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. 

Podcast

 

        You might have noticed I don’t have a large online presence. I don’t have a podcast. You don’t hear about me. No one makes reaction videos to my material. I’ve simply operated a blog since 2009, which in itself is a bit of a time capsule from the late 2000s.

        With this background you might think I’m simply a dinosaur that can’t adapt to new technology. But I’ve seen the new landscape, and deliberately said no. The current podcast environment is reactive, inferior to writing, and backwards looking. To illustrate those points we might consider the controversy of the day (at least it was when I wrote this). A youtube personality, Jacob Hansen recently discussed Mormonism with a prominent atheist, Alex O’Conner. I didn’t watch the interview, but since then I have encountered half a dozen posts, reaction videos, and memes across the internet that in turn generated hundreds of comments. This includes the Mormon and ex-Mormon reddit, several facebook groups, Mormon Book Review podcast, and the ex-Mormon called Cultch (formerly cultural hall.) I’m sure there are more out there I haven’t seen but I only lurk around a few corners of the internet. (I only like Cultch for example, because he hate watches Jacob Hansen and that’s entertaining.) This controversy of the day crystallizes everything I hate about the podcast and reaction video culture.

        The discussion is incredibly reactive to the point that if I did start a podcast I’d probably call it the reaction, to the reaction, to the reaction video. (Or I’d just call it Podcast.) Jacob’s single conversation video has inspired countless hours of commentary and hundreds of comments. But there is nothing particularly special or noteworthy about the original item to begin with. The major takeaway is that he wasn’t an effective apologist, and he’s an intellectual light weight. That isn’t news. He didn’t make my list of overrated scholars for example, because I’ve never considered him a scholar. I’m not sure I’ve ever mentioned him on this blog before.

        You take an original copy that isn’t very informative, and every reaction video is simply a copy of a copy with the resulting loss in quality. So the hours of content, especially for the podcasts, seems like little more than a shiny new object to debate and way to vent negative emotions. They react, react to the reaction, and react to the reaction of a reaction, to the point that they it’s the definition of a tempest in a teapot. That is how someone writing a good, but relatively unimportant blog about Heartland theories can be transformed into the definition of Mormon perfidy.  

        In the process of reacting and doing so quickly enough to have their reaction matter, it is often thoughtless. In many cases it takes me longer to read and reflect on a single book about the topic in question than it takes them to make a video. I prefer texts because I can read about 60-100 pages an hour of dense academic text, while I’ve seen podcasts where I can summarize the first 20 minutes with a single sentence. Then I have to consider the question or idea carefully, and then it takes many more hours of writing and revisions, peer revisions, and publication schedule to have the piece published. That’s why I expect the online world to be arguing about something different by the time I publish this piece. I’m not writing this piece to gain clicks by commenting on a hot topic, so I don’t care about its timing.

        Podcasts have the advantage of being faster, but I have yet to see a video that provides the knowledge gained from a thoughtful article or book. Even when they say something approaching academic insight, like a recent podcast from Cultch which discussed divine command theory, they remain relatively superficial in their points and they spent a significant amount of time discussing a particularly petty tweet from Hansen. Their discussion mostly talked in generalities that didn’t include specific verses, philosophers that explained the concept, or careful revisions to hone their points. These are all features of a paper I wrote which addressed how the scriptures seem to have both deontological and utilitarian systems and discussed the safeguards in scripture that restrain divine command theory. The podcast was so long, two hours, that I could rewrite that paper or reread most of the academic sources in the time it took them to make a few hasty generalizations.

        Speaking of my academic work, reaction video culture looks backwards. It not only goes back in time to the most recent “event,” like Jacob’s video, a news article, a prominent excommunication, etc. But it argues about the same things over and over again. Various YouTube personalities and podcasters give their zingers and catch phrases. Then the various ex and anti-Mormons give theirs. They go on like this is a perpetually breathless cycle of action and reaction that doesn’t provoke any new, substantive ideas. When not discussing people, the content is only arguing about stale issues like changes to the temple ceremony, the necessity of tithing, or differences in first vision accounts. These are all issues I first encountered decades ago. I remember reading an article about the differing first vision accounts on my mission in 2002. Some people might think those issues are a silver bullet for or against the church, and they might like deeply polemic arguing. But I find it all so pedestrian.

