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.)

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

  

     

        The above title is based on Genesis 9:6, a command from God after the flood. It says “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” As explained by Dennis Praeger this verse “makes it clear that God expects human beings to take the murderer’s life, providing a direct rejoinder to those who believe that only God is allowed to take a human life.”[1]

        This has direct application regarding the arguments of Mormon pacifists. They often argue that if we are truly righteous God will fight our battles, and by extension it means that any human violence is unnecessary and wrong. For example, Hugh Nibley said “the Saints were told time and again to stand still and let God fight their battles.”[2] (I would immediately note that Moroni condemned a passive reliance on God no less than three times in his letter to Pahoran, Alma 60: 7,11, 14.)[3] But in their defense, there are a fair number of verses throughout the scriptures that say this.[4]

“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).

        This list sounds impressive and seems to support the idea that if truly righteous we would never have to fight or shed blood by our hand like Genesis 9:6 says. But many of the above verses are far weaker when read in context. Take the example of D&C 98:36, the verse preceding the promise of the Lord to fight our battles says that after lifting a standard of peace “Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people” (D&C 98:36).

        The scripture in context says that the Lord will join the righteous battle already initiated by righteous people. Instead of their virtue sparing them from battle, they would be strengthened in battle. Or as Genesis 9:6 might put it, “by man shall they shed blood.”

        That pattern is repeated in many of the other scriptures in the long list of promises from the Lord to fight our battles, and conforms to what the Book of Mormon teaches.  In Deuteronomy and Joshua for example, the Lord says He will fight their battles but, as he promised in D&C 98, he joined the children of Israel in their battles.

        This shouldn’t surprise readers because Moroni made the same point when he cornered the opposing army in Alma 44:3. The best example of the Lord helping people in battle comes in Helaman 4 when the Lord withdraws his support in battle:

24 And they saw that they had become weak, like unto their brethren, the Lamanites, and that the Spirit of the Lord did no more preserve them; yea, it had withdrawn from them because the Spirit of the Lord doth not dwell in unholy temples

25 Therefore the Lord did cease to preserve them by his miraculous and matchless power, for they had fallen into a state of unbelief and awful wickedness; and they saw that the Lamanites were exceedingly more numerous than they, and except they should cleave unto the Lord their God they must unavoidably perish.

26 For behold, they saw that the strength of the Lamanites was as great as their strength, even man for man. And thus had they fallen into this great transgression; yea, thus had they become weak, because of their transgression, in the space of not many years.

        Clearly, when the Lord says he will fight our battles, he refers to strengthening our arms in battle, not preventing it all together. The Lord doesn’t take the responsibility of battle or the death penalty out of our hands. He expects His people to have a peaceful heart and renounce war. But inspired by the love of the Good Samaritan, when they see the impending slaughter of them or their neighbors, they are reluctantly compelled (Alma 48:14, 21-23) to battle. And they take up that just and righteous task by their own hand (Genesis 9:6). Contrary to the position set out by Hugh Nibley and supported by many others, when the Lord says he will fight our battles, he doesn't absolve of responsibility to join battle and even kill. 

Thanks for reading. Producing quality, ad free research takes effort. If you liked this post please help support more of it by donating using the pay pal button below, or by purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 
************ 

---

[1] Dennis Praeger, The Rational Bible: Genesis, (Regnery Faith: 2019), 122.

[2] Hugh Nibley, “If there must needs be offense," The Ensign, July, 1971, 271.

[3] Morgan Deane "The Unwritten Debates in Moroni1’s Letter," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship: Vol. 61, Article 8.

[4] Thanks to Duane Boyce for summarizing them. Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, (Greg Kofford Books: An LDS Perspective on War, (Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 94. 

Give War a Chance: Moroni as a Peacemaker

      

        There are several exciting projects on which I'm working. This is the introduction of my piece on Moroni as a peacemaker. I'm not quite sure where to submit it but I think its unique and incisive:  

        One of the major arguments from peace advocates against the use of force concerns the supposed “cycle of violence.” I first heard this sitting next to John Scott Graham who saw Gaza in the Book of Mormon.[1] In their book, Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher discussed how the constant warfare between the Nephites and Lamanites represent a cycle of violence.[2] While not using the exact phrase, Eugune England clearly expressed the idea when he discussed a nonviolent ethic that furthered peace and built trust instead of fueling the threat of war.[3] In one particularly ridiculous case, Connor Boyack conflated two different cliches to say, “cycle of blowback.”[4]

        The theory sounds attractive on its face. It says that in response to encroachment on boundaries, the violated side often responds with fear, anger, and selfishness which is then often expressed in violence. In turn, this leads to what philosopher Terry Warner called “mutually provocative collusion” in which both sides have narratives they tell themselves that justify an increasing cycle of violence against the other.[5] Both sides feel the others are the aggressor and they are the justified defender. Martin Luther King summarized the danger of escalatory violence when he said “the line between defensive violence and aggressive or retaliatory violence is a fine line indeed.”[6] The belief in retaliatory violence forms a core argument for reading of the Book of Mormon as a pacifist text that warns us about the reliance on force, and turns our attention away from the clear support in the text for military leaders like Moroni and instead turns our attention towards Ammon and his brethren that supposedly changed that narrative.

