Deseret News | Do LDS patriots shun protest?

Reader comments
Do LDS patriots shun protest?

142 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Rosellatree | 5:39 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I wholeheartedly agree. Misplaced patriotism such as my country right or wrong is an impediment for implementing efffective change for the better.

David | 7:07 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Mr. Birch has taken out of context the counsel to "renounce war" (D&C 98:16) which is misleading. Reading further in D&C 98 is revealing. When we have been smitten by our enemies and did not revile back (D&C 98:23-26), if they still ï¿½come upon you or your children ... I have delivered thine enemy into thine handsï¿½ (D&C 98:29). The Lord then counsels, ï¿½if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justifiedï¿½ (D&C 98:31; see also D&C 98:34-36). Note also the counsel in the Book of Mormon to defend our families and our right to worship "even unto bloodshedï¿½ (Alma 43:47). Alma 43:45 reads, "Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church." Absolutely we should seek to be peacemakers, but sometimes war is not only justified but required.

Mormon Protester | 8:11 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

The War on Iraq is immoral. Shouldn't Mormons stand up against all that is immoral and wrong?

Comments continue below

Gary Ford | 8:16 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Of course the LDS people proclaim peace first and foremost. But there are times when that peace is threatened and one must step up to maintain it. Peace comes with a price.

Jamie | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

As a member of the church, I support the government, but only the righteous points of it. When our government is wrong, it is our duty as citizens to stand up for the right! It is our duty to point out the wrong and take a stand against it and take steps to restore the right. When this great nation was formed, we were formed as a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. The documents that were written and laws that were established to grant us our god-given freedoms are being distorted and used against us to further unrighteous actions. We need to get back to the Constitution and re form a government based upon that and solely on that. Make the government work for us, instead of us for the government as it was originally constituted. We need to once again, become a God fearing nation, one that rules with forgiveness instead of anger, greed and dishonesty. We need to seek the will of our Heavenly Father in all our comings and goings. It is only then that we can truly be free and righteous.

Mike | 8:19 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Those that supported the war genuinely did so with the belief that their position and opinions were based on facts. It has now become evident that we were deliberately misinformed.

The more we study our constitution and understand its principles - the more apparent this misinformation (and calculated assult on our constitution)becomes.

Buzz Cayton | 8:20 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

It was easy to see the slant Mr. Birch was going to take from the opening paragraph. The only thing he did not include is the tired rhetoric and talking points of the democrat party. The united states was attacked. You may not like the way the response has been orchestrated but consider you are not a geneal either. This is not a conventional war and it cannot be fought with conventional methods. The reaseon Peacenicks exist is because there is a military to protect their rights. Remember in the Book of Mormon when the people refused to fight it was the warriors who came in and saved their bacon.

AEP | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Birch is too simplistic. I'm LDS, loathe the war, despise the Bush administration, but do not take part in civil protests. They are meaningless, ineffective, useless, and dangerous in the sense that they leave participants feeling as though they have done something significant when in fact they have done nothing. Propose ways for us to work for peace and against war *without expecting us to join Rocky in some foolish spectacle* and you might find many of us willing to join you.

Nancy Brown | 8:40 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

When we elect a President we place our trust in him and pray the Lord guides him. We trust our President to do the best he can with the Lordï¿½s help.

We respectfully voice disagreement but never undercut. Those who do are like the King-men in Alma

ï¿½had it not been for the desire of power and authority which those king-men had over us; had they been true to the cause of our freedom ï¿½instead of taking up their swords against us ï¿½.if we had gone forth against them in the strength of the Lord, we should have dispersed our enemies ï¿½ï¿½

Reed and those in power are behaving just like King-men. They have tried to cut the funding and have declared the war lost before we have time to finish it. Their actions embolden the enemy leading them to believe we have not the courage to continue the fight. They have done so without regard for the lives of our brave soldiers.

Perhaps mistakes have been made in the execution of the war that is the nature of war but trying to bring democracy and the God give right of freedom to a people is a righteous endeavor.

