The Limits of Peace Building Theory

 

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

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

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

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

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

        Christ himself continued this pattern:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

The Restoration Shouldn’t Need Inquisitors

 

        Elder Clark Gilbert was recently appointed as the newest apostle. Around the same time, I was an invited guest of the Interpreter: A Journal of LDS Scripture, to speak at their conference on the small plates. But someone at BYU’s “clearing office,” which is a new creation from Gilbert, decided I was unfit to present. Maybe it was my lack of temple recommend, maybe it was my exit from BYU-Idaho, maybe they didn’t like my reliance on Confucian thought to engage the Book of Mormon, or maybe I dumped his daughter. I don’t know, and that black box is part of the problem.

         But I do know that my research supports the divine Book of Mormon and enhances readers appreciation of it. And some bureaucracy blocked me. (Don’t worry, it’s a modified version of chapter two from my latest book, so you can still read it.)

        That experience made a recent categorization Gilbert reportedly used at BYU feel less theoretical and more dogmatic than free. As summarized by the Salt Lake Tribune, when assessing professors at BYU he described a group just short of “secular foes,” worse than the “faithful core” and “supportive center,” called “secular first” — individuals who put “truth” from any source on equal footing with the LDS gospel. 

        That category is astonishing because Brigham Young explicitly taught that we should seek truth from any source, even from the “infidel”:

“Mormonism,” so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation, for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to ‘Mormonism.’ The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this Church.

        The Church’s own statement, Treasuring All Truth, affirms that Mohammed, Confucius, the Reformers, Socrates, Plato, and others received a portion of God’s light. If that is our doctrine, then placing truth from any source on “equal footing” with the gospel is confidence in the restoration, not secularism.

        As I studied for my PhD in Chinese history, I’ve come to appreciate Confucianism deeply and have found real wisdom there. In researching my recent book on just war thought and the Book of Mormon, I was struck by how much more developed the broader Christian tradition’s discourse on war and peace has been.

        My book was a small attempt to strengthen LDS discourse on war and peace using both of those traditions. In fact, it’s my study of the Book of Mormon, delighting in its complexities and engagements it has with critical questions, that has kept me in the Church. This pursuit of understanding is not an attack on the church or a danger for faithful members, but my attempt to magnify my God given talents and let my light shine (Matthew 25:14-30; 5:16).

        Leaders who block or discourage my academic study risk stifling the very faith they claim to protect. If serious engagement with non-LDS thinkers places someone one step below a “secular foe,” that signals a disturbing shift into orthodoxy policing.

        Perhaps the Tribune mischaracterized his remarks.  If he meant those who subordinate revealed doctrine to fashionable ideology, that is a legitimate concern. But if the category includes those who refuse to dismiss or minimize truth simply because it originates outside our institutional boundaries, it restricts the pursuit of light and truth.

        I’m reminded of Galileo because the broad arguments he made in his defense against heresy are often repeated by modern scholars. And his expulsion is an easy cultural touchstone that everyone knows: institutional anxiety about and reactive defense against external truth have never aged well. The restored gospel should not reflexively align itself with inquisitors against inquiry. It should be the most confident intellectual tradition in the room.

        Only time will tell if these fears are unfounded. But my personal experience — and the cancellation of things like the Mormon Theology Seminar — already represents a disturbing shift. The restored gospel claims continuing revelation and the fullness of truth. As a scholar on a fearless quest to study the Book of Mormon and the truths it contains, I shouldn’t have to wonder if I’m “cleared” to share it. If the gospel is confident in light, it should be confident in all who seek it — no matter where that truth shines.

Update: Cheryl Bruno, along with a wide range of scholars researching polygamy—many of them faithful and trained at BYU—were recently denied access to tour BYU’s Special Collections library. These are precisely the kinds of scholars institutions should want to engage: people committed enough to attend conferences, seek out specialized training, and work directly with primary sources.

Of course, we can’t know every detail behind the decision. But taken alongside similar incidents, it begins to look less like an isolated case and more like a troubling pattern—one where dogma crowds out genuine inquiry. It’s one thing when that happens to me. It’s another when an entire community of serious scholars finds the door closed.

Thanks for reading. If you liked this post please consider buying one of my books linked in the top left. I'm also creative! Please consider buying my cyber punk thriller. 