        Yet there is another path that shows how Moroni’s military success in Alma 43 and 44 led to the Lamanite desire for peace in Alma 47:2. It wasn’t the preaching of the word and turning away from the supposed cycle of violence that secured peace. Moroni’s righteous desire to protect his people and inspiration from the Lord led to his decisive victory in battle. That victory was so decisive that he made the murderous dissenters like Zarahemnah depart with an oath of peace (Alma 44:20), and it made many other Lamanites reconsider their murderous ideology to the point that they refused the next call to war (Alma 43:53-54; Alma 47:2). This lesson suggests we should reject interpretations based on theories about the cycle of violence and Ammon’s missionary service and instead give war a chance by considering how Moroni’s battlefield victories created peace.[7]

Thanks for reading! I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left. 

*********

---

[1] John Stott Graham, “Reading Gaza in the Book of Mormon?”, War and Peace in Our Time: Mormon Perspectives? Claremont Graduate University March 18-19, 2011.

[2] Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict, Maxwell Institute, Deseret Book, 2021),74-80.

[3] Eugune England, “A Case For Mormon Christian Pacifism.” In Wielding the Sword While Proclaiming Peace: Views from the LDS Community on Reconciling the Demands of National Security with the Imperatives of Revealed Truth, Kerry Kartchner and Valerie Hudson eds.,166-167 (163-168).

[4] Connor Boyack, Sunday Musings, October 15^th, 2023, 11:30. https://youtu.be/dXw9KjOpUFI?si=6-NaEwd1meXQeWwh&t=690 at 7:53 it should be noted he also used the anti-Semitic slur, “pound of flesh.”

[5] Terry Warner, “The Path to Peace is a Peaceful Path,’ lecture delivered at “Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Peace is Possible.” 26^th Annual Conference of the LDS International Society, April 6^th, 2015, BYU, Provo, Utah.

[6] Martin Luther King Jr., “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom,” in I Have a Dream: Writings and Speeches that Changed the World, ed. James Melvin Washington (San Francisco: Harper Press, 1992), 130.

[7] I recognize Ammon travelled with a group of missionaries, but for ease of reference I will only refer to Ammon.

Grotius and the Book of Mormon

 Over at Mormon Dialog and Discussion Board there is a detailed discussion about methodology and if the 17th century philosopher, Hugo Grotius, wrote the Book of Mormon. As someone with a book on the subject and significant knowledge of Grotius I got tagged and felt obligated to respond. I also rarely get a chance to discuss the 17th century thinker Grotius and topics like preemptive war and my book so this was a good opportunity. This is copy and pasted from the board so I apologize for any weird formatting. 

        I appreciate being tagged on this. My newest book on just war in the Book of Mormon discusses Grotius a great deal. Its been well reviewed thus far and you can read those reviews and find a link to the book here: https://mormonwar.blogspot.com/2024/12/reviews-of-my-new-book.html

        I've been working a great deal so I can't go into extensive detail but I've got a few points worth mentioning about the topic.

        The major thrust of my book doesn't simply show congruency. As Ben has explained (many, many times) I think people tend to see what they want to see so the comparisons aren't very useful. What I did was use the keen insights of Grotius to better explain under studied elements in the Book of Mormon, and then in turn use those extra insights from the Book of Mormon to comment on matters of just war. Its a conversation among great thinkers more than finding comparisons. 

        To cite one specific topic with two examples we might look at the concept of preemptive war. I know most people think the Book of Mormon dismisses the concept out of hand. But the most frequently cited verse in Mormon 4, actually condemns the heart that makes the strategy not the strategy. The Nephites lost a great deal on the defensive too. I found 9 other verses that discuss the concept and show its use. I don't want to get too off in the weeds but if you want you can read more about it here: https://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleDeaneKishkumenDagger.html

        Probably the most important scriptures for this discussion are Alma 46:30 when Moroni justifies his capture attempted capture of Amalickiah, and Helaman's servant in Helaman 2 that preemptively kills the assassin before he kills Helaman. 

        These are important for how they interact with Grotius. Most justifications for preemptive war, outside of some more extreme views like Vattel, Gentili, or the Chinese Shizi, focus on the present. According to these theorists, if a nation focused on the past to justify preemptive war leaders would claim that they are reacting to the nefarious nature of the opposing regimes that are warlike and bloodthirsty and thus must be attacked first before they attack again (see Epaminondas for example). A focus on the future would be similar to the Thucydides trap, where Athens, WW1 Britain, WW2 Germany are respectively worried about a rising Sparta, Germany, and Russia. They have to attack now to prevent some greater calamity in the future. But the present is the more accepted position. You can read this from Walzer or in the Caroline Standard, but Grotius' criteria is still the most useful when he said that an enemy must have intent, means  and the defending nation must face an imminent attack. Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, Stephen Neff trans., (Cambridge University Press, 2012), 83-84.

        This is where both examples from the Book of Mormon matter. If you read Alma 46:30, you see that all of Moroni's concern's are in the future. Amalickiah has been defeated and is running away, there is no imminent attack, only future problems:

        Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

        This might seem like really obscure theory, but if Grotius wrote the Book of Mormon he wouldn't include details and narratives that contradicted his ideas of imminency. In fact,  many people dissented from the Lamanite king and then seized the "place of arms" (Alma 47:2; 5). So you could argue Amalickiah didn't have means either and many Lamanites didn't have the intent. So Grotius wrote a narrative that contradicts his theory of preemption, and then provided narrative details where Amalickiah fulfilled every worry that Moroni had, thus undermining his own theories even more.      

