.

Conclusion

        Captain Moroni's life and leadership offer profound insights into the principles of just war. His reluctance to engage in battle, attempted preemption, pursuit of peace, and transformation of enemies into allies exemplify a righteous approach to conflict. While moments of overzealousness serve as cautionary tales, and people will always nitpick, the balance of his conduct aligns with the just-war tradition, demonstrating that warfare, when guided by moral clarity and divine principles, can be a force for good.