Posts
All Comments
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.
I recently spent over an hour watching a debate among Jonah Barnes and Luke Hansen at the podcast, Doctrine and Governance. It was illuminating mostly for what was left out and engaged. Since I literally wrote the book on the subject I felt it was worth explaining those points.
Failure to Define
Barnes never defined pacifism beyond vague gestures toward
“having a peaceful heart” and disliking violence. Having a peaceful heart is
important, it's literally the first chapter of my book, but he never fully explains his position which makes it more
sentiment than consistent theology. Nor did he ever explicitly state if he believed
all violence is immoral. If he does believe that he’ll have to explain many,
many, examples of divine violence. This is usually done using the pacifists’
favorite tactic of minimizing or discounting most scriptures.
Barnes claimed, many, many times, he took a “non-accusatory”
position on pacifism, even as he accused others of “twisting the scriptures” or
just being “idiots.” Yet when he claimed he was on “The Lord’s Side” the moral
framing was clear: if his view is the righteous one, then those who disagree
must be immoral. That’s a great deal of posturing that might be good for a
debate but makes for very poor dialog and ignores the need for justice in this
world. In a massive case of projection he minimized clear war chapter verses
(Alma 48:14; 43:47) a great deal, offered a tortured reading of D&C 98 and
ignored clear statements that we are not command to lay down our arms (Alma
61:12-13). Barnes never considers that if
warfare were inherently sinful, why would the Lord direct His people in how and
where to defend themselves (Alma 48:15; Exodus 14:14; Deuteronomy 20:4)? Why
would the Lord join them in battle in DC 98:37, and bless them with
victory if warfare was so sinful?
I’ll return to this below, but a better reading is to see
how all the scriptures fit together. So instead of discounting the Old
Testament, the war chapters, and the command to use force in DC 98, a person should
understand what it means to renounce war, proclaim peace, and know when
to wield the sword. The answer to that seeming contradiction is the center of
my writing, the first chapter of my book,
and a subject of frequent
discussion.
Pacifism Meets Reality
The greatest weakness of Barnes' position was the failure to
offer hypothetical but likely real world examples, even while claiming that
pacifism “thrives in the real world.” To me, that was a tacit admission that
pacifist theories don’t work in the real world. Reading scripture isn’t
designed to articulate grand castles in the sky, it’s supposed to help us “liken
the scripture” to everyday life (1 Nephi 19:23).
Moreover, Jesus used parables, and the hypothetical example
of the Good Samaritan, Lost Sheep, Talents, Wise and Foolish Builder, and
Sower, to explain His principles. The Book of Mormon is full of examples where
hypothetical beliefs met the sharp edge of the sword where faithful believers
were commanded to defend their families and freedom. Alma 43:47, 48:21–23, and
61:12–14 all affirms the divine duty to protect the innocent, “even unto
bloodshed.”
I’m particularly interested in Abraham’s rescue of Lot.
D&C 98:32 says the Lords Law of War was also revealed to Abraham. And yet when
raiders captured Lot, Abraham didn’t lift a standard of peace and wait for
three trespasses. He launched a sneak attack! But he was blessed by a prince of
peace (Alma 13:18). Clearly, the Old Testament's explanation of D&C 98 differs
from that of Barnes. The famous command “thou shall not kill” should read,
“thou shall not murder.” That’s because Exodus 21–22, immediately after the Ten
Commandments, discusses multiple instances of justified defensive killing.
Discussion of the New Testament often focuses on the
supposed pacifism of the Sermon on the Mount, but Jesus supported the use of
force as well. When talking to soldiers neither John the Baptist (Luke 3:10-18)
nor Jesus commanded soldiers to lay down their arms (Matthew 8:5-13). (John the
Baptist addressed hypothetical future situations when told soldiers to be content with their pay instead of extorting the people for more.) Jesus praised the centurion for his faith! Jesus described parables where the master
used force to compel servants to enter during a hypothetical banquet (Luke
14:23). All four gospels describe Jesus using whips to cleanse the temple.
(Mason and Pulsipher tried to explain this away as “only” violence against
objects and animals. But similar violence in the Book of Mormon was enough for
Ammon to main and kill people.) Jesus said that he didn’t bring peace but
brought the sword (Matthew 10:34), and in another instance, fire and division
(Luke 12:49). Jesus killed a fig tree for not being fruitful (Mark 11:12-14).
When struck, Jesus didn’t turn the other cheek (John 18:22-23).