        The second verse regards Helaman's servant who preemptively killed Kishkumen during his assassination attempt on Helaman. This one is even more clear because Grotius wrote about robbers as a reason for law enforcement and not deadly preemption: if the conspirators “formed a plot, prepar[ed] an ambuscade, poisoning, or readied a false accusation [the planner] cannot lawfully be killed either if the danger can in any other way be avoided, or if [the ruler] thought delays could afford remedies.” (Ibid.) In other words, if the plot can be neutralized by the defenders using other remedies, then they likely haven't gathered the means, shown intent, and attack it isn't imminent enough to warrant deadly force. 

        Yet the servant of Helaman didn't take any other remedies. He was "out by night" and seemingly had plenty of advanced notice (Helaman 2:6). Kishkumen let his guard down and there was time as they "were going forth" to the judgement seat (2:9). A chapter before Nephite leaders seized incipient rebels like Paanchi  and killed them (Helaman 1:8; notice the preemption of the Nephites leaders as they seized him when he was "about" to flatter). Yet the narrative says Helaman's servant killed Kishkumen. We don't exactly know why he didn't call for the guards instead of killing them. But if Grotius wrote the narrative, we would assume that he would clearly articulate his previously stated beliefs that there was enough time to "use other remedies." Some might argue that the narrative doesn't clearly endorse this story as righteous so why bother. But a recent Interpreter article suggests that Moroni's dramatic use of omission about Helaman's servant, while simultaneously detailing the nefarious Gadianton plot, highlights the righteousness of Helaman's servant: https://interpreterfoundation.org/nameless-mormons-dramatic-use-of-omission-in-helaman-2/ 

        Here are a couple examples where extremely specific details from Grotius are entirely contradicted by the Book of Mormon text. I don't like simply showing congruency, or authorship based on poorly thought out similarities. As you can see just from two small examples, a careful study of scriptures, and using those scriptures to have a conversation with the best philosophers, brings new insights and deepens faith. I know I'm biased, but given the positive reactions to my book, and how I've independently published or presented 7 different times based on material from the book, I think its incredibly fruitful. 

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you found value in my work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page. Or consider buying one of my books linked in the top left. 

Newest Book on Just War Released, Ten Year Anniversary of my First Book!

 

    I’m excited to announce that my new book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon is published and available on Amazon! Those of you that read this blog already have a good sense of the material that is in it. You might remember posts about the importance ofthe heart, preemptive war, and the Nephite wars at the end of their nation. Here is the back cover blurb:

    In a world filled with what seems like "one continual round of bloodshed and murder" (Mormon 8:8) the debates in how to stop that slaughter are filled with partisan talking points, competing vociferous voices, unexamined assumptions about the use of force, fearful hot takes, and self-serving politicians and media narratives that only serve to increase the tension.

    In this the war of words and tumult of opinions (JS History 1:10) acclaimed military historian Morgan Deane applies a Hugh Nibley like command of numerous Christian and Chinese philosophers to engage the rich, intellectual debates from history, and apply them to the ethics of war and peace within the Book of Mormon. The result shows that Book of Mormon offers robust comments on such pertinent topics as the paramount importance of the heart, when and how a nation should use force, the limits of the word and the sword, the intent of people making war, preemptive war, insurgency, and a resolution between, instead of cross talk and proof text citations of oft cited pacifist and isolationist verses and those that support the use of force. This book amplifies the clarion call of the Book of Mormon to love your neighbor enough to be like the Nephites, reluctantly compelled to use arms to stop their slaughter (Alma 48:21-23).

    I’ve sent the book out for reviews, and if you’re interested in a review copy feel free to send me a message. 

    My first book, Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon has reached its ten year anniversary! I just received a message the other day about how it has helped strengthen testimonies. As I wait for new reviews to come in, here are some more over the years:

    Deane’s work is well-written and thought provoking, required reading for those interested in warfare in the Book of Mormon as warfare, rather than just spiritual analogy. David Spencer, author of Captain Moroni’s Command.

    Hugh Nibley’s understudy. …an absolute must for anyone studying the Book of Mormon... [ties] wide ranging examples from the ancient world in remarkable efficiency. Deane's personal experience also gives a strong eye to military aspects so often neglected... This is a book that will be talked about for years to come by any serious student of the Book of Mormon...” David West, award winning author of Heroes of the Fallen

    Deane is an excellent scholar with fresh ideas and is always worth reading. Matthew Roper, Scripture Central.

    [Deane helps provide analysis] equal of any rabbinical quarrel or Jesuitical casuistry…[and] a fitting springboard for robust and lively debates.” Robert Wood, Chester M. Nimitz Chair Emeritus, U.S. Naval War College.

    The book successfully uses the battles as a means to understand the evolution of Chinese military culture, doctrine, and tactics. The battle maps are well drawn and helpful for those who are not familiar with China’s geography and history. The author has designed the book for general readers, including high school seniors and college freshman, so they can quickly grasp the complex security concerns and strategic calculations often underlying China’s decision-making process. Li Xiaobing, Journal of Chinese Military History

    China’s increased presence on the global stage has attracted greater interest in its long military history. With five millennia behind it, East Asia’s dominant power is certainly no stranger to armed conflict. While that immense scope may seem daunting, author Morgan Deane offers a highly accessible survey with Decisive Battles in Chinese History. Army History

    This astute history clearly reveals the development of China’s military and martial spirit. Military Officer

    I look forward to reading more positive reviews of my latest book and I’ll share them as they come in.