        My favorite part of being a scholar is looking to the future. When I applied to grad school, I had to show schools that I could make the transition from simply being a consumer of knowledge to a producer of knowledge. Reactive culture doesn’t produce anything. I’ve never seen a podcast that approached the quality of an academic text, let alone one that blows my mind. The reaction video crowd simply consume knowledge that already exists, and then like carrion birds they fight over the carcass of that knowledge with other consumers. I’ve never seen anything new or original from them except increasingly click bait worthy hot takes. That is how you get videos with two buffoons discussing how ex Mormons are morons that the church couldn’t work for because they wanted to do drugs and have orgies. That is outrageous enough that it drives clicks, and even I heard about it, yet that doesn’t produce new insights or knowledge. Like an overworked ad executive, they simply came up with a new gimmick to drive engagement.

        At best they have an author on their show that discusses their book. But even then it’s still reactive because the content is being driven by a semi substantive academic work. (Not every book is created equal.) So even at their best and most substantive, they are dependent on the work of academics to generate their content.

        In short, I might be relatively unknown, even after all of these years. I’m not the target of reaction videos. But I’m also not the subject of dramatic personal attacks. I may do some interviews based on my academic expertise and books because I’m happy to talk about my work, even if I don’t like the medium.

        Mostly, I spend my time writing to produce new insights with an eye for the future. I just released a book on Just War in the Book of Mormon that represents the first attempt to systematize Mormon thought on the subject. During that process, I found a master’s thesis from over 100 years ago.[1] I imagine that the author was less popular than the authors of dime novels and the hosts of radio programs. He might have even sighed a few times, sitting alone in the library, sad that his hard work seemed to be ignored. But a century later, his insights aided my analysis, enhanced my thinking, and produced new understanding that I shared to a world that also doesn’t seem to care that much. In as little as a few weeks from now, no one will remember the controversy of the week from a random youtube personality. In contrast, my books will influence writers for years and hopefully like the writer I found during my research, scholars in the centuries to come will find and appreciate mine. When you measure success by insights gained from decades of studying which can then be studied centuries from now, a podcast and podcasters that generates buzz for a few days or weeks just don’t seem attractive.

Thanks for reading. 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 in the top left. 

*********

---

[1] Chen Queh King, Doctrine of Military Necessity, master’s Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, 1918.

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. 

Reviews of My New Book!

 

        Reviews for my new book, To Stop a Slaughter: Just War in the Book of Mormon have arrived. I’m proud to announce they are universally positive, and I appreciate the time the reviewers spent reading and thinking about my ideas. I still have a few more outstanding so hopefully I can add to this list. I know Scripture Central is working on a review, and Public Square, where I published a version of chapter 4, might have one. Without further ado, hare are some things that people are saying about the book:

Square Two, reviewed by Kerry Kartchner. “sophisticated, enriching, well-written, and worthy of study.” “Refreshing…authenticity and subtly of a soldier’s perspective.”  “A significant contribution to the discourse.” A great final paragraph that I repeat in full: 

[Deane's] volume offers a substantial, detailed, and nuanced explanation of military and strategic issues in the text of the Book of Mormon, and a vigorous defense of the imperative to sometimes wield the sword to defend oneself and one’s neighbors. Deane brings a formidable knowledge of warfare, the development of Christian just war theory, and the military history of ancient China to bear on this material. He is also attuned to contemporary American defense and foreign policy issues, with frequent references to how the principles he expounds in this book apply at the policy level in today’s world. This book is an important contribution to the discourse among LDS national security scholars and practitioners. Its message of how a righteous people may sometimes be reluctantly compelled to take up arms to stop the slaughter of their innocent neighbors deserves careful consideration in our day as we confront “wars and rumors of war.”

Times and Seasons, reviewed by Ivan Wolfe. Morgan Deane is “probably our #1 expert on Ancient war and the Book of Mormon.” You may not agree, but his book demands “you should at least fully understand what it is you aren’t agreeing with.”

Interpreter, reviewed by Craig Foster. “interesting and informative”…the book “demonstrates an excellent knowledge of the literature pertaining to war, the philosophical and theological reasons for war, and the conduct of war.” “provocative topics that encourage fascinating and meaningful discussion.”