The Church Doesn't Need Your Panic: My Guest Post at Times and Seasons

      

  I wrote this piece in response to a pervasive pattern of despair. Since I was responding to a specific Times and Seasons post I submitted it to them as a guess post and they were gracious enough to post it. You can read it here and its republished below: 

        I read Johnathan Green’s post and because the underlying flaws have been repeated at least three times over the past year, I thought it was worth a substantive response, and it was too long for comments. There’s a lot of heat, hyperbole, and moral posturing in his post, but very little that holds up under scrutiny. I take strong exception to his exaggerations, false equivalence, and the assumption that his political lens should dictate the Church’s actions.

        Screaming “Nazi” louder is not an argument. He treated “warning signs” as functionally equivalent to moral certainty. Using German terms to dress up Nazi comparisons doesn’t make them more persuasive, it just adds rhetorical heat without light. As a result, much of his post rests on false equivalence and superficial similarities rather than serious analysis.

        He said in point three that the Church should “ignore the administration,” yet the post itself spends thousands of words obsessing over it. That contradiction matters, because point four revealed the underlying assumption: that the Church should function as an arm of his political views. I used to think that way too, that the Church should take a forceful position on every partisan controversy. That was twenty years ago and frankly, I grew up. The Church is not my political representative. It teaches principles that allow members to vote, persuade, and act in the public square on their own responsibility.

        He’ll probably respond that his post was a “strategic” argument about institutional survival rather than personal fixation. But strategy still reveals priorities. When every hypothetical risk is filtered through one political diagnosis, that diagnosis becomes the guiding authority, functionally replacing the Church’s own judgment with Green’s.

        The Church’s primary concern is ministering to the members it already has. We saw this in its restrained statement on the Russian invasion of Ukraine: as strong as possible while preserving its ability to support members and maintain its global mission. That same logic applies here.

        There’s also an implicit claim throughout that Green knows better than the prophets and apostles. If God had a direct, binding political message about Donald Trump, I assume we would have heard it from them. He defined “threats to the Church’s mission” in a way that mirrored his political hysteria.

        He appealed to Abinadi and Bonhoeffer to argue that prophets speak in principle rather than names. I can name a half dozen instances in the Bible where prophets directly name the wicked ruler but let’s go with his point. He went further and treated his interpretation of those principles as if it carries the same moral authority as prophetic judgment. That’s the move I’m rejecting.

        Points five and six repeated the same demand in softer language: he wanted the Church to endorse his position. It hasn’t, because its mission is ministering, not issuing grand political declarations that satisfy a political minority from a single country within a global church. He might claim he only wanted the church to act when faced with a clear red line, but that red line just happened to be what Green’s political beliefs say it was.

        He framed this as setting “red lines,” not seeking endorsement. But those red lines did not come from institutional revelation, global consensus, measurable harm, or even a consensus of LDS national security professionals—they came from his own political risk model. Calling that a moral threshold doesn’t make it one.

        Phrases like “surveillance by a corrupt, vindictive, unchecked personalist autocracy” read less like analysis and more like a political Gish gallop. Voters clearly weren’t persuaded by that framing. Yelling it louder won’t change that.

        He correctly noted that “getting upset over someone else’s silence is actively harmful,” yet most of the post is a sustained complaint about the Church’s silence. That tension ran through the whole piece.

        Point seven genuinely made me laugh. My life is fine under this government. I voted for border security, strict immigration enforcement, and a strong foreign policy. Inflation has stabilized, gas prices are reasonable, and I have the sense that someone is finally in charge. That calm is not a luxury based on my race, gender, or class. Unless a person lets it through their own hysteria or misdeeds, the government doesn’t affect much of your life.

        The discomfort Green described felt less like lived reality and more like a self-reinforcing media spiral: every action is filtered as sinister, which heightens anxiety, which then seeks out more bad news.

        His Gish gallop in the comments about there only being “one side” shows the harm of that cycle. Screaming “concentration camp”, “starving children”, and “torture”, might feel morally righteous or advance a partisan case, but it also heightens anxiety and escalates conflict. In short, it hurts as much as it helps.

        The healthier response is simple: consume less political media, touch grass, respect differing views, and count your blessings—basic Church principles. Screaming, “but he’s a nazi” when you’re asked to calm down and show respect is a ludicrous substitute for reasoned engagement and more of the problem.

        Green insisted that the Church shouldn’t threaten its own mission but repeatedly argue that it should adopt his political mission. “You should be appalled” isn’t a neutral principle—its Green’s emotional filter presented as moral obligation. To people who don’t share it, this comes off as unhinged, and even deranged, not persuasive.