Albert C. Montoya | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

In respecful disagreement with Professor Birch, the danger for Mormons does not lie with confusing theology with nationalistic rhetoric and confusing civil protests with unpatriotic activity. The danger for Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, lies in their ignorance of and refusal to look at the facts of the cause of this war in Iraq. There is a large body of evidence and the testimony of an army of WTC eye and ear witnesses, physicists, building demolition experts and many other professionals and scholars verifying that 9/11 was not what the official commission report says it was. The government was complicit in 9/11 just as FDR and the government was at Pearl Harbor and many other conficts in our history. This is a pre-emptive war, and a war of agression. It is a war for power and gain for a very few and at the expense of many. There was a time when Mormons, and Americans generally, based their beliefs on facts and not on their confused emotions which result from their refusal to look at factual reality. That time is far distant now but needs to return quickly or confusion will be the permanent lot for all.

R. Michael Hodge | 8:58 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I don't think that it is "Patriotism" that prevents more Latter Day Saints from expressing disproval of this war. I think it is just stubborness. I don't think that those who supported the IRAQ war can bring themselves to admit that they were just plain wrong, deceived by an Republican administration really more interested in securing middle east oil reserves than in protecting the American people.

Verl Doman | 9:08 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

It seems to me that most who oppose the war were not around during the Second World War, nor have they seen the character that a nation or a people can develop by being willing to sacrifice for a worthy cause. I was around and have seen this nation deteriorate because weakness of character.

Now that more and more of our young men and women are going into harms way in an effort to protect innocent people from tyranny and to have some of them give their lives encourages me for the future of our nation.

I watch those who oppose this effort, and I sense weakness, selfishness and I see occurring with it a general moral decay. I have concluded that weakness and moral decay go together. It takes courage and sacrifice to defend our freedom and especially that of others. I can see that it takes the same traits of character in our present culture to not engage morally destructive behavior and I am more concerned about loosing that battle. It is considerably more alarming than the sacrifice of the lives of some of our brave.

rp marchant | 9:15 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

is the final statement 'being oppossed to the war' president Hinckley's or Birch's.

Concerned | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

As someone from the Latter-day Saint tradition outside the US, I find the war and the Bush administration deplorable. Latter-day Saints should stand up and do something. If the original constitution of the United States was inspired, it has most definitely become adulterated as governments like the current administration muddy the separation of Church and State and commit evils in the name of God. President Bush has done more to harm the name of Christian than any other person alive today. Who wants to believe in a religion that advocates war and violence as a means to further its end ï¿½ he seems to be doing exactly what he accused Islamic terrorists of doing but believes he has the moral high ground because he is doing Godï¿½s will. Just think of how different our world would be if the extra 3 trillion dollars in debt that the US has incurred since Bushï¿½s totalitarian regime were used in humanitarian aid? Jesus taught: love your enemies. It is time for Latter-day Saints to stand up and protect the name of Christian from those who use Godï¿½s name to promote hate and war!

Anonymous | 9:24 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

This scholar is trying to find reasons why people don't agree with his personal opinion on the Iraq war, with the underlying assumption that his opinion is "truth." The LDS church is very careful about making political statements for whatever reasons, including not wanting to lose its tax-exempt status. There is also the underlying assumption that protests are an effective way to promote change. Why not just take the simple interpretation? Maybe Mormons are just individuals acting as individuals and on the whole don't personaly feel the desire or need to protest.

Ripsnorter | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I agree that people are welcome to their opinions.

But I think the professor's complaint against the Iraq War not meeting the standards of a 'just war' is limp.

The Iraq War meets all the standards: just cause; comparitive justice; legitimate authority; etc. As for right intention, the Iraq War offers that in spades. And it's certainly true that the US has enjoyed no material gains in the War.

So where are the professor's complaints?

Jerry | 9:48 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

The day George W. Bush stood on a fire truck at Ground Zero and said America would pursue the terrorists to the ends of the earth, I knew he was erring because of pride and revenge.

I have read that Christians support George W. Bush because he prays. Praying is important, but no more so than listening to the Lord. Why any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a mystery to me, in light of the very specific instructions given in D&C 98:33-34 and in 3 Nephi 3:20-21.