Expanding to look at New Testament more broadly, Paul says
the rulers are appointed by God as “agents of his wrath to the wrong doer”
(Romans 13:4; see below). And Jesus promises in revelation that he will kill so
many people that the blood will flow like a wine press for 200 miles (Rev
14:20).
Last but not least, our new prophet, Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk where he described how we must ask ourselves, "where will it lead?" His entire talk was based on hypothetical situations where a person might take preemptive action.
Twisting
In addition to misreading scriptures, the claim of twisting
scriptures with overburdened reasoning is a frequent tactic of internet
sophists to sound simple but decisive, and make opponents look manipulative and
weak with mental
gymnastics.
But matters of war and peace are not decided by who has the
best slogan. That might sound strong on a discussion board, but ethics of war and peace are best determined by how dozens
of scriptures interact with each other. (Such as how someone might “renounce
war” and “resist bloodshed with your sword” at the same time.)
For those who claim to be experts on peace and love, and pacifists are among the most arrogant people I've met, they should be able to move beyond bumper
stickers to explain their point using scriptures, including likely
hypotheticals. It’s not quite a bumper sticker, but Barnes’ catch phrases are
an indictment of his shallowness, not my depth.
Moral Logic and Justice
Finally, there was a singular point where Barnes declared: “Justice is the last thing I want.” That is an astoundingly privileged comment from someone who has never experienced a grave injustice. The victims whose blood “cries from the ground” (Genesis 4:10; 2 Nephi 28;10) deserve more than passive compassion. It sounds a bit like Game of Thrones but it’s accurate, until the afterlife, the only justice a person receives is what is delivered to people by a secular government. That is why God said that rulers are “agents of wrath to the wrong doers,” and Thomas Aquinas cited ruler’s need to “deliver the poor and needy” (Psalms 81:4).
Justice entirely deferred to eternity is justice denied on
earth. In short, tell the families of 9/11 victims or Jews in Europe during the
Holocaust justice is the last thing they should receive. They should be okay with the perpetrators of
heinous rape, mutilation, and murder living their entire lives, smiling with
the sun on their face, having meals and every joy they could have. Meanwhile
the victims spend countless hours in tears, feeling like a storm cloud is
always raining on them…all because Jonah Barnes has a vague aversion to
violence to the point he says that he doesn’t want “justice.” But the Book of
Mormon directly repudiates that opinion when Alma taught that mercy can’t rob
justice (Alma 42:25). That is even more important in matters of war and peace,
and explains why Bib Netanyahu, for example, seems so motivated to pursue war.
Only eliminating Hamas, (or the less perfect peace deal that disarms them and
bars them from power) was justice for the innocent victims of Hamas’ barbaric
rampage and a defense against future attacks.
Conclusion
I didn’t even get to many other topics. For example, Barnes
drew shaky parallels between modern conflicts and ancient wars, equating acts
like Hiroshima
or Pearl Harbor defense with evil. War is terrible but pretending that all use
of force is immoral doesn’t make us holy, it makes us irresponsible and idle
witnesses to slaughter. Scripture, history, and reason converge on a simple
truth that peace sometimes requires courage.
We can wield the sword with clean hearts, but we cannot lay
it down while evil thrives. We should abandon bumper stickers like “war is bad”
or Barnes’ favorite, “we aren’t commanded to pick up arms.” And realize that we
must love our neighbor enough to stop their slaughter using our God given right
to defense ourselves.
Thanks for reading. If you liked this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or purchase one of my books linked in the top left.
You can find my thoughts on war and politics on twitter @DeaneOnWar
I'm creative too! You'll find my fiction under the pen name MT Deane.
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.
[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.)
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.
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 9th 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.
[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.
Hello everyone. I'm proud to present my newest article in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter Day Saint Scripture. Moroni in his letter is assumed by most readers to be angry. But he actually showed rather sophisticated rhetorical strategies as he responded to debates among the Nephites. It was a pleasure to write and I hope you find value in reading it.
This is part of an amazing string of success. One of my critics dismissively asked, "how many works [about LDS scriptures and just war] could have been published in the 'last few decades'?" Well, I still have a couple pieces in the pipeline, but if those are published that will mean I've published or presented nine chapters of my future book. (Not including the book itself.) To be honest, I don't feel like I'm particularly gifted or smart. So if I could publish or present nine pieces in two years based on one manuscript written, I can only imagine how many more could be published if LDS thinkers seriously engaged just war theorists. Perhaps like Brigham Young encouraged, we could seek and embrace truth wherever we find it, even among the professed infidel instead of staying within the intellectual confines of the Mountain West.
