Abstract: When Eliza R. Snow agreed to become one of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, she feared she would never be looked upon as a decent woman. Nevertheless, she accepted Joseph Smith’s proposal and eventually became a strong advocate of the practice. Reading about her understanding of plural marriage and the many testimonies of others who practiced it, I have realized that plural marriage teaches us much about humility, keeping God’s commandments, and following His prophets. In nineteenth-century America, it provided a way for women and men to set aside self and embark on a soul-refining journey filled with trials and obstacles that parallel many of the trials and obstacles of our day.

You could argue that the practice of plural marriage (or polygamy, as some refer to it) is as controversial now as it was in the nineteenth century. In the mid-1800s, Joseph Smith and other members of the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ practiced it in the shadows — fearful that mainstream society would misunderstand their intentions in taking multiple wives.1

In modern times, the subject, unavoidable every fourth year in Sunday school, can still blow through a classroom of practicing Latter-day Saints like a bad smell no one wants to acknowledge. But plural marriage is an integral part of the Church’s history. Women and men rallied to maintain the practice in the mid-1800s when the U.S. Government threatened to incarcerate its practitioners. Despite their great efforts, however, plural marriage was abolished in 1890, leaving some women and children to fend for themselves as their husbands [Page 104]resumed a monogamous marriage with their first wives.2 Nevertheless, I find the practice to be a profound example of the refiner’s fire, in which we can find beauty for ashes, holiness for misery, and the keys to persevering in a world that regularly throws proverbial stones at us for holding firm to doctrine that challenges the cultural ideas of the day. It teaches us that living the commandments, controversial or not, does not preclude us from unanticipated fallout even while in the very act of sacrificing self to do what God has asked.

For several months I scoured the pages of Relief Society, Primary, Young Women’s, and Young Men’s minute books from 1869 to 1888 as part of research for a project at the Church History Department. I scanned one page after another of handwritten pages ranging from perfect penmanship and spelling to indecipherable lettering and broken English. On occasion, my eyes slowed enough to catch familiar themes that repeated from one ward’s minute book to the next. Salvation and unity were the most prominent among those themes, but, as you might guess, so is the topic of plural marriage.

Many women during that time expressed in Relief Society meetings their heartfelt testimonies of the sanctity and blessings of the practice of plural marriage.3 Nevertheless, it is clear that some members of the various congregations — both men and women

Review of Jonathan Neville, Infinite Goodness: Joseph Smith, Jonathan Edwards, and the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Digital Legends Press, 2021. 339 pages. $22.99 (paperback).

Abstract: This is the second of two papers reviewing Jonathan Neville’s latest books on the translation of the Book of Mormon. In Infinite Goodness, Neville claims that Joseph Smith’s vocabulary and translation of the Book of Mormon were deeply influenced by the famous Protestant minister Jonathan Edwards. Neville cites various words or ideas that he believes originate with Edwards as the original source for the Book of Mormon’s language. However, most of Neville’s findings regarding Edwards and other non-biblical sources are superficial and weak, and many of his findings have a more plausible common source: the language used by the King James Bible. Neville attempts to make Joseph a literary prodigy, able to read and reformulate eight volumes of Edwards’s sermons — with enough genius to do so, but not enough genius to learn the words without Edwards’s help. This scenario contradicts the historical record, and Neville uses sources disingenuously to impose his idiosyncratic and wholly modern worldview onto Joseph Smith and his contemporaries.

As I have demonstrated in my recent review of A Man That Can Translate,1 Jonathan Neville consistently misuses and misquotes historical sources. He resorts to multiple double standards to force the historical narrative into the shape required by his theories. My previous review responded to his claims that (1) Joseph Smith memorized and recited Isaiah from memory rather than translate it from the Book of Mormon record; (2) Joseph Smith tricked his close friends and family, making them believe that he was translating the [Page 66]aforementioned sections of the Book of Mormon; (3) many witnesses to the Book of Mormon are not to be believed; and (4) we should instead rely on sources hostile to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to properly understand Joseph’s translation effort.

I will now respond to Neville’s new hypothesis that Joseph Smith read and studied the teachings of Jonathan Edwards from an early age, ultimately incorporating Edwardsian language into his translation of the Book of Mormon.2

Neville’s portrayal of Edwards and Joseph Smith, however, has much in common with the dubious claim that Joseph was influenced by Emanuel Swedenborg’s ideas about heaven.3 In both cases, the purported similarities are superficial, any connection was unremarked upon by contemporaries (even those who were well acquainted with both works),

Review of Jonathan Neville, A Man That Can Translate: Joseph Smith and the Nephite Interpreters. Salt Lake City: Digital Legends Press, 2020. 385 pages. $22.99 (paperback).