If the Lord had commanded the United States to war in foreign lands against terrorists, he would have spoken to his prophet. Has the prophet spoken on behalf of the Lord on this matter? No. Therefore, we can assume the Lord still abides with instructions given to earlier prophets.

We should not disapprove of the war because weï¿½re losing, nor because other churches have lost heart and now disapprove (where were their voices and the Democratic Party in September 2001?). We should disapprove of warring in foreign lands because the Lord has told us not to do so.

Justin | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

David,
You are correct that war can be and in the past has been justified if not required. However in talking about the war in Iraq no one can convince me or most of the rest of the world that it is justified or that it was required. If you choose to believe the rhetoric our President continues to spew that is your right. But I choose not too.

John | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Maybe it's a Utah thing. Where I live, in Montana, there are plenty of LDS opposed to the war, even my Gospel Doctrine teacher.

Julie | 10:07 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

He missed the boat here. It's not that here in Utah we hate the war and shun protest- a good percent of people in Utah are for the war and like Bush. Utah elected him by the biggest margin.

Sad | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

It's sad people here still believe Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Reed is acting like King-men? How about the gang in the Whitehouse that got us in this mess in the first place? If you're going to support the war, at least stop spouting the lies. No WMD's, no link to 9-11: It's been proven over and over.

Judging by the steady chiseling away of our liberties and the increasing "security," the terrorists are winning. Isn't that exactly what they want according to the talking points?

Should bringing democracy to the world cost us our own?

alternative | 11:02 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Actually, could Dr. Birch have missed the greater point altogether (the one that many comments affirm): that a submission to authority and inability to apply critical thought are the underlying culprits?

dpamm | 11:11 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I support the war on terror, always have. I support all we have worked to accomplish in Afghanistan. That's a legitimate war against terrorism and all nations that foster it. But I don't believe the war in Iraq WAS part of the war on terror. It was a dysfunctional misdirecting of the war on terror to meet commercial and political objectives for a footprint in the Middle East. Attacking Iraq was an act of aggression and nation-building, which the Book of Mormon specifically prohibits on many occasions. Thanks to this mistake, we lost ALL the international political capital 9/11 provided us to hunt down terrorism. And now we do have a war on terrorism in Iraq. What a disastrous mistake by a president who earned a C+ GPA in college.

Anthony | 11:16 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

For all those who think it was this "evil republican" administration that deceived us into going to war, think back a few years. We have been told for years of the danger of Iraq, by both Democrats and Republicans. How convenient it is to ignore the comments by Democrats when Clinton was in power by the same people who are saying that Bush lied to them. They were convinced that Saddam had the weapons of mass destruction and the desire and temperament to use them.

You also choose to ignore reports from most intelligence agencies throughout the world that Saddam was armed and dangerous.

If we were deceived, it was not by the Bush administration only. If we were truly deceived, then it has been by many people over many years, both Republican and Democrat, US and other countries throughout the world. If anything, Saddam was very good at deception and he played us all for fools. Unfortunately for him, he was too good at it and when he tried to pull back from his position of many years, it was too late.

continued later...

Isaac | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

To suggest that President Hinckley supports the war as evident in his April 2003 talk is pure nonsense.
I have read the talk and find absolutely nothing that suggests that is the case... it is a balanced, unbiased perspective from the leader of a world-wide organization... to even suggest that President Hinckley would demonstrate his support shows the writer has a weak understanding of the mechanism of the church and it's stance on war.
President Hinckley said "Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion." and "When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace."
I have lived in Utah nearly my entire life, I know "Utah-Mormons" and know how gullible, apathetic, prideful and ignorant they are with regards to REAL history. It has been one of the greatest trials of my life going to church every Sunday associating with people who think Iraq has something to do with our Freedom. No logic on earth can draw a connection between Iraq and our liberties, the thought makes reason stare.

