Deseret News | Do LDS patriots shun protest?

Reader comments
Do LDS patriots shun protest?

142 comments | Read story

Mormon in a Blue State | 2:56 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

1) Specifically where and when was the "overwhelming" evidence that Bush deliberately lied about his reasons for attacking Iraq presented?

2) If al-Quaida is in Iran, Syria, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, even the U.S., why wasn't it in Iraq prior to our attack?

3) What is the Democrats' plan for troop withdrawal from Iraq?

4) Did you know that pre-war Iraq, Syria, Iran, etc. officially sponsor(ed) terrorists who target Americans?

5) When we pull out of Iraq, how soon before the left wing will demand we also pull out of Afghanistan?

6) If Bush lied, didn't Ted Kennedy, Hillary, Kerry and all of the other leaders who saw the same documents also lie?

7) What iota of evidence exists that our own government planned and carried out the 9-11 attacks?

8) Are you more angry about the Iraq War or the attacks on 9-11 against innocent civilians?

9) When we are again attacked by terrorists, do you have the guts to retaliate, even up to and including the use of nuclear weapons, to teach these animals in the only way they understand?

Lefties, you think for YOURSELVES! Don't let Al Franken, Cindy Sheehan, & liberal media tell you what to think.

Rob | 3:40 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I'm glad that Bush will be gone soon. Unfortunately, not from history. I'm LDS and I strongly oppose war. There is a line between religion and war. This war is not just costing many troopers' lives, but also is wiping off the iraq nation. War these day is pointless and there is always a huge interest behind it.

Chance Waite | 4:18 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Obviously, it was the purpose of the author of the "renounce war" verses in the Book of Mormon to teach that peace is the better way and that the de facto standard of all Latter Day Saints is to avoid the conflict of war, but it is also, and might I say more so taught that there are battles that must be fought and won between good and evil. That is how freedoms are earned and liberties protected. I am sure God would love to have avoided the war in heaven by compromise...if it were possible.

Comments continue below

NV Maestro | 4:28 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

War Required, people often point to the Anti-Nephi-Lehis when trying to say we should not take up arms in defense, but they forget that the situation of those people was different. They had committed horrible acts before becoming converted and forsaking weapons. To return to arms would have led to huge temptations to return to their previous sins, temptations that many of them would not have been able to resist. Comparing them to the soldiers today, or in any time, who have been called on to defend their families and friends from evil dictators and murderous Islamists is comparing apples and oranges.

Personally, I can't understand the hatred many in this nation have for President Bush. He is the elected leader of this country and deserves more respect, whether you agree with him or not.

Earl | 4:36 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Jay, you're playing the word game. Even the strategists in the White House called the Iraq invasion pre-emptive. They used the excuse of WMDs to justify a "pre-emptive" strike, remember? Saddam Hussein was on the verge of attacking somebody, no one knows for sure who, but we had to stop him! Truth is, and was known by many at the time, there were no WMDs there. The sorry excuse of UN sanctions should have no place in our foreign affairs. And you talk of all those other invasions as if they were good things. Some of us would beg to differ. Certainly J. Reuben Clark, Jr. would agree with me concerning World Wars I and II and Korea, and probably Viet Nam if he were still around then. I think I'm in good company.

Andy | 4:41 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Craig,

Regarding your comments about what Bush knows that you don't know, I quote from PPNS pg 437:

``On the other hand, I say, give us the facts, all of them, hiding nothing, and we shall tell you waht to do. As one American citizen, I dare governmentto give us the facts, all the facts, including what kind of war they think the next ware will be, what kind they intend to wage, and how many lives it will cost, including the aged, the infirm, and women and children.
We, the common people, have not been told the facts for years, since long before the last war broke. We are not now being told the facts. We can only surmise. But give us the facts and we will answer. And in our multitude of counsel you will find widsom.'' - (J. Reuben Clark CN-11/22/47)

If Bush knows something we don't know, then he should expose the facts to the people and let them judge for themselves whether or not a given war is justified. Then, and only through the Constitutional mechanism whereby Congress (not the President) declares war, will war be a legitimate option.

