Holy Subversive Warfare

      

        I had a great post that I think would make a great journal article. Please read this Chatgpt summary of what I have thus far. 

        The central argument is that the Bible and Book of Mormon contain a recurring concept of “holy subversive warfare,” in which righteous actors sometimes use methods that would normally be considered dishonorable or immoral, including deception, infiltration, ambush, and assassination. Rather than judging these actions simply by whether they conform to conventional warfare, their morality depends on the actor, authority, purpose, target, circumstances, methods, and consequences.

        The central image is Jesus as the “Robber Messiah.” In Mark 3:27, Jesus describes his victory over Satan as entering the Strong Man's house, binding him, and taking his possessions. The unusual metaphor portrays Jesus not as a conventional soldier but as an infiltrating outlaw who invades Satan's domain and liberates those held by him. This connects with the temple being called a “den of thieves” and the Book of Mormon's portrayal of the Gadianton Robbers as agents of Satan.

        The biblical examples then develop this pattern. The story of John the Baptist's execution connects to Jesus' own death and victory over death, while Herodias is contrasted with Esther, Judith, and Jael. Judith and Jael use deception and stealth to kill powerful enemies, while Esther uses her influence to save her people. Together, these stories present subversive action as something that can serve either wicked or righteous purposes.

        The Book of Mormon provides another series of examples. Nephi kills the drunken Laban and obtains the brass plates through stealth; Gideon's secret passage involves drunken guards; Teancum infiltrates the tents of Amalickiah and Ammoron at night; Moroni uses ambushes, infiltration, and nighttime operations to liberate prisoners; and the unnamed servant of Helaman infiltrates the Gadianton Robbers and stops an assassin. These actions occur outside normal battlefield conventions, yet they are generally presented as serving righteous purposes rather than being inherently immoral.

        Augustine and Aquinas provide a Christian ethical framework for understanding these examples. Augustine argued that a just war could legitimately be conducted through ambush, while Aquinas argued that military plans could appropriately be concealed from an enemy. This creates a distinction between treachery and legitimate concealment or subterfuge.

        Classical Chinese thought provides a parallel tension. Confucian thinkers often associated virtue with openness and condemned treachery, while Sunzi treated deception as fundamental to warfare. Xunzi connected military strength to the moral and political order created by a righteous ruler. Deception could therefore be reconciled with morality when it served legitimate political purposes, particularly when it avoided the greater destruction of prolonged warfare. Mencius likewise emphasized that military strength alone could not preserve a state lacking moral order.

        The broader conclusion is that subversive warfare cannot be judged simply according to whether its methods are conventional or unconventional. Deception, ambush, or assassination is not automatically righteous because it is effective, but neither is it automatically unrighteous because it is deceptive or unconventional. The relevant questions concern intent, authority, target, method, circumstances, and likely consequences. This framework can also be applied to modern questions involving espionage, targeted attacks, and preemption.

        The final image returns to the distinction between the conventional warrior and the robber. The warrior wins on the battlefield, but the robber enters the house at night. The ultimate example is Christ, whose apparent surrender to death becomes the means by which death itself is defeated. The Robber Messiah therefore represents a broader conception of righteous power that does not always operate through conventional strength or conventional rules.

Thanks for reading! 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. I write fiction too! 

The Limits of Peace Building Theory

 

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

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

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

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

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

        Christ himself continued this pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Trump, Moroni, and the Teancum Option

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Ryan Chavez, “The Teancum Option and Modern LDS National Security Thought,” Wielding the Sword While Proclaiming Peace: Views from the LDS Community on Reconciling the Demands of National Security with the Imperatives of Revealed Truth, Kerry Kartchner and Valerie Hudson eds.,(Brigham Young University Press, 2003), 87-100.

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

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

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

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

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

Just War Theory in the Age of Political Violence

My recent article, Just War Theory in the Age of Political Violence has just been published at Public Square Magazine. I'm happy to take part in a very important conversation when so many people feel justified in taking the law into their own hands. The article is an edited version of this post from several months ago. 

I hope you enjoy reading it. If you like my ideas please consider purchasing one of my books linked in the top left. 

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

        

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blurred Lines: Why So Many Killers Confuse Terrorism with Justice

 

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

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

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

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

Violence

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

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

Minimize Western Religion and Values

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

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

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

Putting It All Together

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad Categories Escape Morality

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

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

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

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

********

---

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

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

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

[4] Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021), 135. Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2015), 223. Boyce states “modern just war framework…makes no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to address the concerns of Latter-day Saints.”

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

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.)