Moroni's Extreme Aggression? Notes on Alma 46:30

 

I'm busy making final edits on my next book. As I make those edits I thought this is an interesting nugget you might enjoy reading. 

        When Moroni’s thoughts are summarized by Mormon those thoughts not only suggest his behavior was a preemptive military action, but it was on aggressive side of what just war theorists consider acceptable. Moroni reasoned in the text that Amalickiah would inspire the Lamanites to war in the future when they are stronger. Alma 46:30:

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

        The future tenses are highlighted. Moroni sought to stop Amalickiah from gaining more strength and attacking later so he justified attacking now. Capture and kill him now, before they get more strength and attack us later, is a classic motivation for instigating war, but is more concerned with the future than the present.[1] Micheal Walzer summarized the many theorists of preemptive war and the varying justifications for the practice by using a term called the anticipation spectrum. In that spectrum he suggested that the only just preemptive wars are concerned with the present alarm of an immediate attack such as a charging assailant with sword in hand, nuclear armed planes already on their way to targets, or planes full of terrorists on their way to the Twin Towers. Walzer argues that unjust preemptive wars are concerned with stopping a gathering threat (Sparta, Germany, or the Lamanites will be stronger in the future so Athens, Britain, or the Nephites must attack now), or punishment for past actions (this nation is so unjust, greedy, prideful, ambitious, and aggressively expansionist it is too dangerous not to attack.)[2]

        By this measure Moroni’s use of preemptive war is more expansive than most just war theorists concerned with the imminent threat, because Moroni focused on the future threat and not the present. This leaves most students of the Book of Mormon in a unique situation, especially for those that use the infection model and place restoration scriptures as always superseding non-LDS theorists. Because in this case Moroni and the Book of Mormon seem more aggressive and less justified than what many commonly assume, especially compared to just war theorists that moderate the practice of preemptive war. This additional analysis becomes a much-needed caution to those that fail to do what Brigham Young advised and find truth even among professed infidels. There is much more in my book about theory and practice, and Walzer’s description serves as an excellent summary of just war theories regarding preemptive war as I discuss those details. In short, his desire for seeking battle places him on the aggressive extreme of justified preemptive war and serves as a reminder of the immense benefit of studying the great thinkers on the topic.

*****
Thanks for reading. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or you can buy one of my books in the top left. At the very least, follow my blog or my author page on Amazon for updates on the book. 

---

[1] Graham Allan, “The Thucydides trap,” Foreign Policy, June 9^th, 2017,  https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/ (Accessed, May 14^th, 2024.)

[2] Micheal Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, 81.

New Journal Article in the Interpreter: The Unwritten Debates in Moroni's Letter

 

Hello everyone. I'm proud to present my newest article in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter Day Saint Scripture. Moroni in his letter is assumed by most readers to be angry. But he actually showed rather sophisticated rhetorical strategies as he responded to debates among the Nephites. It was a pleasure to write and I hope you find value in reading it. 

This is part of an amazing string of success. One of my critics dismissively asked, "how many works [about LDS scriptures and just war] could have been published in the 'last few decades'?" Well, I still have a couple pieces in the pipeline, but if those are published that will mean I've published or presented nine chapters of my future book. (Not including the book itself.) To be honest, I don't feel like I'm particularly gifted or smart. So if I could publish or present nine pieces in two years based on one manuscript written, I can only imagine how many more could be published if LDS thinkers seriously engaged just war theorists. Perhaps like Brigham Young encouraged, we could seek and embrace truth wherever we find it, even among the professed infidel instead of staying within the intellectual confines of the Mountain West. 

Speaking of publishing, I'll have some exciting news to share about that in a couple months. Stay tuned and thanks for reading! 

If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of the books linked in the top left. 

Notes from the National Security Conference

   

 

    I just returned from the 2023 LDS National Security Professionals Conference last weekend. I came down with a non covid illness the week before which made it all the more impressive that I could drive to Provo and interact with everyone like it was fine.  

    My presentation went well. I discussed two applications of section 98 in scripture. Abraham largely ignored our understanding section 98, but was blessed. The Nephites more fully followed it, but because of their extreme wickedness they were cursed. The truth is that we must have the spirit of section 98, a peaceful heart, but also be willing to wield the sword when necessary. A rote invocation of the scripture against force is not what it was intended for.  

    What follows are some of my brief notes on the presentations mostly covering their interaction with my research, as well as an update on that research. 

Mark Henshaw: An LDS Jus Post Bellum Framework  

    This is an important topic that has not been developed all that much. Henshaw offered some ideas that I found extremely flawed. He started by saying we are not beholden to ideas from the past. This is severely misguided and borderline chauvinistic. We have authoritative scriptures that can weigh in on things, but the competing invocations of section 98 and Alma 48 among Latter Day Saints are the same debates between turn the other cheek and Jesus' numerous uses of force. Latter Day Saints could benefit from great thinkers of the past wrestling with the great questions of today but they completely ignore those answers because, as Mark Henshaw implied, they are just small minded medieval Catholics. That is the entire reason I wrote my book trying to show the numerous interactions between restoration texts and those seminal thinkers and they can bring further light and knowledge. 