Earl | 5:03 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Chance, the verses about renouncing war are in the Doctrine & Covenants. It's not about pacifism, saying that all war should be avoided. It's about engaging in unnecessary conflicts, especially for territorial gain, power or money. It also says we should be ready and willing to defend our wives, families, property and way of life. Iraq has nothing to do with defending anything but so-called American "interests," which is another way of saying our money and power.

Paul T | 5:24 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

This article was great for a laugh! I've rarely seen such obviously unfounded speculation granted serious column space.

If I understand right, his main point is that we Mormons believe, since God had a hand in founding our nation, that U.S. government policy automatically becomes Mormon theology. WHAT?? Rewind eight years and ask a sampling of Utah Mormons what they thought of Clinton administration policies.

This is a classic, if somewhat blatant, example of an academic who can't understand why everyone doesn't hold his opinion, and decides they must be confused. Better yet, they are confused because they are religious! That is definitely the most hilarious way I've been insulted today.

Well, here is a peace-loving Mormon who definitely supports the war, regardless of whether my government continues to. Backed by 17 U.N. resolutions, facing a defiant Hussein who was shooting at our planes as we tried to enforce those resolutions, it was the right choice to invade. Now that we are there, it is the right choice to stay and support the fledgling Iraqi democracy. We have made critical mistakes in the execution of the war, but we most definitely should be fighting it.

Jack | 5:37 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

As a lifelong LDS Republican I knew that going into Iraq (which Al Qaida hated) was going to be the disaster that it has turned out to be. You can't impose Democracy on a bunch of Muslim tribes that don't get along with each other. Republicans need to return to old fashioned conservatism and reject the neocons and their policy fiascos. Vote for Ron Paul!

Paul T | 5:41 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Earl said: "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?"

Answer: How about Alma 50:7-14. Moroni sends his armies to drive the Lamanites out of the east wilderness, and then sends armies and settlers to occupy the land. Moroni was not attacked by the Lamanites in the east wilderness, and apparently no one but Lamanites had ever lived there; Moroni attacked them preemptively. Moroni saw it as part of a larger conflict, which he did not start.

Moroni also threatened the king of the Lamanites that if Moroni's requests weren't granted, he would "come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, and I will come against you, and I will follow you even into your own land." Moroni wouldn't threaten to do something he thought he was categorically prohibited by his God from doing.

HH | 6:02 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Isaac:
Add the book, "Awakening to our Awful Situation" by Jack Monnett. (Available from Nauvoo House in Heber City. Some local bookdealers also have it. Highly recommended!

Luis Miranda | 6:06 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I which Noam Chomsky could come and let people know what is going on with the war. For some reason people think that This, not any other war, but THIS war is required to maintain peace, but people do ignore the fact that OUR NATION is the terrorist nation. We are the ones messing up their homeland, and this is all remnant out of the policies coming out of WW II. I am a mormon, I am not a leftist, neither a democrat, but unfortunately the people of my church don't have the political intellect to understand such.

Judy | 6:14 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

To all that think this war in Iraq is wrong. How would you have dealt with it? Pretend it did't happen. The problem with the war in Iraq is we never put enough boots on the ground. No one really wants war but when you have the media playing devil's advocate for the enemies of freedom you are going to have most of the country(sheeples) that they are listening to this constant drum beat that we are the problem. We need a united people if you are going to win this war. If not heaven have mercy on us. We should support our leaders now with out contention. If you disagree then vote someone else that thinks your way into office.

david c | 6:49 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

The Iraq war was not pre-emptive but a continuation of Operation Desert Storm. Other justifications were not needed, Saddam lost a war of aggression on the people of Kuwait, the world stood up together and drove him back. Rather than be destroyed, Saddam said he would surrender and accepted a long list of conditions which he flaunted for a dozen years.