Abstract: This is the first of two papers that explore Jonathan Neville’s two latest books regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon. Neville has long argued that Joseph Smith did not use a seer stone during the translation of the Book of Mormon, and he has more recently expanded his historical revisionism to dismiss the multitude of historical sources that include the use of a seer stone. Neville’s “Demonstration Hypothesis” is explored in A Man That Can Translate, arguing that Joseph recited a memorized text from Isaiah rather than translate Isaiah from the Book of Mormon record. This hypothesis, meant to redefine how Joseph Smith used a seer stone during the translation of the Book of Mormon, however, fails to deal with the historical record seriously or faithfully. Neville, in a purported effort to save Joseph Smith’s character, ironically describes Joseph as a liar, reinvigorating old anti-Latter-day Saint claims that Joseph simply recited a memorized text, even to the point that Neville defends hostile sources while targeting Church-published histories and publications. He further attacks the witnesses of the translation in an effort to discredit their testimonies regarding the seer stone, and repeatedly misrepresents these sources. Coming from a Latter-day Saint, such claims are troubling and demand a response.

Despite historical documentation to the contrary, Jonathan Neville has long maintained that Joseph Smith did not use a seer stone during the translation of the Book of Mormon. While belief in or rejection of the seer stone in the historical record will not affect one’s [Page 2]standing within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Neville has recently published two books relating to the translation of the Book of Mormon that explore his two latest theories regarding the translation and Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone. This is the first of two papers that will explore the claims that Neville makes in these two books and offers a thorough response to his unorthodox and unjustified claims.

The first of the two books, A Man That Can Translate, deals in detail with the question of Joseph Smith’s use of a seer stone, presenting his “Demonstration Hypothesis” as what he believes is a faithful and superior alternative to the historical analysis offered by faithful Latter-day Saint scholars. However, Neville fails to deliver any argument that can be described as an accurate or rigorous analysis of the historical record, or even the Church itself. Neville relies heavily on misrepresenting his sources and making claims from silence, and enough factual discrepancies and contradictions are found within his book that any serious reader will quickly recognize its lack of serious scholarship or peer review. Neville states that as we are all “pursuing truth together,” he is open to hearing from anyone who finds anything that he missed or overlooked.1 I hope his openness to hearing from those who disagree with him is as sincere as he claims, especially as the evidence is weighted against his unorthodox theories.

Neville’s approach deals heavily with the definition of the Urim and Thummim and how he believes Joseph Smith understood the word “translation.” Neville inserts his misunderstandings into the historical record, producing an analysis that is designed to lead the reader to his conclusions, while discrediting other sources that disagree. Because these two topics are so fundamental to his arguments and his new hypothesis regarding the translation of the Book of Mormon,

Abstract: “Think not,” said the Savior at Matthew 10:34, “that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” And this has in fact been the case — too often literally, but certainly figuratively. In the Old Testament, the Lord accurately foretold the situation that we commonly see: “I will take you one of a city,” he explained, “and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion” (Jeremiah 3:14). Unfortunately, those who aren’t so “taken” are often not entirely happy with the beliefs and practices of those who are. “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth?” Jesus told his audience at Luke 12:51–52. “I tell you, Nay; but rather division.” But is Jesus not the Prince of Peace? Has he not also commanded us “That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matthew 5:39)? Jude 1:3 tells us that we “should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints,” but we are also told not to be contentious in carrying out that assignment. Doing both simultaneously can be an extraordinarily great challenge. But it is the Lord’s challenge to us.

Barring an unforeseen disaster, I’ll be back by the time you read or hear this introductory essay. (In fact, sadly, I’ll probably already be gone again to someplace else — thus illustrating one of my mother’s favorite principles: “There’s no rest for the wicked.”) At the moment, though, I’m writing it while sitting in Jerusalem. I’m sitting not far from the “green line” that essentially divides the eastern and predominantly Arab part of the city from its western and almost entirely Jewish section.