Speaking of publishing, I'll have some exciting news to share about that in a couple months. Stay tuned and thanks for reading!
If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of the books linked in the top left.
Most of my regular readers will note that I have a manuscript on just war in the Book of Mormon for which I'm trying to find a publisher. I don't have a publisher yet, but I'm proud to say that I have published or presented most of the book already. Only like Johnny Cash, I have done it one piece at a time. Here is the master list of where you can find them. I will update with links as they become available:
Chapter 1: Greater Portion of the Word: The Decisive Book of Mormon in the Debates on War and Peace, FAIR LDS, Defending the Book of Mormon Conference.*
Chapter 4: Loving Neighbors by Standing up to Their Slaughter, Public Square Magazine.
Parts of Chapters 5-7:Updated 4/19/24: The Unspoken Debates in Moroni's Letter. Interpreter.
Chapter 8: Kishkumen's Dagger: First Strike in the Book of Mormon, Square Two. (Note: Publishing with two different organizations that have "square" in the title leads to hilarity.)
Chapter 11: Renounce Peace and Proclaim War: Love, Hate, Intervention, and Section 98, LDS National Security Professionals Conference.*
Chapter 12: From Laban to the Laffertys: Nephi, Mormon, and Utilitarianism in the Book of Mormon, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Updated 7/13/24. I received a revise and resubmit. The revisions are significant, and I removed it from the manuscript because it didn't fit thematically. I'm considering next steps, though honestly, I would like to relax and enjoy the fruits of my labor for awhile.
Updated 7/13/24. I also created a chapter based on the Chinese material and received a revise and resubmit from the Journal of Mormon Theology and Philosophy. I will leave it unpublished for many of the same reasons as the Lafferty chapter. Additionally, many of the criticisms were a result of material I cut due to length, but already addressed in Beyond Sun-Tzu, and I don't have the energy for the major edits.
Seven out of nine potential publications or presentations, and two revise and resubmits is excellent. Its a testament to the hunger for a deeper study of just war and a confidence boost for my writing. It is very good to know my ideas are wanted and because its mostly published already I'm considering self publication. (Update: Done.) I want to make my way through the journal process first and then I'll reassess. Make sure to follow my author page on Amazon to receive any potential updates about the book.
*Conference proceedings will be printed as well.
Thanks for reading! I work as a free lance writer and publishing quality, ad free research takes a great deal of time and effort. If you liked this research please consider supporting more of it by using the paypal button at the bottom of the page or by purchasing one of my other books linked in the top left.
I was all ready to do a big build up and advertisement for this. And I thought about doing a nice follow up similar to the other conferences I went to. But I've been working so hard I forgot to do the first and probably won't do the second. So it might just be best to give the link here and you can watch it live for yourself. Its the anniversary of Moroni first visiting Joseph Smith and there are lots of good presentations today (and mine too.)
).png)
Since I first wrote my manuscript on just warfare in the Book of Mormon, I've been intrigued by the apparent difference between the use of a utilitarian argument that the Lord made to Nephi, and the apparent rejection of the concept by Mormon. The following is the introduction and thesis statement to a draft of a journal article on which I'm working:
Nephi’s murder of Laban in the Book of Mormon is one of the
most uncomfortable of the text as the event seemingly sets a precedent for
murder, most famously exercised by the Ron and Dan Lafferty in their murder of
Brenda Lafferty and her child. This was made famous by the book, Under the Banner of Heaven. While there are numerous implied justifications
that one can find in the text, such as Laban’s attempts to murder Nephi, or the appeals to Biblical law, the
primary defense comes from the spirit of the Lord to Nephi which said: Behold
the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better
that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in
unbelief (1 Nephi 4:13).
The command of God adds as many difficulties as it solves
because Nephi’s holy inspiration sounds like a classic case of utilitarianism,
and its related use in war, military necessity. The Lord’s explanation of the murder
seemingly contrasts with Mormon’s rejection of the concept in his treatment of war
time supply and starving widows. And relying on the word of God seems like
a classic case of deontological ethics, or decision making that is based on a
set of rules (like divine commandments written in stone.) But closely examining Nephi and Mormon’s decisions using utilitarianism
strengthens Nephi’s decision, illuminates Mormon’s decision while harmonizing
it with Nephi’s, provides guardrails for the invocation of God’s
utilitarianism, and resolves some of the tension between utilitarian and
deontological belief systems.