SRS in AZ | 11:34 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I think a big reason why many LDS do not participate in protest is because it is taught not to speak out against LDS leaders. I'm sure this is a huge part of it. How can something like this not spill out into the secular leadership? I think most LDS use the quiet voice of email and letter writing to voice displeasure which is a great alternative to being out in public view. I would like to say that sometimes people with passion need to be in public view but also need to protest with both class and dignity. With this said I would like to use my LDS voice to proclaim that Ron Paul is the best choice we have for a conservative Government in our future. Just because Mitt is LDS doesn't make him a good choice. I believe he is a politician first and LDS member second. Ron Paul looks first to the Constitution which we all believe was an inspired document. Don't be a sheeple and follow a guy just because he has LDS listed as his religion. This is my personal protest.

Clare | 11:35 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I support the war in Iraq, and although I am LDS, obviously have no reason to protest against it. I think President Bush is a good man, and I support the military. I know some people don't agree with me within the church and that is their right. Don't mistake lack of action with complacency. Why would I protest something I agree with? If there was a pro-Iraqi war rally, I'd be there.

Anthony | 11:36 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

To Isaac--to assume that Iraq has nothing to do with our freedom is completely ignorant. It has everything to do with our freedom. We lose our freedom when we stop caring about what is going on around us (locally and worldwide). We lose our freedom when we are lulled into a sense of false security that "all is well". We lose our freedom when we fail to learn from our mistakes.

Regardless of whether you agree with the war in Iraq, it has everything to do with freedom. Freedom is an active, living, participatory concept. We can only be truly free when we choose to think for ourselves and not follow the heady rhetoric of those in positions of authority. I choose to stand for freedom wherever and however I can...

Mike | 11:36 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

The invasion of Afghanistan was a justified war on terror in which Bush had literally the support of the entire world. His misguided, selfish, ideologically driven decision to expand that to Iraq was perhaps one of the worst decisions a leader of this country has ever made. A president of the US needs three important traits - the ability and desire to listen (in a way that gathers ALL pertinent information), common sense, and courage. I'll grant Bush has courage but I believe he is completely devoid of common sense and the ability or desire to listen to anyone outside of his circle of clones.

david c | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Could Mr. Birch be wrong and not be able to speak for all Mormons? Could it be possible that we have independent thought and that we are perhaps well educated and that some of our views simply differ from his? Could it be that some of us believe it just to go to war with a country that lost a war already to us (one they started as the aggressors), signed a treaty to live up to certain rules and requirements, flaunted that treaty and the U.N. for a full decade despite multiple attempts at diplomatic solutions, and thought that they could do whatever they wanted despite this signed treaty? I think that the whole argument of WMD's was unnecessary and superfluous. The world failed to act similarly with an aggressor in the late 1930's and the situation exploded into WWII. Appeasement is not/was not the answer. I praise our leaders and military forces for bravely reigning in a threat to the Middle East and world stability. I believe that war is sometimes required to promote peace and that is clearly taught in our scriptures. I am also an independent thinker and not reigned in by my LDS beliefs.

isaac | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Anthony,
One question... Is preemptive war just?

anthony | 12:04 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Isaac-That is a very good question...now we get into the issue of semantics. We get into many discussions about whether we had justification to go into Iraq. The general question is whether there were WMD's. My bigger question is whether our fight in Iraq is wholly independent of anything else or if it is related to our security in other ways. Was the invasion of Iraq preemptive? Yes and no. Yes in that we had not been directly attacked by them. No in that we are in a fight against more than just a single country. We fight against Kingdoms, Principalities, and Rulers, wherever evil exists. The best correlation I can make is the Gadianton robbers and murderers. We cannot look at Iraq as a war in a vacuum...it is in reality a battle in the bigger war. The danger we have is that we become bloodthirsty as the Nephites did and start fighting for the sake of fighting or for dominance. Have we crossed that line yet? Maybe. I am always concerned with that. We need to look for the Gadiantons in our government as well, so I try to keep my mind open to all possibilities.

Anthony | 12:15 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Isaac--I think my comments earlier may have seemed a little harsh towards you. You got me going by saying how we in Utah are oblivious to REAL HISTORY. I have studied much history (secular and religious) and have come to one main conclusion...history is relative and subjective. To the victors go the spoils, and that includes the writing of the history. History is a very difficult concept to most of us, because we get imprinted with the first things we hear and tend to believe those to the exclusion of any other idea. I study history from all sides and usually I find the truth somewhere in the middle of the points of view. When someone tries to tell me definitively what someone meant when they said it 200 years ago, I start to become skeptical. I try to look at all sides of things before making a judgement (although I don't always succeed in that). What I am truly tired of is the blind following of political party and the bickering that goes on between them.