        Green’s Trump–King Noah comparison is another false equivalence. Noah wasn’t elected. He raised taxes to intolerable levels; Trump reduced them and talks about tariff rebates. Noah imprisoned and tortured dissidents; Trump enforces immigration law, including against violent criminals. You can oppose that policy, and perhaps think it’s immoral, but calling it tyranny by analogy doesn’t make it so.

        Green claimed Trump and his supporters “rejoice in bloodshed.” As a former Marine and military analyst, I find that condescending—and a reflection of the privilege of living in peace and security. Wanting a strong defense and feeling pride in providing it is not rejoicing in bloodshed; it’s more like Captain Moroni rejoicing in the welfare and protection of his people.

        You might claim some of Trumps military actions are fascistic. But debates over presidential war powers found in Article II Section II of the constitution have been a feature of our government since Thomas Jefferson. Not part of a fascist dictatorship.

        When Green invoked Abinadi, he placed himself in the role of calling both fellow saints and Church leaders to repentance for not opposing Trump as he thinks they should. That circles back to the same contradiction: he says the Church isn’t political but then condemns it for not being political in the right way.

        He’ll say this is about obedience versus resistance under tyranny, not about Trump. But that only works if the premise, that we are already living under something functionally equivalent to tyranny, is established. He assumed the premise; he didn’t demonstrate it.

        Point 15 mentioned many recent, good talks. But scriptures should be used to examine our own conduct, not to bludgeon fellow members. If we’re staying in the Book of Mormon, Alma’s work of knitting hearts together in unity, even with love towards our fellow enemies, seems the better model.

        I agreed with one line in point sixteen: “Anticipatory despair is not a form of resistance.” That’s the clearest and strongest sentence in the entire post. The answer to despair is more time with family, friends, and neighbors, not arrogantly browbeating them into repentance for voting differently than you.

        Finally, the insider language such as “cringe resist libs” and “MWEG moms” doesn’t clarify anything. That insider framing is telling. It signaled that his argument was aimed less at persuading a broad body of saints and more at rallying a politically fluent in-group that already shared his sense of impending catastrophe.

        The Church has survived lynch mobs, federal invasion, disincorporation, KGB surveillance, and Hitler—it will survive this political moment too, without Green’s help. His post amplifies anxiety, casts fellow members and leaders as moral failures for not sharing his political conclusions and confuses personal panic with institutional necessity. Inflating warning signs into moral certainties and treating his interpretation as Church directive does nothing to build unity, influence policy responsibly, or foster understanding—it is simply noise. If we are serious about clarity, faithful witness, and real community, we need charity and reason, not labels, hysteria, or overreach. 

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

The Most Overrated Mormon Scholars

        In the middle of eating lunch at the LDS National Security Conference the person sitting next to me was so sad they missed hearing Patrick Mason speak and without thinking I groaned. The conversation stopped and the table looked at me. I then awkwardly explained that I was rather unimpressed with his scholarship in a number of ways.

        Incidents like this happen on a regular basis as I receive quizzical and sometimes angry looks and questioning when I don’t share someone’s enthusiasm for a given scholar. In many cases that’s because the scholar in question is part of my overrated club. What follows is a list that doesn’t discount the meaningful scholarship of these individuals. The list is more about inflated or misplaced praise and uncritical hype. Yet those behaviors are so pervasive and shape our evaluation of ideas that I need to identify the most frequent recipients of hype.

Michael Quinn

        I attended the same conference as him (War and Peace in Our Times) towards the end of his life and the beginning of my career. The fawning praise he received was closer to worship. Even though he was discussing an issue for which he had no appreciable training or knowledge (military history and ethics), and wasn’t providing anything particularly noteworthy, a reverent hush came over the room when he provided an answer.

        Then the paper he presented had numerous glaring and unexamined implications as I detailed here. I describe how Quin uncritically accepted J. Reuben’s Clark isolationism to such a degree that Quinn failed to notice his subject’s hypocrisy, pro-Nazi stance, and how his views were overruled by other church leaders at the time. The last point is especially egregious since one of Quinn’s book invented disputes among church leadership when it suited his arguments, but seemed to ignore meaningful disputes in this case because of biased favoritism towards the isolationism of J. Reuben Clark.   