Originally, the name Jerusalem — which, in Hebrew, is Yerushaláyim — probably comes from a root yry’ (“to found,” or “to lay a cornerstone”) and Shalem, which was the personal name of the Canaanite god of “twilight” or “dusk” in the Bronze Age. But, since the Hebrew word ir is the equivalent of English city, and since Shalem comes from the same [Page viii]root (s-l-m) as that standing behind the Hebrew and Arabic words for “peace” (respectively, shalom and salaam), Jerusalem has often, and not incorrectly, been interpreted as “City of Peace.”

And, indeed, that is exactly what Jerusalem should be. Far too often, though, it hasn’t been. According to a commonly accepted reckoning, the city has been attacked 52 times, besieged 23 times, captured or recaptured 44 times, and altogether destroyed twice. Moreover, even today, although the city has been under the unified political control of Israel since the Israelis took East Jerusalem in the Six Day War of June 1967, it remains divided. Even its name suggests division: The ending -áyim is a Hebrew dual, which may simply indicate that Yerushaláyim originally sat on two distinct hills — the area is extremely hilly1 — but which also seems sadly prophetic.

When I visit here, I never fail to remember an experience from the first of my many stays in Jerusalem. It occurred back when I lived in the city as a student from January to June of 1978.

One day, I was sitting alone in the traditional Garden of Gethsemane, just north of the beautiful Roman Catholic Church of All Nations. I was looking across the Kidron Valley — the King James Bible’s “brook Cedron” (at, for example, John 18:1, but “the brook Kidron” at 2 Samuel 15:23) — toward the ancient Temple Mount and the beautiful late-seventh-century Muslim Dome of the Rock. It is one of the greatest views in the world. Suddenly,

Review of Blaire Ostler, Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction (Newburgh, IN: By Common Consent Press, 2021). 152 pages. $10.95 (paperback).

Abstract: Blaire Ostler attempts to show how “Mormon theology is inherently queer” and may be expanded to be fully “inclusive” of LGBTQ+ members. Unfortunately, Ostler conflates God’s love with indulgence for behavior that he has described as sinful. She offers a pantheistic/panentheistic conception of deity that collapses any differences between men and women in sharp contrast to the Latter-day Saint understanding that men and women are complementary and require one another for exaltation and eternal life. Many of this book’s arguments are sophistry and the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. None of it is compatible with revealed truth contained in The Family: A Proclamation to the World and consistently taught by prophets, seers, and revelators.

Blaire Ostler’s1 book Queer Mormon Theology: An Introduction was published with much fanfare. The publisher announced that Queer Mormon Theology “is the kind of book that BCC Press was born for.”2 Since publication, it has received a lot of attention and praise, including [Page 318]gushing reviews in the Association of Mormon Letters3 and Exponent II,4 official congratulations and commendation by Affirmation,5 and positive reviews in numerous podcasts.

This attention is largely unsurprising. Ostler’s book has a provocative thesis that appeals to those who view themselves as erudite and socially progressive. She6 argues that “Mormon theology is inherently queer” and “Mormon theology holds the building blocks for an orthodoxy of love and inclusion beyond what is discussed in Sunday School” (p. 4). Ostler claims to offer an expansive vision of doctrine while still holding firm to “Mormon beliefs, testimony, doctrine, theology, culture, and heritage” (p. 2). Indeed, she assures the reader she is “not suggesting a change to the fundamental principles in Mormon theology and doctrine, but rather advocate[s] for a more robust vision of what Mormon theology and doctrine already includes” (p. 17).

Can Ostler successfully navigate this tightrope between Mormon doctrine and queer theology? Unfortunately, the book falters under the weight of its own sophistry.

As someone who is not a member of the LGBTQ+ com...

Abstract: In the Book of Mormon, many people received a remarkable spiritual outpouring following a declaration or demonstration of full belief in what they had already received or were about to receive. This paper examines nine examples of this that exhibit strong similarities in both language and substance. These examples demonstrate that the key to receiving a spiritual outpouring is to “believe all the words” of God that one has already received or is about to receive, after which great blessings will follow. However, such full belief must be thoughtful and inspired, not merely credulous. The findings of this paper provide another example of the rich narrative and doctrinal patterns in the Book of Mormon.

table {border: 1px solid #dddddd; width: 100%; margin: auto;} td, th {border: 1px solid #dddddd; padding: 5px !important; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;} th {background-color: #eeeeee; color: #373737 !important; font-size: 100% !important; text-transform: none !important; line-height: 1.5 !important} .centered td, .centered th {text-align: center !important;} td.centered, th.centered {text-align: center !important;}