Watching Ken Burn's movie about the Civil War recently, I was struck that the Democrats' platform in the presidential election of 1864 was appeasement and getting out of the war in the South. How similar to now?

In 2000, I like many during the presidential election, wanted to be more isolationist and not have to be the "police-men" of the world. Events pushed us into Afghanistan and the Iraq war was simply a continuation of Operation Desert Storm and meant to show that we will not appease and that the agreed-to conditions of surrender must be adhered to. What should we have done instead, said, "Sorry, just kidding, as you wish..."???

History | 7:14 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

To David C--Before you go on about the 'appeasement' Democrats in 1864, you should be aware that the parties have completely changed positions in the decades since. The Democrats were still largely the party of Dixie--just as the Republicans are now. The Republicans then were the party of greater enfranchisement--just as the Democrats are now.

I know you've been encouraged by Sean Hannitoad and Rush Limburger to throw around terms like appeasement, but you really should back it up with an intellectual framework of some sort.

Paul | 7:23 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I am LDS and thoroughly oppose the war in Iraq. Our current president led this country into a war that is illegal and based on lies. This and other decisions he has made, have done damage to this nation that will not soon be mended, if at all. It is very hard to hear people make comments about the need to support our troops, and to see all those bumper magnets saying the same, when the best way to support the troops would be to bring them home now, alive. That is to say the ones who still survive. Their numbers grow fewer each day.

Iraq Vet | 7:31 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I've been home from Iraq for two weeks. I left the wire daily, so I've seen the situation first-hand. I am glad to see there are so many who's words imply that they are self-proclaimed experts.

Since hind-sight is always 20/20, what would you have done?

Here's the deal. Bad intelligence got us in the war. Colin Powell even confessed that he researched the intelligence before presenting it to the UN.

Now that we're in, getting out is not that simple.
John McCain is right by saying if we pulled out now, we'd have to go right back in (that would be even more dangerous for US troops because it would give Al Queda and Sadr's militias time to refit and reorganize)

There is no right answer. I'm thankful that Generals Petraus and Odierno are directing new offensives to take care of the bad guys. However, it sure would be nice to have the support of you experts while we fix the problems, instead of your criticism.

The terrorist can't defeat our military. A win for the terrorists is seeing all themselves on CNN while the country bickers. Why do you think they murder and blow people up?

Earl | 8:28 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Paul, do you think your response justifies a preemptive attack on a country that hadn't invaded ours? Iraq had not invaded, we were not driving them out. There's no comparison. And don't start in on 9/11. That's not Iraq. We're not sharing the same borders, we're an ocean and some seas apart. Iraq had not offended us, we had no right to invade a sovereign nation. When any country invades (not just a few hijackers), I have no problem with driving them out.

Earl | 8:40 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I meant that last comment for Paul T. The idea that the Iraq war is a continuation of the Gulf War is laughable. It's grasping at straws for justification. First, you have to believe the Gulf War was justifiable. If you can't accept that, and I don't, then there's also no justification for the Iraq invasion. You and others on here are searching futily for justifications that just don't stand up to reason.

Brent | 8:59 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Did our political leaders follow the divinely inspired U.S. Constitution in going to war with Iraq?

Support for our Troops | 9:28 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Thank you for your thoughts "Iraq Vet". I whole heartedly agree that regardless of the intelligence that got us into Iraq, we are there now, and have a duty to see this to the best outcome.

Constant bickering by our elected officials does nothing to facilitate reconstruction in Iraq, and perhaps draws needed energy and thought away from that goal.

Upon returning to Utah after a significant amount of time in the midwest, I find it disturbing how often people here in Utah use flawed logic and misguided stereotypes against members of the LDS church to "intellectually" support their biases, and stifle true discussion and debate.

