Posts
Duane Boyce wrote that the “modern just war framework …makes
no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to
address the concerns of Latter-Day Saints.”[1]
This is a stunning admission and great error which abandons great thinkers
throughout history that have direct bearing on the Latter Day Saint views of
war. Reading just war thinkers allows a person to realize the contours of the
LDS debate, organizes LDS thinking into a powerful core, and adds specific
application and advancement of LDS thought.
The Contours
One of the biggest ironies of reading just war theorists and
thinkers from the last few thousand years is the realization that LDS debates
are not new. We bring new scriptures to the debate, but they are proof texted
in support of the same arguments. Christian pacifists quote the Sermon on the
Mount and turn the other cheek, while just war proponents cite Jesus
overturning the tables in the table and the Lord’s support for rulers who are
agents of his wrath to the wrongdoers (Romans 13:14). Latter Day Saints offer
“renounce war and proclaim peace” and “defend your families unto blood shed (D&C
98:16; Alma 43:47). Yet, it remains the same debate.
Christian just war theorists offered an answer to that
debate that became the first chapter of my book on just
warfare. This was a command for warriors to have a peaceful heart, while
recognizing the tragic, and occasional need to use the sword. This was espoused
by just about every theorist from Augustine to Locke. With this in mind, Latter
Day Saints can renounce war, proclaim peace, AND defend their families unto
bloodshed.
In a later piece he shows some awareness of the core of just war (see below), but it is in the third appendix of his piece, only one page long, and still almost exclusively focused on Augustine and Aquinas. Even though his entire piece is devoted to resolving a scriptural tension between Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount, he presents the solution as though it wasn’t articulated by theorists for thousands of years before hand.[2]
His ignorance concerning the contours of the debate is especially glaring in his discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. He spent an entire chapter discussing its personal application without mentioning the easily applicable question about the Good Samaritan, or the ample evidence of the need for a peaceful heart (see below). His solution, that the Sermon describes a personal attitude that doesn’t exclude the use of the sword, repeats one of the most common of the 36 different interpretations that theorists have offered in the last thousand years.[3] With a knowledge of the contours of the debate he might simultaneously have more humility and confidence in advancing his opinion while transcending the perception that LDS thinkers are “restricted to the (metaphorical) mountain valleys as Mormon communities once were.”[4]
The Core
With the understanding of how we can both proclaim peace and
wield the sword, we can simply ask, if the Good Samaritan happened upon the
beaten traveler in the midst of the attack, what would he do? This is a simple
but powerful question that cuts through the proof texts and demands that we ask
what would Jesus do in a given situation. His example of perfect love wouldn’t
stand idly by while someone is attacked. Thomas Aquinas called that an “evil
peace.” We can reasonably conclude that the Good Samaritan would have a peaceful heart, but also feel morally
compelled to intervene. In fact, despite peace advocates like Patrick Mason and
David Pulsipher talking endlessly about love, and calling their theory, “assertive
love,” they don’t mention Jesus’ example of how we should love our neighbor and
fulfill the second great commandment. I suspect they don’t mention this because
of its powerful implications.
Additionally, I first read this argument while reading
Catholic Theologian Paul Ramsey.[5]
Along with Michael Walzer, he is the leading theorist of the modern age. Thus,
this is a modern application of the just war framework, using a clear scripture,
that is imminently applicable to modern problems and Latter-Day Saint
questions. Once readers notice the importance of the heart they can see it
permeates all of scripture. Boyce noticed this as well, but he missed a chance
to place this argument as simple but powerful core, buttressed by some of the
brightest thinkers of the last thousand years. I put this core in the first
chapter and returned to its importance throughout the book. Even after
summarizing just war at the beginning of the book, Boyce left a discussion of the
heart until chapters 13 and 14. In discussing “right intent” on page eight, he
mentioned defense of rights, but not the state of the heart. In chapter 14, the
heart is only one of many points included in a discussion of Alma 48, and its
brief because he also discusses Doctrine and Covenants 98. In short, despite nearly
approaching this core and describing its features, he presents this as just one of many ideas when it could be a
simple but powerful summary of the whole argument. He misses its importance
because he only has an acquaintance with just war theorists.
Specific Applications
Being familiar with just war thinkers I immediately noticed
several areas where Boyce’s analysis would have been enhanced by applying them.
In discussing preemptive war he discusses the complexity of judging the
immediacy of attacks and the intent of the attacker. After a lengthy,
and needlessly complex discussion of philosophy he added the example of a
machine gun armed attacker that is about to attack a person's family.[6]
He does all this to show some examples where preemption is allowed.
If he read just war theorists, though, he could simply use
the example of a “charging assailant with sword in hand” described by the 17th century German thinker Samuel Puffendorf. The father of international law, Hugo
Grotius, talked about intent, means, and imminency. Or all the elements listed
by Boyce, but Grotius did so in more succinct fashion. These are not scriptures, but still
a brilliant insight that forms the foundation of modern international law, and
their keen insights make them relevant today. (I show how they are relevant and
provide numerous scriptures about the principles in my article with Square Two.)
The omission of Grotius seems especially odd because Boyce included Grotius in
his bibliography. I can only guess the reasons for the omission, but it must be some combination of not reading
Grotius carefully, excluding him due to some kind of dismissive attitude
towards non restoration leaders and scriptures,[7]
or a desire to explain the concepts himself.