In the Book of Mormon, many people received a remarkable spiritual outpouring following a declaration or demonstration of full belief in what they had already received or were about to receive. In this paper, I examine the following nine examples of this process:

 

Person

Declaration or Demonstration of Full Belief

Resultant Spiritual Outpouring

Nephi1

1 Nephi 2:16

1 Nephi 2:19–24

Nephi1

1 Nephi 11:5

1 Nephi 11:6–14:30

King Benjamin’s people

Mosiah 5:2

Mosiah 5:2–7

Alma1

Mosiah 17:4

Mosiah 18:13, 18, 27–29; 23:1, 16

Zeezrom

Alma 15:7

Alma 15:10–12

Lamoni

Alma 18:33

Alma 18:41–43; 19:12–13

Lamoni’s wife

Alma 19:9

Alma 19:13, 29–30, 33

Lamoni’s father

Alma 22:11

Alma 22:15–18; 22:23–27; 23:3

Brother of Jared

Ether 3:12

Ether 3:6–28

[Page 296]The approach taken here is rooted in the study of narrative and doctrinal patterns in the Book of Mormon. Such patterns illustrate the book’s rhetorical power and internal consistency. The nine examples listed above are presented and compared to show that the Book of Mormon employs a unique narrative pattern to teach and reinforce the doctrinal point that full belief in what one has already received from God, or is about to receive, leads to additional spiritual outpouring. The Book of Mormon’s teachings on this matter are relevant for our day and are reinforced by the teachings of modern prophets and apostles.

Narrative and Doctrinal Patterns in the Book of Mormon

Many writers have noted the presence of narrative and doctrinal patterns in the Book of Mormon. These patterns serve to reinforce key messages for the reader, increasing the convincing power of the book and fulfilling the divine “law of witnesses.”1 The presence of these recurrent threads also demonstrates that later authors had access to prior authors’ work, with later authors drawing therefrom for narrative and doctrinal purposes.

Scholars have observed many narrative and doctrinal patterns in the Book of Mormon. For example, Louis Midgley observed that recurrent “language about reme...

Abstract: Khor Rori, which forms the mouth of Wadi (Valley) Darbat, is the largest inlet along the Dhofar coast of southern Arabia. The khor was excavated into a harbor by the erosive action of the river that flows through Wadi Darbat. In ancient times, Khor Rori was the only harbor in the Dhofar Region that could accommodate large sailing ships. The first colonizers of Khor Rori, who arrived around the ninth century bc, must have realized that this particular khor, because of its morphology, was an ideal natural port for trading their frankincense with other seafaring nations. Because Khor Rori has long been considered an important candidate for Bountiful and offers the advantage of not only the rich vegetation in Wadi Darbat and good sources of flowing water, it is also a safe harbor where a ship could have been built — indeed, the harbor would later become a busy port noted for building ships and much trade. This article provides updates since the original publications about Khor Rori, better documenting its advantages and exploring the possibility that essential raw materials for shipbuilding and shipwright expertise might have already existed at Khor Rori in Nephi’s day.

p.caption {margin-top: 1em !important; text-align: center !important;}

In 2003, Richard Wellington and I put forward the idea in our book Lehi in the Wilderness that the ancient frankincense harbor of Khor Rori (Khor means ”inlet”) in Oman is the probable place where Nephi built his ship.1 At the time, we both lived in Saudi Arabia, and our research on Nephi’s harbor constituted the last phase in our five-year effort to locate qualified candidates for sites described in the book of 1 Nephi. We were the first to propose that Wadi Tayyib al Ism is a candidate for the Valley of Lemuel, that Wadi Sharma is a candidate for Shazer, that [Page 254]the villages along the frankincense trail between Wadi Ula to Medinah are candidates for the fertile parts, and that Khor Rori is a candidate for Nephi’s harbor. Since that time, I have continued my research on Khor Rori and now wish to share further information.

The central event of the Old World Bountiful in the Book of Mormon is the building of Nephi’s ship. As I search for the locations mentioned in the Book of Mormon, I appreciate that we will probably never know exactly where Nephi built his ship, unless the Lord reveals it. However, we are directed to “seek learning even by study, and also by faith” (D&C 109:14), so I feel it not amiss to use what scholarship is available to us to attempt to show that what Nephi described in the first book of the Book of Mormon was in keeping with what one would have probably found at Khor Rori at the turn of the sixth-century bc.