Uritaata | 9:42 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

As non US LDS, I joined many other of my faith around the world who believed the IRAK war was/is a mistake. It was not a matter of right or left.It was a matter of common sense. Understanding of the Arab world and of Irak made it obvious(Saddam was contained-no risk of war. He had no ties with Al Qaeda- hunted because perceived as a threat. UN inspectors were concluding he had no WMD). Warning signs of fake proofs--yellow cake, rocket tubes, UN WND inspector reports were all red signals that were discarded to justify an ideology, greed or revenge.

I find interesting that some believe that democracy can be imposed by force. Democracy is well known principle in the arab world but it is not their choice of governement (Do you know of any real democracy in arab world?). More interesting are those who beleive that war can be won-- winning a word that is no longer part of the administation vocabulary.

By the way, I did not protest and joined others in the streets because I was taught in my youth that it is not an appropriate LDS behavior.

Mel | 9:53 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Categorizing a group of people who claim to belong to the same organization as all having the same beliefs is the same as saying all varieties of apples come from the same tree. The LDS people are no different, however, I too am opposed to war, but hello folks, do we not believe that there was a "War" in heaven that got us here. Is not the Bible full of history of wars as well as the Book of Mormon. Does not the Book of Mormon tell numerous stories of people invading others to start war because of what they believed. Do you really think that we can stand by and these other human beings will leave us alone!? The D&C tells us that war will always be apart of our life. Does not the end of the world come about because of a war. GOD BLESS those who have the courage and valor to protect us and this country. Gadianton is not dead, nor will he ever be. Go read Moroni's Title of Liberty.

Oulsham | 10:04 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

One of the beliefs of Mormonism is that the gospel of Jesus Christ will be taught eventually in every country on this earth. The only way the gospel will ever be taught in the Middle East is if the countries there are democracies and open up the right to worship for all citizens regardless of their beliefs.

I am surprised Earl believes Iraq was a pre-emptive attack when Saddam Hussein had ignored UN sanctions over and over again. Congress went along with President Bush and the United Nations resolutions to remove the Iraqi leader. The left in this country has twisted the original reason for the invasion into political points. Equating the conflict with borders in this day and age seems a bit daft. North Korea never set foot in the USA but we had a war with them and still deploy military personnel in South Korea because of it.

If removing a horrible dictator isn't patriotic, in the best interest of the US or those Iraqi citizens who endured Saddam's wrath, then those of the LDS faith need to reassess their values.

Glenn Fuller in Arizona | 10:07 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Excuse me? A NON-MORMON knows all about MORMONS? Sure. What turnip truck does this yahoo think you fall from?

IRAQ. Get the spelling right. UN inspectors were not allowed in IRAQ. There were WMD, and we have 12 million candidates in AMERICA with TB, Leprosy, skin eating ecoli et al BECAUSE THESE INVADERS WITH IMBEDDED TERRORISTS CARRY THEM IN ROUTINELY and no one has access to check their health records. DUH!

There are 68,000 cases of deaths 1/2 murders directly linked to INVADERS while 3,400 MILITARY deaths in IRAQ of U.S. military.

Democracy? We had that in Missouri, MOB RULE. We need a constitutional republic stored and the U.S. Constitution, RULE OF LAW obeyed and that includes insurgents prosecuted and traitors shot DEPORTING ALL OCCUPYING AMERICA ILLEGALLY.

By the way I am a MINUTEMAN and protest the MEXICAN INVASION routinely. I also was VERY VOCAL about going into a foreign war WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR. WHERE ARE YOU WHERE IT COUNTS MOST?

David | 10:12 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

There were no WMDs. The Twin Towers was a professional demolition job by The New World Order. The government entered this war for the oil, the power, the money and for world conquest. The soldiers fighting the war are heroic, but are victims of the powers that be, just as the Iraqi population is. Ron Paul has great ideas on what to do. The LDS Church does not take a more powerful position on the war because the scriptures say that the Lord will protect his Saints as a group in the midst of war and terror. And those who take up the sword will die by the sword. For example, the Chechnyan people wanted to secede from Russia and were willing to engage in war to accomplish their secession, but because of this attitude, there has been much devastation and war and killing and vast depopulation of Chechnya. If the Chechnyans had trusted in God and not been so beligerent, then tens of thousands of people would still be alive.

