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.

The Samaritan’s Sword: Where to Start with War and Peace

 

        You’re watching the news of something awful. The world trade towers collapsed, Israel suffered the worst holocaust since World War II, and through your tears you think of what you should say and do next. What scriptures came to your mind?

        Latter-day Saint discourse on war gravitates toward a small set of proof texts which mirror the broader Christian tradition. From the Sermon on the Mount, we read Christ’s injunction to “turn the other cheek” (Matt. 5:39). From modern revelation, we repeat the Lord’s command to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16). These two generally drive what seems like an obvious command towards LDS pacifism and nonviolence. From Captain Moroni’s leadership we recall the charge that “ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).  And we are told that we can't let our wives and children be massacred (Alma 48:24). This drives what seems like an obvious command towards the use of force.

        Even though they are used as such, scriptures are rarely intended to function as a set of disconnected slogans. Each verse gains meaning and moves from proof text to proof in conversation with the others, and the interpretive challenge lies precisely in holding them together.

        The analytical key to resolving this tension lies in the just war tradition. First articulated thousands of years ago and refined over the years, the parable of the Good Samaritan provides a simple but commanding answer. As described by Jesus (Luke 10:25-37) as the epitome of Christ like love, the Samaritan's first impulse, even to those that were his ethnic rivals and looked down upon him, was to heal. After being set upon by bandits, the Good Samaritan gave the beaten traveler oil and wine, and provided for the injured man’s recovery. He did not act from vengeance or national loyalty, but from compassion across ethnic and religious boundaries. As described in chapter one of my book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon, this, is the peaceful heart we should cultivate.[1]

        Yet there is a narrative gap in the parable. The bandits vanish offstage after committing their crime. But what if the Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler amid the attack, or what if they had returned while the Samaritan was binding wounds?[2] To use a modern phrase, what if this was a dangerous neighborhood and the threat was ongoing? Would compassion mean turning the other cheek through silence and inaction? Would the Samaritan offer peaceful, conciliatory words as the traveler is attacked? Or would love compel him to stand between the victim and his assailants?

        This simple, logical, profound, and commanding answer is that the Good Samaritan would feel morally compelled, out of love for his neighbor, to intervene. This is precisely the spirit that Alma attributes to the Nephites under Captain Moroni:

They were compelled reluctantly to contend with their brethren, yea, and were brought to the sword in defense of their lives. … They were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood…Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, (Alma 48:21–24).

        Here we see verses that refute a simple slogan. We are commanded to renounce war, to seek peace, and to cultivate the Samaritan’s compassion. Yet we are also commanded to defend our families, our faith, and the vulnerable. We are commanded to avoid what Thomas Aquinas called an “evil peace” that stands idly by while others are slaughtered.[3] What emerges from reading all the scriptures, instead of embracing some and minimizing or ignoring others is what Just War theorists from Augustine onward have called the tragic necessity of defense: war may be waged, but only with reluctance, never delight.³

        LDS scripture does not hand us bumper stickers, as much as we might hear those slogans in online discourse. Instead, we are handed something far more complex, but understandable and enriching. When you see disturbing news, and have a gut instinct about what to say and do, hopefully that gut is something that embraces an ethic from strong and interlocking ideas, and not limiting proof texts. We must renounce war and proclaim peace, cultivate a peaceful attitude that turns the other cheek, but love our neighbor enough to intervene against robbers, and defend them unto bloodshed.

        Bits and Bobs: You can find me on twitter @DeanOnWar. And my new fiction, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn, is releasing soon! 

        Ride through a city where the only stars are neon, and survival is the only dream left...Gritty, fast-paced, and quietly powerful, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn is a cyberpunk novella about burnout, pain, and the fragile spark of hope when all the lights go out.

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

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

---

[1] Also see Morgan Deane, “Greater Portion of the Word: The Decisive Book of Mormon in the Debates on War and Peace,” in Defending the Book of Mormon: Proceedings of the 2023 FAIR Virtual Conference, Scott Gordon, Trevor Holyoak, Jared Riddick, (FAIR Press, 2025), 117-127.