        Those are just the problems I found in my personal interaction with him. As summarized by Sarah Allen, he was also known for his tendency to personally attack those he disagreed with, and to play fast and loose with the connections he made between the factual record and its supposed meaning. So I imagine his article about J Reuben Clark probably had even more problems than my cursory review. (As far as I know, no one has interacted with his presentation more than I have.) 

        His popularity seems to result from the good fortune of being from a favored minority group, homosexuals, his writing about the same topic, and his work was thoroughly, and rightfully I believe, dismissed by the ~evil~ “FARMS” crowd. Because Mormon historians are the most biased of any group I’ve ever seen (while ironically calling their opponents biased), he was criticized by the "right" group of people, as a result, those criticisms never carried the weight they should.

Hugh Nibley

        I love Hugh Nibley and his work. His works helped spark my academic journey and often helped me on my mission. But Hugh Nibley was often too sloppy with his footnotes and saw too many vague connections to the point that he embodied the concept of “parallel mania.” Its a real criticism, but I should note that parallel mania is often used by his critics as a pat buzzword to ignore the real connections that he made. Nibley’s work is extremely outdated and there have been often decades worth of additional scholarship that contradicts his work. This is common in academia and not a problem if scholars properly engage and build upon previous scholarship.

        But his fans are often dilletantes instead of scholars. Like a right-wing inverse of the left-wing love for Quinn, too many people uncritically read a Hugh Nibley book and suddenly think they are experts. He is quoted chapter and verse, but there isn’t much thinking beyond seeing a parallel to Nibley’s words, and a quote.

        Chinese theorists had the same annoyance with people quoting Sunzi. They ended up writing about it, and if you change the subjects to Hugh Nibley, it is surprisingly accurate:

Even though the mouth recites the words of [Hugh Nibley], the mind has not thought about the mysterious subtleties of the discussion...[they] merely recite the empty words and are misled by the enemy...

The study of [any subject] must be from the lowest to the middle and then from the middle to the highest, so that [the learners] will gradually penetrate the depths of the teaching. If not, they will only be relying upon empty words. Merely remembering and reciting them is not enough to succeed.[1]

Patrick Mason

        Given my specialty in ethics and just war I encounter Mason a great deal. I’m sorry to say, I’m just not impressed. He has all the credentials, praise, institutional power, and seems to publish or present in every conference imaginable. But I find his scholarship lacking. His book, Proclaim Peace, ignored or minimized many important scholarly points regarding just war. He tries to have his cake and eat it too by claiming the non violent ethic of Jesus from the New Testament is "absolute", while also acknowledging verses that clearly support just war. But the latter is clearly lip service forced on him because he spends so much time supporting the former. 

        In a Maxwell Institute funded piece he ignored King Benjamin’s speech, distorted his preaching and policies, and invented an offensive war to imply the Nephites were colonialist. After reading about Michael Quinn’s lapses in scholarship, I might even say the invention of an offensive war whole cloth from the scriptures sounds like what critics called Quinnspeak. At best, he just didn’t read the text carefully.

        After noticing his failure to read texts carefully, I started to wonder if he read some texts at all. I carefully started looking over some of his work, and I see a pattern where he relies on secondary sources when quoting church fathers.[2] For example, every footnote in “Zionic Non Violence” referencing Christian fathers refers to a secondary source. Based on his footnotes, he doesn’t read the works of major just war theorists, he stumbles across an occasional quote in various pacifist books. Yet he feels imminently qualified to call them “insufficient” and he is celebrated as some kind of guru on peace making.  

        Privately many people tell me that he gives vibes that he thinks he is the smartest man in the room. He asked a smarmy gotcha question to me during a conference I attended that was poor form. The peace studies program at BYU-Hawaii held a peace conference about his book, which I’m sure didn’t help his self-admitted arrogant smugness, and he and his peace studies friends in the audience actually snickered when discussing arguments from people like me. 

        I found that behavior rather unseemly, especially for someone who claims his attitude will bring a Zion like peace. It’s especially hypocritical considering the attacks levelled against FARMS for the same behavior. Anti Mormons included an incident at a conference as one of the “top” events of 2011. #3 on that list described how the ~evil~ Maxwell Institute “scholars” (the scare quotes added by the author) were seen “sniggering” before they lobbed a series of “aggressive and mean spirited” questions in their “verbal assault” on Mike Reed. But when I’m “verbally assaulted” by Mason’s smarmy gotcha questions and heckled by a hostile audience, they remain celebrated peacemakers.