    Substantively I had two major problems with Henshaw's just peace. He claimed that it was required of the winning power offer honorable terms of surrender similar to the terms found Lee received at Appomattox. But a nation doesn't always know it is defeated. Moreover, a winning power offering terms could be seen as a sign of weakness by the losing power, and encourage them to continue the war. If they can't win, offering terms would encourage the losing power to fight on and seek better conditions. This was the case with the militant officers in the Japanese army during World War II. This would result in attempts at peace leading to longer war. I would remind Henshaw that the greatest kindest is ending the war. And if the attempts at just peace lengthen the war, they aren't just. 

    The second problem was again, his reliance on Moroni's actions in Alma 44. While his actions seemed to end the battle in a just manner, it didn't end the war. This hardly makes Moroni's actions an example of a just and lasting peace. Keeping the big picture in mind, this battle was only the beginning of the war chapters. Plus, as I've discussed before, the battle pause is unnatural and could be a literary creation. At the very least, pausing a victorious battle seems like a rare luxury that wasn't followed anywhere else in the Book of Mormon including other battles that Moroni fought like that in Alma 51. (Moroni did offer generous terms in other places but not in the middle of the battle.)  

    Finally, Moroni defended or even bragged about the strategems he used to win (Alma 43:30). But Thomas Aquinas argued that stratagems prevented a just peace because it convinced the opponent that the one using the ambush was dishonorable. Unsurprisingly, Zerahemnah attributed the Nephite victory to their "cunning" and refused a peace (Alma 44:9). (Aquinas and Christians got around that injunction by pointing to Jesus' use of concealment and the overall just purpose of the war.) But Henshaw dismissed pivotal concepts from just war theorists that directly applied to his argument. If he read Aquinas then Henshaw could have seen a Nephite barrier to just peace in Moroni's tactics and perhaps been less reliant on Alma 43 and 44 for his concepts.

Megan Alder: LDS Responsibilities in a Shifting Balance of Power 

    Megan talked about the church's responses to Russian aggression in Ukraine and its application elsewhere. Her talk was very appreciated as she directly rebutted the many people that thought the church provided a weak, milquetoast statement. It was fairly generic, but she argued convincingly that church leaders do this because they value providing ordinances and materials to its members in the aggressing country, than scoring points with an in your face activist statement. She pointed out that they still provide massive materials to Ukraine and help the suffering people there, while also being good shepherds to their members in Russia.  

    I'm probably not supposed to say this, in addition to being really smart and articulate, she was also totally freaking gorgeous. She seemed single so I thought for a bit that I could end up having a good professional and personal day. But being sick I felt like total garbage by the end of the day and went back to the hotel and collapsed, (and had to start my drive home the next day.) Maybe I'll get lucky and bump into her again somewhere. Regardless of her looks and my crushing on her, her ideas were excellent and very needed. There is much more to helping people than making a strident political statement. 

Fred Axelgard: In Praise of 4th Nephi

    He was particularly nice to meet. He is one of the few from the pacifist crowd I've met that actually acted like he had love in his heart. I've lost track of the number of pacifists that say all the right words, and then seem so phony, fake, and even angry when you disagree with them. He said some nice words about my research and after looking at my blog he said he can tell I have a deep passion for the Book of Mormon. Those were very kind words that will be nice fuel when it feels like I'm wasting my time on all this stuff. 

    His presentation was extremely thoughtful as he talked about the importance of morally hard and even contradictory passages. He suggested that Mormon summarized the war chapters, refused to fight, then changed his mind to fight even though the Nephites hadn't repented, and wrote about the Anti Nephi Lehis, so his life and contradictions are particularly important to consider. He mentioned the ninth article of faith to argue there are many important things yet to reveal about matters of war and peace. 

David Palkki: On Love and Hate in Section 98

    I was worried this would overlap with mine but our presentations were complementary. We agree that this is more about principles than military doctrine. I particularly enjoyed his quotes about quotes. He had one from President Nelson that divine doctrine is confirmed by more than one witness. Boyd Packer said that often or obscure doctrines must be measured against other scriptures. And Dallin Oaks said that it is dangerous to rest a firm conclusion on one verse. I liked these because they underscore with what I've tried to do in applying multiple, interlocking scriptures and contrasts with so many that rely on one verse to rest far reaching arguments (that just happen to damn everyone else.)

    Palkki was particularly good at showing the inconsistencies of policy based on this verse. The Book of Mormon in Alma 48:14 gives a different number. There are metaphorical numbers in the same section, such as 98:40 that says the saints should forgive 70 times 7. He made the good point that it is ridiculous to start counting 490 times, but we think forbearing three trespasses is literal. Finally, it hasn't been mentioned by any leader since 1948. (And I would add, that reference was from the isolationist J Reuben Clark.

Medlir Mena: LDS Perspectives on Standing Firm in an Era of Domestic Upheaval 

    From a mechanical standpoint this was, unfortunately, one of the worst. He rambled a good deal and his slides didn't follow his presentation. I don't like to be a robot reading from my script, but I know how nervous I can get so I type my presentation word for word, and practice it hard. I think my presentation is much better as a result. (I was super sick so I'm probably nasally on the tape.) 