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

[3] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 40, article two, answer to objection 4. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm (Accessed September 2nd, 2025.)

New Publication: Blister City, Ride Until Dawn

 

        I’m proud to announce that I’m branching out into fiction. Here is the blurb of my new book, releasing September 19^th:

Ride through a city where the only stars are neon, and survival is the only dream left.

In the brutal sprawl of Blister City, Kid is a motorcycle thief posing as a courier, carving narrow escapes between glowing billboards and gang-ruled streets. Fast, skilled, and invisible, he survives by never getting attached. Until a stolen glimpse of greenery cracks his armor.

When he's hired to escort a pregnant girl to a high-security hospital, it seems like a rare honest payday. Until she looks up at him with pleading eyes full of something this city no longer has a name for. Then she runs.

Now, with the city closing in and choices shrinking fast, Kid must decide if he's just another gear in the machine or something more. Maybe even someone who could save her.

Gritty, fast-paced, and quietly powerful, Blister City: Ride Until Dawn is a cyberpunk novella about burnout, pain, and the fragile spark of hope when all the lights go out.

        The genesis for the story came from the news. A couple of future parents insisted that their surrogate abort their baby. I thought that was rather dystopic, so the story of a girl who runs and the rider that helps them was born.

        I needed a strong motivation for the driver. So, I remember one of those slide shows that passes as news stories. It showed a single tree, surrounded by about 4x4 feet of grass, which was in turn surrounded by a fence. I thought about what it would mean to a person to live a despondent life and suddenly see a garden. That was the “inciting event” for the main character. I couldn’t find the picture but this link is close enough.

        I laid the groundwork for his temperament by looking at another dystopic picture, the concept of “cage apartments.” These are in places like Hong Kong where housing is so expensive people rent cages, stacked on top of one another and barely bigger than a dog kennel.

        On the way back from seeing that green, the main character has a moment like that in Tale of Two Cities. In book 2, chapter 5, Syndey Carton, feeling sad and weighed down with unfulfilled promise, looks out over the city and imagines a better life. It was so beautiful that every time I read it I put the book down and weep. So my character has a similar moment that establishes the effect of that grass and primes him to help.

Waste forces within him, and a desert all around, this man stood still on his way across a silent terrace, and saw for a moment, lying in the wilderness before him, a mirage of honorable ambition, self-denial, and perseverance. In the fair city of this vision, there were airy galleries from which the loves and graces looked upon him, gardens in which the fruits of life hung ripening, waters of Hope that sparkled in his sight. A moment, and it was gone. Climbing to a high chamber in a well of houses, he threw himself down in his clothes on a neglected bed, and its pillow was wet with wasted tears.

        Finally, I don’t mess around with fluff or waste your time. I thought about making the change more gradual. Like the Mandalorian, our main character drops off his cargo, agonizes, and eventually decides to steal the child.  But if everyone knows that will happen anyway, why wait? I’ve already showed the Kid’s is primed to help, so I make it happen. You'll find this book gritty and fast paced. 

        The final ingredient was the movie Apocalypto. Fundamentally, it’s a chase movie. I don’t spend much time on side characters or superfluous fluff. I get the main characters running and I keep the chase going. I don’t let up. But I still find moments of character development. I’ll admit at one point I wrote them into a corner, both literally as a writer, and figuratively for the characters. But I thought it through and found an excellent way for them to get themselves out of it.

        I think the story is great, both at that moment and overall. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoy writing it. It’s extremely difficult for books to gain attention. I hope you’ll take a moment and at least share the link to this article or go to the book’s landing page and share it. It will help me a great deal.

        One final note: I’m considering a push to strengthen my online presence. So, you might see more posts here, covering material that you’ve probably read already. I’ve got 15 years of blogging experience and I think it’s time to draw upon that and use better strategies to highlight my writing. Be on the lookout for that material starting later this week or next.

        Thanks for reading!