Substack, reviewed by Michael Towns. “Offers substantive answers and insights into these moral questions [about war and peace.]”…“Morgan Deane is steeped in all the philosophical and academic foundations needed to understand Just War Theory.”

        I encourage you to read the reviews for yourself and of course, buy the book. If you’re a regular reader you probably already have a copy but maybe buy one for a friend or family member. If you’re tight on money just send me an email and I’ll give you a free copy. For those in the Las Vegas area I’d be happy to sign it for you. Feel free to peruse my author page and consider purchasing some of my other books. This is Christmas time, and my books are well priced stocking stuffers and enhancements for your library. Thanks for reading!

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

Even Unto Ignorance: Boyce Wrongly Dismisses Just War Theory

        

        Duane Boyce wrote that the “modern just war framework …makes no explicit use of scripture…it seems obvious that it cannot be sufficient to address the concerns of Latter-Day Saints.”[1] This is a stunning admission and great error which abandons great thinkers throughout history that have direct bearing on the Latter Day Saint views of war. Reading just war thinkers allows a person to realize the contours of the LDS debate, organizes LDS thinking into a powerful core, and adds specific application and advancement of LDS thought.

The Contours

        One of the biggest ironies of reading just war theorists and thinkers from the last few thousand years is the realization that LDS debates are not new. We bring new scriptures to the debate, but they are proof texted in support of the same arguments. Christian pacifists quote the Sermon on the Mount and turn the other cheek, while just war proponents cite Jesus overturning the tables in the table and the Lord’s support for rulers who are agents of his wrath to the wrongdoers (Romans 13:14). Latter Day Saints offer “renounce war and proclaim peace” and “defend your families unto blood shed (D&C 98:16; Alma 43:47). Yet, it remains the same debate.

        Christian just war theorists offered an answer to that debate that became the first chapter of my book on just warfare. This was a command for warriors to have a peaceful heart, while recognizing the tragic, and occasional need to use the sword. This was espoused by just about every theorist from Augustine to Locke. With this in mind, Latter Day Saints can renounce war, proclaim peace, AND defend their families unto bloodshed.

        In a later piece he shows some awareness of the core of just war (see below), but it is in the third appendix of his piece, only one page long, and still almost exclusively focused on Augustine and Aquinas. Even though his entire piece is devoted to resolving a scriptural tension between Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount, he presents the solution as though it wasn’t articulated by theorists for thousands of years before hand.[2]

        His ignorance concerning the contours of the debate is especially glaring in his discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. He spent an entire chapter discussing its personal application without mentioning the easily applicable question about the Good Samaritan, or the ample evidence of the need for a peaceful heart (see below). His solution, that the Sermon describes a personal attitude that doesn’t exclude the use of the sword, repeats one of the most common of the 36 different interpretations that theorists have offered in the last thousand years.[3] With a knowledge of the contours of the debate he might simultaneously have more humility and confidence in advancing his opinion while transcending the perception that LDS thinkers are “restricted to the (metaphorical) mountain valleys as Mormon communities once were.”[4]

The Core

        With the understanding of how we can both proclaim peace and wield the sword, we can simply ask, if the Good Samaritan happened upon the beaten traveler in the midst of the attack, what would he do? This is a simple but powerful question that cuts through the proof texts and demands that we ask what would Jesus do in a given situation. His example of perfect love wouldn’t stand idly by while someone is attacked. Thomas Aquinas called that an “evil peace.” We can reasonably conclude that the Good Samaritan would have a peaceful heart, but also feel morally compelled to intervene. In fact, despite peace advocates like Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher talking endlessly about love, and calling their theory, “assertive love,” they don’t mention Jesus’ example of how we should love our neighbor and fulfill the second great commandment. I suspect they don’t mention this because of its powerful implications.

        Additionally, I first read this argument while reading Catholic Theologian Paul Ramsey.[5] Along with Michael Walzer, he is the leading theorist of the modern age. Thus, this is a modern application of the just war framework, using a clear scripture, that is imminently applicable to modern problems and Latter-Day Saint questions. Once readers notice the importance of the heart they can see it permeates all of scripture. Boyce noticed this as well, but he missed a chance to place this argument as simple but powerful core, buttressed by some of the brightest thinkers of the last thousand years. I put this core in the first chapter and returned to its importance throughout the book. Even after summarizing just war at the beginning of the book, Boyce left a discussion of the heart until chapters 13 and 14. In discussing “right intent” on page eight, he mentioned defense of rights, but not the state of the heart. In chapter 14, the heart is only one of many points included in a discussion of Alma 48, and its brief because he also discusses Doctrine and Covenants 98. In short, despite nearly approaching this core and describing its features, he presents this as just one of many ideas when it could be a simple but powerful summary of the whole argument. He misses its importance because he only has an acquaintance with just war theorists.  