    Substantively he seemed really focused on intra state conflict (gang violence, cartel killings against their own people, low level insurgencies etc.) instead of interstate competition. He tried to cast Laman and Lemuel as the same family, but they seemed like two distinct polities fighting inter state warfare. The Nephites did fight an insurgency, which is a chapter in my next book but he hasn't. He seemed to dislike "grand theories" derived from verses like section 98. I would need to see some examples so I could judge for myself. Ironically, he seemed to literally hand wave and make lots of "grand" assumptions.  

Conclusion

    This conference was good. I follow the same pattern every time. I apply, get accepted, become way too nervous to the point I can't eat or sleep, I do really well, feel great, and wonder what I worried about in the first place. I have some good material to add to my book, and have a great deal to think about. 

    This presentation was based on a chapter of my upcoming book on just warfare. I have another chapter, based on Helaman 2, that is coming out in Square Two. My views on the Ukrainian war are based on chapter four of the book. And I have a journal article about Moroni's letter that is still working its way through the Interpreter. In short, I have 4 publications or presentations based on my book (and there are only about 10 substantive chapters in it). Its a bit frustrating publishers don't seem to like all those ideas in one place, but it is good validation that I have ideas worth sharing. I will continue to pursue publication of the book, and modified, stand alone chapters from it. Thanks for reading. 

I work as a freelance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below. Or buy one of my books linked in the top left.  

Research Update: Isolationism, First Strike, Sacrifice, Ambushes Oh My!

Hey everyone. I haven't been able to post here, but that doesn't mean I don't have any great writing out there. Here is a list of current projects in various stages of publication: 

To Stop a Slaughter: The Book of Mormon and Just War: This is being considered by a publisher right now. I've heard that JK Rowling and Frank Herbert's Dune both went through many publishers before getting picked up. So I know its a good manuscript and it will get its day...just some day. 

Am I My Brothers Keeper: This is a piece that discusses the continuing isolationism from American analysts regarding Ukraine. I argue that many people are sadly like Cain, and dismissing the problem in Ukraine as someone else's problem because they aren't their brother's keeper. Its submitted to the same place that published my piece at the beginning of the war so I think it has a good shot. 

Kiskkumen's Dagger: I thought this blogpost was so good I took that skeleton, cut the fat, strengthened some arguments, added more, and submitted it for publication. The concept of first strike is an important modern concern and Helaman 2 probably has the most detailed and applicable account. Its currently at Square Two, since I thought national security professionals might appreciate this the most. 

Maxwell Institute Theology Seminar: This great seminar is back and in Harvard's Divinity School this year. I've applied in the past and this year is on Alma 34, which just happens to be part of my book, and an article for Public Square I've already written. So I think I have a good shot at this, but I say that every year, so yeah. If I'm not one of the participants I'll post my application, consisting of a creative reading of Alma 34:7, here as soon as possible. It is about the use of ancient law regarding witnesses and penal sacrifice in Amulek's sermon about Christ's atonement. (That sounds complicated, but they give me one verse to work with and ask for a creative reading so that's what I do.) 

Moroni's Letter: I've got this one pretty close to journal ready. Its about some of the unique arguments that Moroni makes and addresses in his letter. This includes the proper military strategy that interprets waiting on the Lord for deliverance, interpreting military defeat, and the use of sinfulness of ambushes. Moroni's strategy was much more active, for example, which I contend was a rebuke of previously more passive Nephite strategy. I'm still working on a better title and debating who I should submit to. 

As you can see I have some great things in the works. None of them make a great blog post which is why the blog has been fairly quiet for the past little while. But I've been writing like crazy. If all goes well I'll be announcing many publications soon. They are all pretty connected as well, so even if just a few are published I can still build buzz for my book.

Thanks for reading. What are you most looking forward to?

I work as a free lance writer. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or buying one of my books linked at the top left. 

Book Review: Proclaim Peace

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

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

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

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

Who is our Neighbor? Ukraine and the Christian Duty

    The following is a response to an LDS isolationist that wrote an apology for Putin here. I thought it was a concerning argument because it minimized the Christian duty that Latter Day Saints should have to stop the slaughter of Ukrainians. I reprint it here because, frankly, I'm kind of offended that an expert on the topic is so blithely censored by someone who claims to love liberty. 

    My response is also a sneak preview of an article I wrote for Public Square Magazine. I think it is a pretty good public statement on the Ukrainian crisis from a military historian with an upcoming book on military ethics.

    For my military analysis on the invasion please see my articles from the Epoch Times, particularly the Temptation of Isolationism, which applies to article I'm rebutting here, and Patterns in the Dust, which tells you what to notice and learn from the Russian performance. As they have stumbled in the early days to meet their goals I think it was particularly keen.

    Also notice below how much more closely I align to scriptures and major thinkers on the topic than the writer who deletes me for not "contributing" to the conversation. Without further ado:

    It's very concerning that your response to the most blatantly unjustified and nakedly aggressive war that I've ever seen is to try and make the issue grey. And you do so by claiming there are nefarious actors manipulating us into war, and by using a skewed history, from antiwar.com lol, to try and claim there are really no good guys. 

    You say you aren't excusing the invasion, but then you pretty much do by blaming NATO for it, linking to posts saying we should have recognized Russian territorial ambitions, and claiming we are manipulated if we think there are good and bad guys. 