        I liked his book about 19^th century lynchings and his advice designed to help struggling members. But his academic work on peace has numerous methodological gaps and is celebrated far beyond its actual merit. Even more importantly, his unseemly behavior ranging from his poor research into Church fathers, to gotcha questions and sniggering run contrary to the unearned praise he gets for supposedly building bridges and a peaceful Zion.

Conclusion 

        Many of these scholars are household names. But a close look at their scholarship suggests perhaps they shouldn’t be. The biggest flaw is that we often uncritically accept the arguments of a celebrity scholar, when we should be thoughtful and critical readers of any argument and engage their thoughts and arguments. In short, we substitute their reputation for our thought. The result is that we spend more time praising than thinking. I hope this post will help check that tendency. And maybe if you hear something from me during lunch at a conference, you'll understand. Thanks.

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

*****

---

[1] Questions and Replies Between Tang Taizong and Li Weikong in The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, Ralph Sawyer trans., (Westview Press, 1993), 338, 360. 

[2] Rethinking Righteousness in the Shadow of War, fn1 reads: Idolatry 19, p. 73, quoted in Lisa Sowle Cahill, Blessed Are the Peacemakers: Pacifism, Just War, and Peacebuilding (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2019), 77. See also: 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.

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.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy 15th Anniversary to Warfare in the Book of Mormon

    Take yourself back to January 2009. The fallout from the housing crisis was ongoing. Barrack Obama was inaugurated. The people loved the movies Taken and Paul Blart Mall Cop. This new singer, Lady Gaga, topped the charts. Personally, I was serving in the Virginia National Guard. In fact, my unit was activated for Obama’s inauguration. That Christmas I got dragged to my in-laws for what was the worst break ever. (The journey from my wife to ex-wife was filled with lows actually.) Most importantly, in January of 2009 I finished my last official semester of grad school. I thought I would soon be attending my PhD program, and full of excitement, I figured I should finally start that Book of Mormon warfare blog I always wanted to when I had the chance.

    Here we are 15 years later and I’m still blogging. When I first started, I had lots of ideas, but I didn’t know it would be enough to talk about over a decade and a half. My steady and lengthy progress remind me of a story from the Chinese philosopher Xunzi. He was a major Confucian thinker often called the Chinese Aristotle. He wrote that not everyone can be a mythical war horse that travels 10,000 miles in a day. But if you measure its pace an old nag can go 10,000 miles.[1] So like any good anniversary I suppose I’ll buy myself some crystal, enjoy how far I’ve come, and then give you some highlights during a retrospective look at my blog:

Early Posts:

    My early posts were rough. I had lots of good ideas, but they were all over the place and unrefined. I saw one spot where I didn’t capitalize the Bible! But there are also many jewels. For example, compare my desire to look at the average soldier in this post, with my journal article about the experience of battle within the Book of Mormon. I couldn’t find it, but early on I discussed the danger that nuclear weapons pose and the need for preemptive war as a result. That line of thought has blossomed into articles like this. One of my very first posts, responded to a website, Mormon Mesoamerica, that no longer exists! (The link is safe; it just doesn’t go to Mormon Mesoamerica.) I guess that means my arguments win by simply outlasting the critical website. Seriously though, in the age of 30 second viral videos and auto erasing texts, I’m proud of having something like this blog that has the extra credibility of being around for 15 years.

Purpose and Place of Blog:

    The best description of my blog past that early stage was this post about being an insurgent. I know it’s strange to call myself an insurgent but the term is neutral. I thought it was an accurate example of using my blog to share ideas that bypass gate keepers like editors. You’ll notice on my author page that I prefer self-publishing. I like to control the pace, pick the picture, set the price, and most importantly, keep the royalties. The added prestige of a publisher would be nice, but in most cases, it doesn’t seem worth the hassle.

    Looking back, I would have also described how my blog is often a feeder for more serious publications. The toughest part of writing for me is going from my mind to paper. And with a blog post I already have the preliminary thoughts written down and some kind of draft to polish pieces for conferences and journal articles. I also put a good deal of work into the footnotes, which saves me time in the final product. The lengthy footnotes work to show that I have a command of a wide range of material. In some cases the extensive sources also combat misinformation.

Rebuttals:

    Even casual readers should notice that this isn’t a fluff blog. I have good ideas, and I’ve put in years of study and lots of thought going 10,000 miles in my career. I’ve encountered lots of people, mainly libertarians for some reason, who haven’t put in that thought. For example, one author literally said that he skipped school (because its “establishment pap”) and put in just a few months writing his (lousy) book.