Anthony | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I find it eternally frustrating that we (myself included) look at every action by our government through the perspective of whether the group doing it is of our political persuasion. We have truly sunk to new levels in the last 6 years. We cannot look at any action without measuring it against the yardstick of Democrat or Republican.

In 50 or 100 years, it will be interesting to see what History has to say about these last 20 years (and also how I remember it). I fall into the same traps as everyone else, but I am trying to look at things objectively. We will see how successful I really am.

Isaac | 12:27 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Anthony,
I misread you.
Here's my book-list for people to read.
"The Creature from Jekyll Island"
"None Dare Call it Conspiracy"
"The Rockefeller File"
"The Law"
"Proofs of a Conspiracy"
"Shadows of Power"
"The United Nations exposed"
"Again May God Forgive Us"
And myriad others.
I'm done commenting, several of my comments have been "monitored" and not included, this isn't a forum for them obviously... I'll just sit back and continue to laugh at Utahans minuscule understanding of history.

Earl | 12:37 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

To those of you who employ Book of Mormon analogies defending our occupation of Iraq, I ask two questions: where in the Book of Mormon does pre-emptive war ever occur? Where in the Book of Mormon do the righteous armies fight in territory other than their own? Anthony's invocation of high-minded principles sounds impressive, but is totally misplaced. He ignores the basic principle on which America was founded, namely, self-determination (non-interventionism), or, in other words, individual liberty. John Quincy Adams summed it up by saying, "America does not go about in search of monsters to destroy." Anthony's philiosphy won't be found in scriptures, but will be found in National Review and on Faux News, among other neoconservative outlets.

MPetrie | 12:47 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Quotes from Book of Mormon, Ether 8 - "For the Lord worketh not in secret combinations, neither doth he will that man should shed blood, but... it hath been made known unto me that they are had among all people... And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not. Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gainï¿½and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be."

I'd say this is a call to stay on the offense against terrorism.

Craig | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Like Pres Hinkley said, you are entitled to protest the war. I was undecided at the beginning & still am. I'm not too prideful to think that I know everything I need to to make a correct decision. I don't know what Bush knows. For all I know he knows top secret stuff that makes things obvious to him. And maybe they would to me. I keep listening to both sides. I think that's why President Hinkley said that it's ok to voice your protests. Because I still say there is no bad question. The protesters are just raising questions. Nothing wrong with that (as long as they are civil about it).

Anthony | 12:47 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Isaac--I agree with you, several of my comments never made it up either...oh well. I appreciate your reading list (I have looked at a few of them already in the past). One thing I think we agree on is that there are too many people that refuse to think for themselves. I did not grow up in Utah and have lived all around the US, and I have seen this ignorance everywhere I have been (not just in LDS or other religions). Interestingly enough, my faith as a Latter-Day Saint has only been strengthened by a serious study of the past (and present). I can only hope that I instill the desire to learn truth in my children so that I don't perpetuate the lack of self reliance (both in thought and deed) that I see so often today.

Anthony | 12:54 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Earl--thank you for your comments. I feel like I didn't put forward my position clearly enough. My invocation of BofM principles was not a justification of the Iraq war, and I believe I specifically stated that we may have gone too far and become like the Nephites when they used their righteous indignation to go farther than they should have. I have not made a determination on that one yet. The Founding Fathers all had different opinions on how and why they were rebelling and doing what they did. I can take individual comments from any of them and twist them. I firmly believe in the principles of freedom and liberty and will fight for anyones rights for the same. I also believe that by placing our heads in the sand and not paying attention to what is happening in the world around us, we set ourselves up for a loss of that freedom. Imperialism is wrong...if that is why we are doing things, we need to stop. I am just not convinced that this is the reason for our actions.