This section of his book is one of the densest
philosophically, but scripturally sparse. It didn’t have to be with a knowledge
of just war theorists. I’ve since found at least nine
scriptures that discuss the topic which aren’t included in his book. For
example, Puffendorf discussed the charging assailant with sword in hand, which
made me think of the phrase, “raise a sword” in Alma 48:14. This verse
describes when the Nephites could preserve their lives by "raising a sword" to their attackers. Only the text doesn't use the words attack or defense which is vitally important to the concept of preemptive war. The text instead says, “raise the
sword,” not smite, strike, slay, or any other word to denote that the sword had
been swung and met flesh. That isn’t simply an evocative phrase but illustrates
a fundamental truth. Mormon didn’t have to explain the distinction between a
raised sword and a sword strike because the two concepts are so closely related
that they are the same.
Thus, while not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, if
a Nephite attack is called “raising the sword,” Alma 48:14 suggests that righteous defense applies when a Lamanite soldier simply “raised his
sword” to attack, and not after the first (or third) actualized attack. That
means the Nephite standard for defense only requires an incipient attack, or
someone that “raise[s] the sword.” The basic premise applied to both thought
Alma 48:14 and Pufendorf, is that an individual who sees an attack in progress
doesn’t have to wait for the first blow to assert their God-given right to
defend themselves. They can preemptively defend themselves.
Boyce quotes the first half of Alma 48:14 in a discussion of
offensive and defensive war.[8]
Without a knowledge of just war theorists his arguments sound more strained and
needlessly complex, while missing scriptural support a mere clause away from
the scripture he cited.
He not only repeated the contours of an old debate while
thinking he was original, but he also diminished the most important verses
about warfare in the Book of Mormon. In a chapter separate from the Sermon on
the Mount, and in a chapter that centered on Alma 48, he lists the important
qualities of a peaceful heart. Only at the end of that section, perhaps as a
capstone, but seemingly because it was least important, he describes how the
Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms but reluctantly compelled" to do so(Alma 48:21-23.) With a knowledge of just
war that should be the lead in the first chapter and constantly reinforced and
referenced in every other part of work. For example, when Boyce rebutted the
use of Mormon 7:4, “lay down your weapons of war,” he would have known that the
second half, “and delight no more in the shedding of blood,” was a direct
application of just war theorists on the war, and an easy refutation of a
pacifist proof text. One searches in vain for any mention of a peaceful heart
in the bibliography.[9]
Conclusion
I endorsed his book in my review and I don’t withdraw that endorsement. Yet the text is most useful as a philosophical rebuttal to pacifist theories and rather short about an LDS framework for just war. Since I first read his book, I realized that a knowledge of just war vastly enriches LDS discussion on the topic and we should make a positive and thorough case for it because it’s so strong and easy to do. (I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I'm a leading LDS thinker on the topic, I've published or presented eight times on the topic in the last two years, because I seem to be the only one that has actually read just war thinkers.) Boyce missed a similar chance in his book. Sadly, like pacifist writers such as Patrick Mason,[10] he only includes a smattering of just war theorists in his writings, such as Augustine and Aquinas while demonstrating little to no awareness of the applicable theory.[11] It is sad to see another writer diminish the importance of just war as “insufficient” at the same time his arguments and understanding of LDS scripture would benefit from those dismissed theorists.
Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer and if you liked these ideas please consider supporting my research. You can use the paypal button at the bottom of the screen or buy one of my books in the top left.
[1] Duane
Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, (Greg Kofford Books: 2015), 223.
[2] Duane
Boyce, “Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount: Resolving a Scriptural
Tension,” BYU Studies, 60:2 (2021), 127-162.
[3] Craig
Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Social Rhetorical Commentary, (Erdmans:
2009), 160-162.
[4] Benjamin
Hertzberg, “Just War and Mormon Ethics,” Mormon Studies Review, 1:1 (Article
15) 2014.
[5] Paul
Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (New York: Rowan and
Littlefield Publishers, 2002), (New York: Scribner, 1968),143.
[6] Boyce,
Bloodshed, 194, 197, 202.
[7]
Perhaps he has similar views to Mark Henshaw, who gave lip service to the
importance of just war theorists but never applied them in 20 years, even
though his work would clearly benefit from those thinkers. He did take time in
those decades to scoff at those thinkers for being “medieval Catholics.” Mark Henshaw,
Murder to Get Gain: LDS Thoughts on US Elements of National Power, 6509. Mark
Henshaw, “A Response to ‘Kishkumen’s Dagger: First Strike in the Book of
Mormon’ by Morgan Deane,” SquareTwo, Vol. 16 No. 1 (Spring 2023). Mark
Henshaw, “On just peace,” in Perspectives on National Security in a Time of
Upheaval, Latter Day Saint National Security Conference, Provo Utah, March
2023.
[8] Boyce,
Unto Bloodshed, 238.
[9] Boyce
does list peace in the index, but since his book is largely designed to philosophically
oppose pacifism that is expected and too broad.
[10] Patrick
Mason often uses secondary sources to quote church fathers which suggests he
isn’t familiar with or hasn’t read them. See fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason,
"Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How
and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph
Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book), 2020. In fact, every footnote in that piece referencing
Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. See also fn. 4 in, Patrick
Mason, “Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War,” Public Square
Magazine, August 4th, 2023. That footnote lists the primary and
secondary source, suggesting he only found it in the latter: Idolatry 19,
p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism,
Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77.
[11] The
mentions of historical just war thinkers across LDS literature often seem
limited to perfunctory references of St. Augustine and Aquinas before much
longer analysis of LDS scripture or descriptions of modern international law
and the UN charter. Michael Young, Chapter 19, Times of War Times of Peace: LDS Ethics of War and Diplomacy, Valerie Hudson, Eric Talbot Jenson, Kerry
Karchner, (BYU Kennedy Center, 2018.) line 6509.