    I learned two important lessons from these engagements. The first lesson can be compared to an experience from General Grant. During his first engagement he unexpectedly bumped into an opposing officer leading his men into battle. When Grant saw the look of fear in that commander’s eyes, he realized that the enemy wasn’t monolithic and all powerful. In fact, they are just like him, but since Grant came prepared and trusted his leadership skills and strategic acumen, he had no reason to fear. In short, I’m not intimidated by someone that has lots of degrees and titles and smugly assumes they are the smartest person in every room. I am well read, academically trained, and thoughtful, so I often find people like Patrick Mason, who are big name scholars that haven’t read critical texts and make poor arguments.

    The other lesson I learn from rebutting random trolls is how even the saddest internet poser still apes the language and methods of academia. They’ll begin by talking about the danger of academics or with insults. But then they offer their own thesis statements, (or mislabel my thesis statements), provide very short bibliographies filled with specious texts, and somehow talk about research. Yet their posts aren’t really scholarship because they mostly rely on dogma, catch phrases, cliches, and shallow thought. Without rigorous thought, sound methods, and a spirit of free inquiry, they deny themselves the power of scholarship and only have the appearance of it. In short, they hate academics, still have an intuitive need to look like one, but fail because they misunderstand the underlying methods that makes a real scholar.

Instincts:

    I like the comments I made on this post more than a decade ago. As I’ve studied just war, the primacy of the heart has been solidified for me. It resolves the tension between how a Christian can have a peaceful heart and wield the sword. Ten years before I did that research in the comments of that blog, I already noticed how love can be manipulated. So I simply continued that thinking: If its loving to not fight, how can it be loving to not fight and then accept the consequences of a Nazi victory. Even before my official study I had an instinctive knowledge of that fact.

    Beyond my comments, the post itself is quite ironic in more ways. I’m clearly better read than Geoff B. He claims to have read the authors I cited, but if he did, he would have addressed them instead of repeating shallow isolationist cliches. (They’ll say “war is a racket”, but haven’t even read the Smedley Butler piece from which the phrase derives.)

    Years later Geoff has run the conservative Millennial Star into the ground. He purged most of the perma-bloggers for being insufficiently orthodox. As he bullied those that disagreed with him, he bragged about how many unique visitors the site used to get but now I think my solo blog outproduces and gets more unique visitors than him.

    The second irony comes from the “diplomat” that invited the post. I audibly guffaw every time I hear that term, because my only memory of Scott was him sending a series of flaming emails in the middle of my divorce. I was only going through the worst event of my life, and he claimed to be my friend (and again, a diplomat), but somehow, he thought it was a good time to vomit outrage and unfair insults over an alleged faux pas of mine. He’s so bad at diplomacy he reminded me of that scene from Office Space where the guy yells, “I’m good at dealing with people…what the hell is wrong with you!!!”

    Sadly, his behavior is fairly typical of my experience with people from By Common Consent and the Mormon blogging world in general. If you are liberal or critical of the church, they love you and they all need rotator cuff surgery from patting themselves on the back over how amazing, smart, and nuanced they are. As I found during my time with Wheat and Tares, if you are conservative and orthodox you are met with disdain and condescension. But the best revenge against the super sophisticates of the bloggernacle is to continue my great career. After every success I’ll admit I indulge in a little chuckle at the haters. Reading 15 years’ worth of insults, I know I’ve earned it.

Conclusion:

    If this were a tv special at this point the music would swell, and the highlight clips would flow a little faster but I’m not that cool. I can say that I don’t see anything that would end my blogging. My divorce and brief homelessness didn’t even stop my blogging. I still have ideas. My latest book on just warfare in the Book of Mormon has essentially been published. There is always another idea, another conference, another paper. Publishing one post a month, in the first week, if possible, is a steady groove and easily achievable. Maybe someday I’ll look at my creations, feel proud, and then rest. But I can’t say when that is coming.

    Thanks for reading. I joke that I only have about ten readers. But I appreciate every one of you. Thanks for being with me for any part of the last 15 years, and I look forward to linking to this blog post in my 30^th anniversary post.

Thanks for reading! Producing high quality, ad free content is difficult. 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. Thanks again!   
*******

---

[1] Eric Hutton trans., Xunzi: The Complete Text, (Princeton University Press, 2014,) 13.