The LDS church believes in fitting in....in accommodating many hard and difficult situations so that the people can live in peace.

MCJ | 10:19 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

I cannot believe that people actually oppose this war. How quickly we forget that Sadam was shooting at our plans. I believ he really did have weapons of mass destruction ,but we just have not found them yet. It would have been a haven for terroroists.

COME ON AMERICA...WAKE UP..SUPPORT THE WAR AND THE TROOPS.

Iraq Vet | 11:11 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Here's another thing. It's funny that so many LDS people are saying that this war was based on lies...Like I said before....it was based on bad intelligence...Do you all realize how many LDS intel analysts there are in the CIA and other government agencies in D.C.??? I guess you're calling all of those LDS analysts liars. If I were a betting man, I'd bet a nickel that numerous LDS analysts were briefing the president and joint chiefs that WMDs existed.

Yes, there was bad intelligence, but General Tommy Franks, the commander of US forces in Iraq when we first went in, explained in his autobiography that the WMD situation was like a weapon that had been taken apart and its pieces spread all over Iraq....Therefore, if the pieces of the weapon were put back together, Saddam could have produced WMDs. Additionally, just think about chemical weapons...we know Saddam had chemical weapons...we gave them to him in the 80s and he used them against Iran and the Kurds. Where did the rest go? To get rid of ours we built a very expensive incinerator in SLC's backyard...Tooele...There isn't anything like that in Iraq...Chemical weapons don't just go away...Saddam's are somewhere...

Billy | 11:52 p.m. Oct. 7, 2007

Its not about patriotism. At least, that's only part of the formula. The real reason mormons don't protest is the cult of obedience that exists in mormondon.

AZboy | 12:03 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Being from AZ I love perusing the comments. I am always amazed how many "expert opinions" are shared on some of these topics.

Dang, some of you guys should have been the president instead, then the world would have been perfect and PETA would rule the earth.

I cannot even convince my Grandfather (who is not LDS) that Harry Reid is a practicing active Mormon. I think you all have the same chance convincing me that Hilary has a better idea.

Not a Leftist? | 12:05 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Dear Luis Miranda,

I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but anyone who wishes Noam Chomsky could fill us in on anything outside of linguistics is, by definition, a leftist. I mean, you do realize that Chomsky is a self-proclaimed anarchist, right? It just doesn't get any more left of that... You're right about not being a Democrat though...they are much to tame for you!

Brenda | 1:28 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

As a result of freeing the Iraqi people from the bloody tyrant Saddam and introducing democracy to their country we are making it possible to one day teach the gospel there. I believe this is all part of God's plan.

Anonymous | 1:54 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Earl, I was not using Alma 50:7-14 to justify invading Iraq, I was using it to answer your question. If you don't feel Book of Mormon comparisons are meaningful, why did you ask for one?

No past war can, by itself, justify a new war. Each situation requires a new decision, and for those seeking to act justly, a careful and thoughtful one. The Book of Mormon doesn't give easy answers about war; both the ultra-pacifist Anti-Lehi-Nephites and the kill-the-conscientious-objectors Captain Moroni are shown to be righteous role models.

I believe Bush made a good decision. Most of Congress and the country agreed at the time. I believe spreading freedom and securing American interests were the driving forces behind the decision.

The fact that you would call the idea of a connection between the two Gulf wars "laughable" indicates how intractable your opinion is on this. Of course Gulf War II is a continuation of Gulf War I. We were still there, and we were still being shot at.

Without the Iraq war, we'd still have Saddam, mass graves filling up, Oil for Food, No-Fly Zones. We wouldn't have pictures of smiling Iraqis with purple fingers.