Specific Applications

        Being familiar with just war thinkers I immediately noticed several areas where Boyce’s analysis would have been enhanced by applying them. In discussing preemptive war he discusses the complexity of judging the immediacy of attacks and the intent of the attacker. After a lengthy, and needlessly complex discussion of philosophy he added the example of a machine gun armed attacker that is about to attack a person's family.[6] He does all this to show some examples where preemption is allowed.

        If he read just war theorists, though, he could simply use the example of a “charging assailant with sword in hand” described by the 17th century German thinker Samuel Puffendorf. The father of international law, Hugo Grotius, talked about intent, means, and imminency. Or all the elements listed by Boyce, but Grotius did so in more succinct fashion. These are not scriptures, but still a brilliant insight that forms the foundation of modern international law, and their keen insights make them relevant today. (I show how they are relevant and provide numerous scriptures about the principles in my article with Square Two.) The omission of Grotius seems especially odd because Boyce included Grotius in his bibliography. I can only guess the reasons for the omission, but it must be some combination of not reading Grotius carefully, excluding him due to some kind of dismissive attitude towards non restoration leaders and scriptures,[7] or a desire to explain the concepts himself.

        This section of his book is one of the densest philosophically, but scripturally sparse. It didn’t have to be with a knowledge of just war theorists. I’ve since found at least nine scriptures that discuss the topic which aren’t included in his book. For example, Puffendorf discussed the charging assailant with sword in hand, which made me think of the phrase, “raise a sword” in Alma 48:14. This verse describes when the Nephites could preserve their lives by "raising a sword" to their attackers. Only the text doesn't use the words attack or defense which is vitally important to the concept of preemptive war. The text instead says, “raise the sword,” not smite, strike, slay, or any other word to denote that the sword had been swung and met flesh. That isn’t simply an evocative phrase but illustrates a fundamental truth. Mormon didn’t have to explain the distinction between a raised sword and a sword strike because the two concepts are so closely related that they are the same.

        Thus, while not explicitly stated in the Book of Mormon, if a Nephite attack is called “raising the sword,” Alma 48:14 suggests that righteous defense applies when a Lamanite soldier simply “raised his sword” to attack, and not after the first (or third) actualized attack. That means the Nephite standard for defense only requires an incipient attack, or someone that “raise[s] the sword.” The basic premise applied to both thought Alma 48:14 and Pufendorf, is that an individual who sees an attack in progress doesn’t have to wait for the first blow to assert their God-given right to defend themselves. They can preemptively defend themselves.

        Boyce quotes the first half of Alma 48:14 in a discussion of offensive and defensive war.[8] Without a knowledge of just war theorists his arguments sound more strained and needlessly complex, while missing scriptural support a mere clause away from the scripture he cited.

        He not only repeated the contours of an old debate while thinking he was original, but he also diminished the most important verses about warfare in the Book of Mormon. In a chapter separate from the Sermon on the Mount, and in a chapter that centered on Alma 48, he lists the important qualities of a peaceful heart. Only at the end of that section, perhaps as a capstone, but seemingly because it was least important, he describes how the Nephites were “sorry” to take up arms but reluctantly compelled" to do so(Alma 48:21-23.) With a knowledge of just war that should be the lead in the first chapter and constantly reinforced and referenced in every other part of work. For example, when Boyce rebutted the use of Mormon 7:4, “lay down your weapons of war,” he would have known that the second half, “and delight no more in the shedding of blood,” was a direct application of just war theorists on the war, and an easy refutation of a pacifist proof text. One searches in vain for any mention of a peaceful heart in the bibliography.[9]