Its an exciting project to add to a list of many chapters of the book that have been repackaged a bit and published elsewhere. Thanks for reading!
I work as a free lance author and producing quality, ad free content takes time and effort. If you found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below, or buy one of the books using the link in the top left.
 |
| The Stoddards trying to read Rough Stone Rolling |
The last time I discussed Rough
Stone Rolling on social media I received many thoughtless drive by posts. I ignored
them at the time because I don’t want to reward lazy thinking. But I suspected
at the time that their link contained very poor reasoning and after a bit of
examination I was correct. This post show the many flaws in the debunking site
devoted to Rough
Stone Rolling. The Stoddards, writing for the Joseph Smith Foundation misrepresent
Bushman’s work by relying on sloppy and sometimes malicious editing to the
point that we lose a true picture of Joseph Smith as a flawed but still
impressive prophet. (All quotes from the debunking website unless otherwise noted.)
The first two complaints about
RSR had no citations:
They object that Bushman supposedly
said Joseph was involved in ritual magic who used peep stones to find treasure.
If they want to debunk a book
and can’t do better than a social media post I see no need to respond. The next
items had footnotes:
They contend RSR says Joseph Smith suffered from
“treasure-seeking greed,” “anger,” and “easily-bruised pride,”
Greed is simply the implication of Moroni’s warning to
Joseph, which is canonized in church history. Bushman cited Moroni’s words
along with Oliver Cowdery and Lucy Mack Smith saying Joseph immediately thought
of financial concerns when seeing the plates: [Moroni told] me that Satan would
try to tempt me (in consequence of the indigent circumstances of my father’s
family), to get the plates for the purpose of getting rich. This he forbade me,
saying that I must have no other object in view in getting the plates but to
glorify God, and must not be influenced by any other motive than that of
building his kingdom; otherwise I could not get them. Js History 1:40, 53.
Joseph’s anger is seen in his own letters such as the one
Bushman quoted on page 187 of RSR and cited in fn 44. The Stoddards seem to be
under the impression that Joseph never had any emotion. But we don’t feel
Moroni is any less of a man that could shake the foundations of hell because he
showed anger, and we shouldn’t be offended over Joseph’s.
Bushman isn’t insulting Joseph by describing his
personality. This is a common complaint in just about every criticism of
Bushman, and I will give same answer. Studying everything about Joseph, and not
the whitewashed sanitized version of him will lead to stronger testimonies that
can withstand new and unexpected information, because it already fits in the
paradigm of the awesome and imperfect prophet.
Getting back to Smith’s anger, we have many accounts of Joseph’s
anger because his admirers shared these stories to show how great he was despite
his flaws. In the example the Stoddards cite on page 249 and 250 of RSR they
make it seem like Bushman simply denigrates the prophet. But when you put the
statement in context, Bushman discusses Josephs anger, but also his leadership
skills, and how the high council sided with Joseph because “they sensed that
their prophet had a right to rebuke his followers, fiercely if necessary. Their
dismay at his anger was balanced by their love of his good nature.”
There is an irony here, as quoting outrageous information
out of context is an anti-Mormon method. I find it very sad and saying that the
Stoddards have to do the same shady tactic to try and slam Bushman. That should
tell you how much to trust their quotes and videos, and why you should read
Bushman, and pour through his citations for yourself.
“Easily bruised pride” is also taken out of context. It is
even worse this time because they ignore, literally, half the sentence that
describes Joseph’s desire for peace. To start with, it isn’t insulting Joseph
to admit he struggled with the man he is, with the man he wants to be. Elder
Uctdorf said that a hypocrite is someone who falls short of the person they
want to be, and we are all hypocrites. As a former marine that came from a home
with an angry and abusive father, I know how hard it is to break out of
patterns and respond in a more Christlike fashion. The supposed insult from
Bushman, when put back into context on page 295, actually endears us to Joseph:
Unfortunately for his peace of mind, Joseph’s angry responses conflicted with the harmony and brotherhood he prized…The culture of honor moved him to contend with the offending parties to protect his easily bruised pride, even though all the while he wanted peace. He hated contention and tried to make peace by mutual confessions and brotherly arbitration….By 1836, when he made peace with his antagonists, the meaning of Zion to a man of his temperament was clear. To live in harmony with his brothers and sisters, as the revelations required, was reason to rejoice.