    I agree that peace is the highest goal we should all strive for. But standing idly by in the name of peace as people are slaughtered is uncaring and frankly, un Christian. John Calvin called standing by while people are slaughtered the greatest injustice. Thomas Aquinas labelled situations like that an "evil peace."

    Catholic theologian Paul Ramsey summarized the point simply when he asked, what would the Good Samaritan have done if he happened upon the beaten traveler in the middle of the attack instead of after it? It is absurd to think in the name of peace (or the Mormon version of the impulse, renouncing war), he would have picked up the other cheek to be struck. Or posted a meme about peace or filter as he watched it. Maybe he would have lectured other would be interventionists that try to stop the beating about peace while giving a long tendentious history of Jewish bandit relations. 

    Clearly, the Good Samaritan would have done something, up to and including the use of force to stop it. That impulse doesn't stop because the scale is bigger or you have ideological filters and geopolitical quibbles. And that motivating love for our neighbor is before we consider clear Book of Mormon verses that plainly teach we shouldn't let those we love be killed by the "barbarous cruelty" of aggressors. Or the very plain, "ye shall defend your family unto bloodshed" (Alma 48:24; 43:47). 

    The Ukrainians are our neighbors. Despite your attempts to muddy the waters  they are more so than the Samaritans were to the Jews. (Which is why Jesus chose a good Samaritan and not a good Pharisee, wiseman, or libertarian to illustrate that love).  And all the talk of peace in your post is really a deflection from the loving obligation we owe to our neighbors. 

I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work, normally I'd ask for a donation. But in this case please donate to an appropriate charity that will help the people of Ukraine. 

Heart Problems, The Book of Mormon and The Just War Tradition

    I’ve talked about this issue before. In my first thoughts on preemptive war I discussed how if you read the account carefully in Mormon 4 he is complaining about their false oaths, bloodlust, and not that strategy. As I wrote:

    Mormon 3:15 also seems to prohibit preemptive war. However, the real sin recorded by Mormon was not the offensive tactics but rather the bloodlust and vengeance that dictated Nephite strategy (v. 14). One might also say it was their false oath (to a false god?) in Mormon 3:10 that finally forced Mormon into his utter refusal. Again, that doesn’t have much to do with their strategy. The seemingly unequivocal anti-war sentiment expressed in Mormon 4:4 does not record any saying of the Lord, but can just as easily represent a strategic description… If this is a command against offensive action it is also contradicted by other writings by Mormon. This is most clearly seen in a reevaluation of Alma 48:14. The traditional understanding of this verse is a prohibition against offensive warfare. But a slightly different reading suggests the Nephites are rather commanded to never “give an offense” except “against an enemy” and “to preserve their lives” (Alma 61:3).

    I expanded on that concept just a short time ago with many examples from the Book of Mormon.

    In Mosiah the people of Limhi were in bondage due to iniquity not strategy (Mosiah 23:12) In the multiple descriptions of Captain Moroni, not delighting in bloodshed was more important than strategy (Mormon 7:4). We might compare that attitude with the how the Lamanites are recorded as “rejoicing over the blood of the Nephites” (Alma 48:25). This could also be another ethno centric account of “barbarous cruelty” of the other side (Alma 48:24).  

    None of the above has to do with strategy. That might seem like an awkward admission given the point of the blog. But it gives me the impression that when we are exclusively debating strategy, we are missing the point. We should be examining our collective hearts. Yet we can’t ignore strategy either.  We can’t see inside other people, and we are too quick to judge and accuse other people based on strategies. We aren’t asked to sit passively on our thrones, but to resist whatever evil with swords that we couldn’t with words (Alma 60:21; 61:14). While it is secondary to our hearts, deciding when and how to engage in warfare still matters.

The Heart in Just War

    With those passages in mind I’ve been rather impressed with that dualism in the Christian Just War tradition. Most of their writings have focused on the difference between the mind and body. In reviewing the church fathers most of them commented on the general nature of Christians to be peaceable, content, and conciliatory as Justin Martyr said.[1] But contrary to popular perception, they still didn’t reject soldiering. Christians are recorded by Tertullian as fighting (he only rejected the danger of idolatrous military ceremonies), and many Christian fathers like Clement supported the state’s right to use force, and prayed for the success of the emperors army. The summary of the two positions to be peaceful and to fight in wars after hundreds of years of early Christian thought was given as a “vengeful spirit that is denounced” not force itself.[2]

    I find this particularly interesting as this is how I’ve responded to those that try to bash soldiers and non-pacifists over the head with Section 98. It says to renounce war and proclaim peace. I agree, in my heart I oppose and denounce warfare, but its unfortunately something that is justified on occasion. They never liked that answer as they believe the section should lead to an avoidance of warfare. Duane Boyce has done an excellent job of showing how unworkable that section is as a guide to foreign policy.[3]  

    The mention of “unfortunate” in the previous sentence is important, as the Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms against their brethren because they didn’t want to shed blood, and send so many damned souls back to God before they could repent. (Alma 48:23) Both ideas are found and even prevalent in Christian thought. Augustine was just as worried about where the souls of dead soldiers would go as he was about warfare itself. The Medieval monk Gratian warned that force should be used for love of justice, not for love of inflicting punishment.