Conclusion

        I endorsed his book in my review and I don’t withdraw that endorsement. Yet the text is most useful as a philosophical rebuttal to pacifist theories and rather short about an LDS framework for just war. Since I first read his book, I realized that a knowledge of just war vastly enriches LDS discussion on the topic and we should make a positive and thorough case for it because it’s so strong and easy to do. (I don't consider myself particularly bright, but I'm a leading LDS thinker on the topic, I've published or presented eight times on the topic in the last two years, because I seem to be the only one that has actually read just war thinkers.)  Boyce missed a similar chance in his book. Sadly, like pacifist writers such as Patrick Mason,[10] he only includes a smattering of just war theorists in his writings, such as Augustine and Aquinas while demonstrating little to no awareness of the applicable theory.[11] It is sad to see another writer diminish the importance of just war as “insufficient” at the same time his arguments and understanding of LDS scripture would benefit from those dismissed theorists.

Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance writer and if you liked these ideas please consider supporting my research. You can use the paypal button at the bottom of the screen or buy one of my books in the top left. 

**********

---

[1] Duane Boyce, Even Unto Bloodshed, (Greg Kofford Books: 2015), 223.

[2] Duane Boyce, “Captain Moroni and the Sermon on the Mount: Resolving a Scriptural Tension,” BYU Studies, 60:2 (2021), 127-162.

[3] Craig Keener, The Gospel of Matthew: A Social Rhetorical Commentary, (Erdmans: 2009), 160-162.

[4] Benjamin Hertzberg, “Just War and Mormon Ethics,” Mormon Studies Review, 1:1 (Article 15) 2014.

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

[6] Boyce, Bloodshed, 194, 197, 202.

[7] Perhaps he has similar views to Mark Henshaw, who gave lip service to the importance of just war theorists but never applied them in 20 years, even though his work would clearly benefit from those thinkers. He did take time in those decades to scoff at those thinkers for being “medieval Catholics.” Mark Henshaw, Murder to Get Gain: LDS Thoughts on US Elements of National Power, 6509. Mark Henshaw, “A Response to ‘Kishkumen’s Dagger: First Strike in the Book of Mormon’ by Morgan Deane,” SquareTwo, Vol. 16 No. 1 (Spring 2023). Mark Henshaw, “On just peace,” in Perspectives on National Security in a Time of Upheaval, Latter Day Saint National Security Conference, Provo Utah, March 2023.

[8] Boyce, Unto Bloodshed, 238.

[9] Boyce does list peace in the index, but since his book is largely designed to philosophically oppose pacifism that is expected and too broad.

[10] Patrick Mason often uses secondary sources to quote church fathers which suggests he isn’t familiar with or hasn’t read them. See fns. 6-10 in Patrick Mason, "Zionic Non Violence as Christian Worship and Practice," in How and What you Worship: Christology and Praxis in the Revelations of Joseph Smith, Rachel Cope, Carter Charles, Jordan T. Watkins eds., (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book), 2020. In fact, every footnote in that piece referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. See also fn. 4 in, Patrick Mason, “Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War,” Public Square Magazine, August 4th, 2023. That footnote lists the primary and secondary source, suggesting he only found it in the latter: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77.

[11] The mentions of historical just war thinkers across LDS literature often seem limited to perfunctory references of St. Augustine and Aquinas before much longer analysis of LDS scripture or descriptions of modern international law and the UN charter. Michael Young, Chapter 19, Times of War Times of Peace: LDS Ethics of War and Diplomacy, Valerie Hudson, Eric Talbot Jenson, Kerry Karchner, (BYU Kennedy Center, 2018.) line 6509.

The Parable of the Two Princes

 

        The 9^th century Irish monk, Sedulius Scottus, wrote an interesting parable that interacts with the heart of just war and the Book of Mormon that I explained in my latest book. In his work he compares a righteous prince who sought peace for his enemies even after war with an evil prince.[1] In contrast with this righteous prince, the wicked prince continued to fight after refusing a sincere offer of peace. Sedulius wrote this to illustrate and expand upon the concept of the peaceful heart first elucidated by Augustine and Isidore of Seville.

        This interacts with the Book of Mormon and illustrates key concepts of just war within the text. The prince that prays for peace and his enemies even after war recall the Nephites who were “sorry” and “reluctantly compelled” to take up arms against the Lamanites (Alma 48:21-24). The Nephite felt sorry because they had to send so many unrepentant sinners into the afterlife. And they displayed the kind of hearts that welcomes Lamanite converts like the Anti Nephi Lehis and prisoners who make a covenant of peace into their midst (Alma 62:16-17), even after the many murders that the latter had committed. This reinforces the idea that the heart of the important wielding the sword is paramount and provides an illustration of the peaceful and violent heart.