Kitenoa | 1:01 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Who is Brian Birch?

david | 1:04 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I believe that the sooner Americans realize that the terrorists hate us and will take every opportunity to kill us a lot of this meaningless rhetoric will stop. The terrorists will not stop even if we pull our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan to believe otherwise is foolish. They will simply find a different place to fight us...perhaps once again on our own soil. Moreover, if these protestors believe taht they are so loved by the terrorists why don't they travel to Iraq or Afghanistan and see if the terrorists welcome them with open arms as allies. I doubt it!

isaac | 1:16 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Vote Ron Paul for President 2008.
There... I'm done!

Dan Forward | 1:17 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Likely? What data is there to suggest it "likely" that LDS do not speak out against the war because they are just too patriotic? What a load of speculation! Perhaps, just as likely, LDS believe the war in Iraq has been a noble endeavor that has resulted in much good, freeing a captive people from the clutches of an evil tyrant. I thank God we have a president who has been courageous enough to do what he believes is right, despite clamoring, dissenting voices. I am grateful for a military that understands it is a noble cause and honorably seeks to promote peace and democracy in Iraq.

Anthony | 1:20 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

you are probably getting tired of my comments, but now that I am going, I might as well continue. I think we focus too much on why we got into this war...Scholars will be debating that well into the next century (and further) just like they still do the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What we need to focus on is what we are going to do about it now that we are there. We as human beings are very good about the attitude that "you got us into this, now get us out". We are in this whether we like it or not. We now need to make a decision, using the information we have currently, as to our course of action. Unfortunately, as any commander in the military will tell you, you don't always have the information you need when you need to make the decision. We do the best we can and then make sure we are flexible enough to handle the possible outcomes. Let us focus our energy in the present and then debate the "Bush lied to us" concept when we are finished.

Anthony | 1:27 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Kitenoa--Brian Birch is another person who has more time to think about things than to act on them. I don't have a lot of patience with those who sit around and second guess everything someone else does and then pontificate on the inadequacies of them.

Interestingly enough, I am planning on changing careers in the next couple years to becoming a teacher. I don't disdain all teachers, just those who have no grounding in real life. I hope I can take my 20 years of real world experience into the classroom and be able to balance that with a good dose of skepticism and optimism.

Sub-Odeon | 1:46 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I'm with AEP. The civil (and often un-civil) street protests that have surrounded American military actions since 2001 have done *NOTHING* to change events. They have been a self-congratulatory exercise in mutual back-patting by the anti-war movement, and I think most LDS people know it.

The time to make your dissent felt is in the voting both. Chanting and playing drums and parading down the street might make you feel like you're doing something. But the reality is that you're just making a spectacle of yourself for your own selfish pleasure, and unless you're putting your votes where your mouth is, you're accomplishing zero.

Jay | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Earl-
"where in the Book of Mormon does pre-emptive war ever occur?"

It's a common misconception that the Iraq war was "pre-emptive". The first Gulf war never officially ended. Combat stopped with a cease-fire agreement, which Hussein repeatedly violated. Even after the US announced its intention to invade, Hussein was given yet another chance to abide by the terms of the agreement. He chose to defy the UN resolution.

"Where in the Book of Mormon do the righteous armies fight in territory other than their own?"

If the righteous can only fight on their own territory, then I suppose every US war since the War of 1812 has been immoral. The North never should have invaded the South during the Civil War. We should not have sent our soldiers into Europe or Asia in World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam. Other than Vietnam, most people agree on the necessity of fighting those conflicts. By your standard, we shouldn't have defended Kuwait from a power hungry tyrant who was intent on dominating the Middle East. Overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan was also wrong. Nope, we should just wait passively for our enemies to come to us.

Observer | 2:01 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I wonder how many Utah LDS are simply embarrased that they voted for the dangerous clown that now occupies the White House. To publicly stand in opposition would be an admission that they'd been 'had'.

War Required? | 2:25 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I want to laugh at the comments about how sometimes war is "required." I wonder how good Mormons could support such an idea. I wonder when they'll start preaching about how the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were so evil as to not fight in a "required" war. I wonder how often the Nephites called them "traitors" and "unpatriotic."

Page:
1
2
3
Next >

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.