Harmony was valued in all the church’s councils. The Kirtland High Council’s hearings examined the attitudes of offending parties as well as their actions. The minutes refer to “the spirit of meekness,” or “feelings of the heart,” or the “spirit of justification and pride.”
Joseph possessed “outrageous confidence.”
I take that as a compliment to Joseph. The world and the
restored church needed a prophet with unbounded confidence in his mission to
restore the gospel, bring forth new scripture, and translate previously
untouchable ones like the Bible all while gathering his people, building zion
and temples and withstanding endless defections, legal attacks, persecution and
dislocation. I argue that anyone without “outrageous confidence” wouldn’t have
been as successful as Joseph.
Joseph “[f]rom time to time drank too much,”
The footnotes for this source show a variety of conflicting
sources. It’s about a paragraph long and I highly recommend you read it on page
43. But without getting off into the weeds, it can easily be among the sins
Joseph himself alluded to in his history when he said: I was left to all kinds
of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into
many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of
human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations,
offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose
me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was
never in my nature. JS History 1:28.
Of course, even if he did drink, so what? The prophet Noah
in the Bible was found drunk and naked! The Word of Wisdom wasn’t given until a
decade later and wasn’t enforced strictly until about a century after that. Prophets
aren’t perfect, especially when Joseph himself says, canonized in scripture,
that he fell into various misdemeanor sins in his youth.
Joseph grew up with an “oft-defeated, unmoored father”—a
father who “partially abdicated family leadership.”
It is pretty common knowledge that Joseph Sr. had a great
deal of hardships during his life. Joseph. Sr. wasn’t the prophet and he
admitted he made many mistakes in life. The second statement misquotes Bushman
who says Joseph Sr. may have abdicated leadership. And Bushman says that
after quoting Joseph Sr. himself: I have not always set the example before my
family that I ought (pg. 42).
As a parent I can appreciate the humble admission. Joseph Sr. did what most
parents do, and he wondered if he was doing a good job and felt badly that he
couldn’t be more for his children.
This is another out of context misquote from the Joseph
Smith Foundation and this one might be the worst. They took something that was equivocal,
(“may have”) made it a definitive statement, and then failed to quote the
primary source, straight from Joseph Sr’s mouth where he admitted his failings
when it was literally quoted right next to the supposedly insulting sentence.
That is so deliberately edited to give an impression the author didn’t intend
it seems deceptive to me. They deliberately want you to hate RSR (so they can
hawk their books a second later) and have to mangle their quotes of Bushman to
do it.
There are more quotes from various discussions of RSR from
Bushman and anti-Mormons but I don’t feel the need to make this post any longer
by quoting them. Probably because those quotes are selectively edited like
their other quotes. But more importantly, they don’t change any of the points I
made above. The common complaint from the Stoddards and the JSF is that a
Joseph with flaws is damaging to testimonies and insulting to Joseph. As I
demonstrated above, studying Joseph carefully, including his flaws, makes him
more relatable and appealing. I felt this as I read RSR and compiled this post.
More importantly, I’ve said many times the only testimonies damaged by a more
realistic picture of Joseph are those who believe in a perfect Joseph Smith of
their imagination. Some are so ensconced in their imaginations about Joseph
Smith they can’t even read books like RSR. That is so astoundingly small
minded, and refusing to learn is far more damaging attitude than anything
Bushman can say or write. If your brittle testimony can’t handle new
information, you’ll still get the new information eventually, but you’ll have
no mechanisms for how to faithfully incorporate that new knowledge into a
faithful view of the prophet. That’s why so many people are overthrown by a
reddit complied, dumb big list of stale criticisms. (The CES letter.) If you’ve
always studied the real (and still awesome) Joseph, you’ll have a much greater
ability to accept new information. The mention of a peep stone or treasure
digging won’t send you into a faithless spiral, or hyper aggressive defensive
response that is built upon sand.
Rough Stone Rolling is far superior to the “debunking RSR” website. The answer
is obviously provided by Bushman’s superior primary source analysis, as the
Joseph Smith Foundation has to do the opposite, rip quotes out of context with
highly suspicious editing to strengthen the animosity against Bushman and
support an inferior fantasy about Joseph.
I work as a freelance author. Providing ad free, quality research takes time. If found value in this work please consider donating using the paypal button below or buy one of my books linked in the top left.