        I described the violent heart of the second wicked prince in my first book. The story of a leader whose heart is so hard and warlike that they refused peace is found both within the Jaredite civil war and the Chinese War of the Eight Princes. Coriantumr saw the slaughter of the civil war which prompted him to repentance (Ether 15:2-6).

        This story contains the often-ridiculed number of two million people. Before we consider that number, it shows that critics would rather pettifog an inconsequential detail and miss the much more important morale of the story. Indulging that trivial detail, the number isn’t as implausible as the critics contend and shows us the savagery of the war and God’s wrath on the people. Ether 15 doesn’t refer to a single battle, but to the massive slaughter described in Ether 14. The losses of two competing factions over at least 8 battles of Ether 14,[2] plus numerous cities being overthrown (Ether 14:17), and multiple instances of women and children being slaughtered (Ether 14:17, 22), mean that two million is an entirely plausible number of dead. The ancient capital of China, Luoyang, had a population of 600,000 but only held a few thousand by the end of the War of the Eight Princes (see below.)  If the Jaredites had a few cities even a fraction of that size, the extirpation of “many” cities described in Either 14:17 and 22 easily accounts for many of those supposedly ludicrous “millions” of deaths.

        Returning to the more important moral of the story, after that slaughter Coriantumr began to repent, and wrote the leader of the side trying to find peace. But Shiz, showing the stone heart of the unrighteous warrior, demanded Coriantumr give himself up to be slain. The latter naturally refused, and both continued to fight until the bitter end.

        When I first studied this civil war, I compared it to the Chinese War of the Eight Princes because it had a very similar example. One of the eight princes in the civil war, Sima Yong, executed Zhang Fang and sent the head to the rival prince, Sime Yue, as part of a peace offer to no effect. The offer of peace might not have been sincere, but it was a chance to stop a war that was so devastating it turned one of the ancient great capitals of the world into a graveyard where “bleached bones covered the field.”

        The story shows the creativity of this Irish monk and reinforces the importance of Alma 48:21-24. I find those verses in Alma the most important of the war chapters and the most important scripture about warfare. The Title of Liberty really enthralls with its martial glory, but I’ve witnessed too many militant militia members with the Title of Liberty on their wall to fully rely on this story without significant caution from Alma 48. Being reluctant warriors is more important but far less romantic and hence less well known. It is only reading Sedulius that I realized those verses in Alma contrast with the rejected peace deal in Ether 15, to show different kinds of hearts.

        On a final note, it shows me once again that my instincts are very good. I’m not very famous. I can’t even make a list of lesser known Mormon scholars. (I’m Starlord man… Come on.) My posts on social media have more scammers than actual people liking them. I don’t have the right letters by my name, and I don’t work for any organizations that impress you. Lots of people look at my lack of worldly fame, credentials, and obscurity even within the Mormon community, and they cast me aside with a chortle and a few insults.

        But my ideas are solid. I regularly express ideas that are later validated by impressive scholars. The day I wrote this piece Robert Kagan, holding some endowed chair of geopolitics, agreed with my analysis on the use of human shields. In this and this post I explain key details about preemptive war that I later found in academic literature on the subject. I intuitively grasped the heart of just war here (about halfway down) and refuted the “renounce war, proclaim peace” cudgel a decade before I read any Christian thinkers.

        The tale of the two princes highlights my intuitive grasp of the heart found in Alma and Ether. The story from Seludius further solidifies and shows examples of the hearts that renounce war and proclaim peace, but also shows how the righteous wield the sword. It contrasts with those that are hardened beyond feeling, even though the warfare of both types of people might look similar. I hope it helped you think more deeply about the matter. Thanks for reading.

I work as a free lance 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. 
************

---

[1] Sedulius Scottus, Liber De rectoribus Christianis, 47.

[2] Ether 14:3, 4, 5 (a siege with combat), 11, 14, 16, 22 (multiple slaughters of soldiers and civilians, “shedding blood to shedding blood”), and 26.