    Augustine started the concept of “benevolent harshness” which is a term he uses to describe the mindset that should accompany the actions. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but he used the example of a parent that punishes a child. That punishment is harsh, but it is done out of love and Martin Luther compared it to a doctor that has to save the patient by sawing off a limb. Modern writers might think of it as major dental work like a root canal. Its painful but necessary and the dentist does it out of a sense of compassion to save the patient from long term pain.

    John Locke focused on natural rights more than scriptures but comes to the same conclusions. John Lock said it was permissible to defend against aggression, but force should only be used as calm reason and conscience dictate, and not in extravagant passion. When I hear about passion and anger, I’m reminded of a great body of Chinese literature that stressed the avoidance of fighting out of anger and it’s connection to spiritual principles.

    Cao Mie said that a legendary ruler should reject “rage and fury’s mindset.”[4]This is an important command that receives treatment in multiple records. In a rare point of agreement the Five Lost Classics said that rage can be an ulcer for the emperor.[5] This is important as anger can cloud the needed analysis of a ruler or general and lead to rash commands from a ruler, or what I call strategic idiocy, and tactically it can incite soldiers to plunder and punish the people.

    This hot anger would also make it difficult for the ruler to see subtle items that indicate significant items. For example, by being angry at another ruler he might miss important elements of analysis such as the way the ministers respond to the ruler, the quality of soldiers and all the things that a ruler should do in assessing the upcoming war and calculating in the temple: [The ruler who uses] these principles to pacify and calm their own desires in order to hear what is said, to examine activities, to discuss all things…Although these things are not the matter at hand, by seeing the subtle you shall know the greater significance.[6]

The Heart Reconciles War with Sermon on the Mount

    Most importantly than missing important strategic signs, it leads to tactical aggression and massacres. The angry heart, in Christian or Chinese thought leads to increased violations of ethical or moral conduct. The greatest example of this avoidance comes from the Sermon on the Mount.  There, we are commanded to be peacemakers and turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:9, 38). This has been elevated by some, including pacifists from antiquity to the present into binding prohibitions against warfare.[7]  But they are not binding and exclusive scriptures. John the Baptist didn’t command the centurion to abandon his profession, but only be content and deal justly (Luke 3:14).  Jesus met a soldier and praised his faith, also without telling him to quit his beatitude breeching military service (Matthew 8:8-10). Jesus himself didn’t turn the other cheek when confronted by high priests (John 18:23). And just about every just war thinker cited Romans 13:1-4, where Christians should be subject to earthly authority and rulers are God’s servant when they use the sword. Paul Ramsey probably provides the most succinct explanation of how force can be loving. Using the example of the Good Samaritan, sometimes a person, or government representing the people must use force to protect and be a good neighbor.[8] That loving force also provides the important limits included in just war because the force to stop victimization shouldn’t be used in such a reckless and aggressive manner that it creates new victims.  All of this is before we consider restoration scriptures that clearly outline the just use of force.  

Conclusion

    In short, the heart problems I’ve discussed go to the central argument of Christians for how to turn the other cheek and be peacemakers, while at the same time making and prosecuting warfare. The answer first formed by Augustine (with some traces in early Christian thought) and then refined by later thinkers was that people’s hearts should always remain peaceful. Warfare should be done for a sense of justice, and not because of loving warfare, plunder, and punishment.

    As I’ve mentioned before, it is nice to read about topics I’ve already discussed. It provides confidence that I’m on the right track and my analysis is keen. In this case, the concept of heart problems I first discussed over ten years ago is part of a long tradition of great thinkers (and okay ones like me) that discussed how to reconcile the City of God and the kingdoms of men. This concept will be a pivotal chapter in the next book I’m writing. The chapter will cover 3^rd Nephi and Christ’s retelling of the Sermon the Mount, and naturally reconcile the rest of Book of Mormon with Christ’s Sermon. The entire book will fully engage restoration texts with the concept of Just War. As Benjamin Hertzog said, it is vital for LDS thought to intellectually emerge from the confines of the mountain valleys the Saints once occupied, and engage the robust body of thought that exists.[9]

 I work as a freelance author. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button at the bottom of the page, or buy one of my books linked in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] David Corey, J. Daryl Charles, Just War Tradition: An Introduction (ISI Institution, 2012), 29.

[2] Ibid., 47.

[3] Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed (West Jordan UT: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 156-157.

[4] Caldwell, Ernest. “Promoting Action in Warring States Political Philosophy: A first Look at the Chu Manuscript Cao Mie’s Battle Arrays.” Early China 37.1 (2014): 259–289.

[5] Robin Yates trans., Five Lost Classics, (New York: Ballantine Books, 1997), 113.

[6] Michael Broschat trans., Guiguzi: A Textual Study and Translation, (University of Washington PhD Thesis, 1998), 142-143.

[7] This material will be an important chapter of my book and I plan to offer specific examples from pacifists, discuss why modern pacifism was a reaction to increased deadliness of weapons, and the other scriptures of the New Testament, including examples from Jesus, that undermine using the Sermon on the Mount exclusively. For brevity I didn't include it here.

[8] Paul Ramsey, The Just War: Force and Political Responsibility, (Rowan and Littlefield, 202),143-144.

[9] Hertzberg, Benjamin R. (2014) "Just War and Mormon Ethics," Mormon Studies Review: Vol. 1 : No. 1 , Article 15.