Two other candidates have been proposed for Nephi’s harbor, namely Khor Kharfot by Warren Aston,2 and Wadi Mughsayl by W. Revell Phillips.3 This paper approaches the subject of the location of Nephi’s harbor in five parts:

* Part One: What is reasonable to discern about the nature of Nephi’s ship?

* Part Two: What were the geological features Nephi needed to build, outfit, and successfully launch his ship?

* Part Three: Where is Khor Rori, and what are the attributes of the land Bountiful?

* Part Four: Could Khor Rori have had the maritime res...

Abstract: This study assesses some of the interpretations of the name Liahona, which are unsatisfactory from a linguistic perspective. Since a dialect of Hebrew is the most likely underlying language of the Book of Mormon, the approach taken in this study parses the word Liahona into three meaningful segments in Hebrew: l-iah-ona; a Biblical Hebrew transliteration would be l-Yāh-Ɂōnấ. This name is a grammatical construction that attaches the prepositional prefix l- to Yāh, the name of “the Lord,” followed by the noun *Ɂōnấ. The preposition l- in this context denotes the following name as the agent or the one who is responsible for the following noun, i.e., l-Yāh designates the Lord as the agent, author, or producer of the *Ɂōnấ. Languages are complex, and etymological conjectures in ancient languages are hypothetical; therefore, the explanations and justifications presented here, of necessity, are speculative in nature. Etymological explanations have to involve the complexity of linguistics and sound changes. The hoped-for result of this study is that a simple and reasonable explanation of the meaning of Liahona will emerge from the complexity, and a more reasonable translation of Liahona will be the result.

The root and meaning of the word Liahona, only mentioned once in the Book of Mormon (Alma 37:38), has been a topic of conjecture and debate for decades. In this paper I briefly evaluate four earlier studies or comments on the etymology of the word. Each study varies in its methodology and therefore comes to different conclusions. There is general agreement that Liahona is divided into three parts. Each study translates the first segment L- as “to.” The second element is identified either as Yah or Yaho, the short form of Yahweh, that signifies “the Lord.” There is no agreement in these studies as to the phonemic construction of the third element, i.e., what word it represents, what its phonemes are, [Page 212]how it is pronounced, and how it is to be translated. None of the earlier treatments identify the third element as a physical object; the Liahona is described as a round ball of fine brass with spindles (1 Nephi 16:10). An acceptable etymology of Liahona should at least take its physical characteristics into account in addition to its interpretation as a compass. The interpretation of Liahona given in the translated text is “a compass — and the Lord prepared it” (Alma 37:38). Since these studies do not address the Liahona’s physical characteristics nor its function, they fall short of an acceptable etymology for this name.

As I make clear shortly, I propose that the name Liahona is also parsed into three acceptable grammatical elements of Biblical Hebrew. The first element L- is a preposition that attaches to a name [-iah-] that is followed by an object [-ona]. In this grammatical construction L- does not signify “to,” but denotes that the named person [-iah-] is the agent, actor, author, or the one responsible for the object [-ona]. This proposal necessitates a lengthy discussion on the justification for this interpretation taken from the Bible and from epigraphic Hebrew texts of the pre-exilic period.

The second element of Liahona is Yāh, the short form of the divine name Yahweh, “the Lord.” There are no l-Yāh- expressions in the Masoretic Text, so a few l-Yahweh expressions are documented to demonstrate how this expression can be interpreted. The preposition l- occurs with other names in the Biblical text, and examples are given that show that it denotes the named person as the agent, author, or producer of the object. The l-Yāh expression identifies Yāh as the one who produced the object [-ona], or as interpreted in Alma 37:38, the one who prepared it.

The third element in the name Liahona is proposed to be *Ɂōnâ.

Abstract: Under the duress of a lengthy war, and prompted by recent Lamanite military successes, as well as incensed at the government’s failure to resupply Helaman’s armies with provisions and to send men to reinforce the city Nephihah, Moroni sent a second scathing letter to the leaders of the Nephite nation in the Nephite capital city Zarahemla. As other scholars have noted, the name Zarahemla likely denotes “seed of compassion” or “seed of sparing.” In this article, I propose that Moroni’s rhetoric in the letter includes an acerbic word-irony involving the meaning of Zarahemla perhaps achieved in terms of the Hebrew verb yaḥmōl (“[he] will spare,” from ḥml, “spare,” “have compassion.” This word-irony points out that although the Lord had spared the people of Zarahemla and the Nephites in the past, the uncompassionate behavior of the nation’s leaders in Zarahemla was creating conditions under which the Lord would not spare the leadership in Zarahemla. Moroni wrote, “Behold, I come unto you, even in the land of Zarahemla, and smite you with the sword … For behold, the Lord will not suffer that ye shall live and wax strong in your iniquities to destroy his righteous people. Behold, can you suppose that the Lord will spare you…?” (Alma 60:30–32). The covenant background of this threat will also be explored.

Writing at the very end of Nephite civilization, Moroni states, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large, we should have written in the Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also. And if we could have written in the Hebrew, behold, ye would have [Page 200]had none imperfection in our record” (Mormon 9:33).1 This statement suggests that the Hebrew language and script remained a vital part of the Nephite linguistic repertory throughout the entirety of Nephite history, although they underwent change over time as language and language usage inevitably do. Amaleki, writing during King Benjamin’s reign,2 mentions that Mosiah I encountered in Zarahemla a “corrupted” language — presumably a dialect of Hebrew — being spoken among the descendants of Muloch,3 who “had brought no records with them” (Omni 1:17) and kept no records. With no written record and no scriptures to act as a language (and religious) conservator, their language had changed rapidly. Nevertheless, shared linguistic affinities between the Nephites under Mosiah I and the Mulochites would explain how Mosiah could have “caused that they should be taught in his language” with evident facility and could unite together in the way that they did (Omni 1:18–19). Nephite recordkeeping and scribal practices ensured that Hebrew remained a prominent part of the Nephite linguistic and literary repertory after the time of Mosiah I, Benjamin, and Mosiah II, and throughout the reign of the judges, even to the time of Mormon and Moroni2.

Scholars working in the Latter-day Saint tradition widely agree that “seed of compassion,” “seed of pity,” or “seed of sparing” (Hebrew noun zeraʿ, “seed,” + noun ḥemlâ, “compassion”) represents the most likely etymology and meaning of the Book of Mormon personal name and toponym Zarahemla.

Review of Patrick Q. Mason and J. David Pulsipher, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to an Age of Conflict (Provo, UT: Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2021). 290 pages $19.99 (softcover).

Abstract: Proclaim Peace is the first full-length volume discussing nonviolent theology in Latter-day Saint thought. It seeks to provide a new understanding of Restoration texts that aligns Mormon thought with modern pacifist traditions. Unfortunately, the book suffers from methodology issues that include an overly creative reading of some scriptures to support pacifist theories and the minimization of others’ theories. The book fails to interact with just-war ethics in meaningful ways that could enhance their ethic of peace. As a result, the book is longer than other pacifist texts but suffers from the same problems as previous entries in talking past those with differing opinion. The text will likely only appeal to a small audience of like-minded individuals who already share the same theories.

The study of unique Latter-day Saint scriptures and how they apply to nonviolent theology and just war remains in its infancy. This process started to change with the important 2011 volume, War and Peace in Our Times,1 and the conversation continues with Patrick Mason and David Pulsipher’s latest offering, Proclaim Peace: The Restoration’s Answer to [Page 182]an Age of Conflict.2 The book is an attempt to use nonviolent theology to help bring about an Enoch-like Zion and peace on earth. They mostly rely on novel interpretations of the scriptures buttressed with famous pacifists and nonviolent theologians. Several chapters address major objections their theories would likely encounter like the clear just-war verses in restoration scripture and divine violence. The book concludes with several chapters that contain practical advice.

Proclaim Peace is the most comprehensive and systematic enunciation of nonviolent theology to date. Unfortunately, the text relies on several dubious methodologies that include a narrative-driven analysis that skews their interpretation; a sole and “absolute” focus on Christ’s life that ignores, contradicts, or minimizes a broad range of sacred text; and a failure to do more than minimally interact with just-war theory. These problems fatally undermine the strength and applicability of the text.

Narrative Over Close Reading

Despite one of the authors describing the limits of nonviolent methodology, this book perpetuates those limits. In an essay that appears in an earlier book, David Pulsipher described the contortions theologians make to promote a nonviolent theology:

Crafting an argument against any violence — even defensive warfare — requires navigating a scriptural minefield … . The Book of Mormon … contains the most hazards. Compiled by a seasoned general, the text often exudes a just war sensibility. To diffuse the power of that story, Latter-day Saint pacifists resort to … arguing that a careful observation of the larger Book of Mormon narrative speaks to the futility of violence, its endless cycles, and its inability to achieve lasting peace.