Lyle Jackson | 5:01 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

When I read the comments of those who say that demolition experts brought down the twin towers I don't know whether to laugh or cry. There are literally thousands of witnesses who saw the airplanes fly into the towers/pentagon, let alone the millions world-wide who saw it on TV. Are these people who preach conspiracy saying that the thousands of media outlets that carried that footage are all unified in a vast conspiracy to decieve us?
The ones who say we are in Iraq for our own gain or for oil are equally deluded. I see no material gain.

America did not go looking for these monsters they were introduced to them most violently when they cut the throats of flight attendants, hijacked the planes, and killed some 3000 people of all faiths on September 11th.

I have seen their handiwork in Afghanistan in two tours. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are two battles in a greater war.

I am not sure what measures Moroni would have employed if he faced Lamanites with airplanes and possibly nuclear weapons, but I'd bet he would have used all the means at his disposal to defeat them, as we should.

Randy | 7:13 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

My perspective is that of a father who has just returned from sending off his son on his second tour to Iraq as a combat medic. I would like to make the following commments:

1. The yardstick by which I measure a war is whether or not it is worth sending my son.
2. You can support the troops without supporting the war.
3. There are more effective means of opposing the war than protest. Measured, reasoned, one-on-one communications leading to votes is one such way.
4. Elected public officials are not "called of God" they elected by us. We are under obligation to obey and honor the law, but we can work to unseat them within the system and make our voices heard at the ballot box.
5. I believe that the brethren really mean it when they say the Church is politically neutral. There are some things we have to decide for ourselves.

Whether or not I support the war is immaterial to these points.

Spencer | 7:36 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Quotes from the BofM can be used either to justify or to denounce war. A book that is ambiguous like this is worthless as a basis for justification. Everyone should refrain from trying to justify or denounce the war by appeal to scripture.

Aaron | 9:10 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

I have to say, I find this whole string depressing. President Hinckley's primary message was that we should not let political differences justify anger or ill will. And here we are, four and a half years later, completely ignoring that. I myself felt we rushed into Iraq way too quickly, and that scripturally we didn't have much of a chance of being backed up by God (since we are not to be guilty of the first offense). However, Bush is our president, his burden has been great, and I hope for the best for all parties, and do not join in the hatred that has become so fashionable for people to express about his administration.

bad article | 9:35 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

This article is filled with speculation and assumption, srinkled with minor facts. Even the scripture quoted is taken out of context. The insinutations from this article are pathetic at best.

No Protest | 11:04 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

We don't protest, because we know that the President is RIGHT! Why should we protest doing the right thing?

larry | 11:11 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

It is the Mormon may to support our leaders, respect and obey authority figures and not murmur. That is of course unless the leader is a liberal. =)

The tendency of LDS church members to resist protest and be "patriotic" goes far deeper than a reaction to what leaders have said recently from the pulpit. It is woven through the doctrine and practice of following the prophet/GAs.

Punkaman Beck | 11:55 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Each member of the Church as the duty and accountability to use their reasoning and spiritual powers to find the best decision. For me, and most of my large family and my friends, this war is as justified as some of the Book of Mormon conflicts which while hurtful and sad, are essential.

Clifton | 12:23 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

I am LDS, a retired soldier and Viet Nam veteran and Patriot. I like many other LDS people have fought for my country, and believe that Rev. Birch comments to be way over the top concerning the LDS Church. I think he doesn't know as much about this Church as he lets on. On an individual basis, I believe the war in Iraq is justified and to the point that it may defend his right to free speech even if it is misguided. Because of its early history in this country, I can imagine no other established religion that would want peace more than the LDS Church.

Matt | 12:26 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

AS A MEMBER OF THE LDS CHURCH AND A "CONSERVATIVE" I AM ASHAMED OF MY FELLOW CHURCH MEMBERS (AND ANYONE ELSE) WHO FOLLOW BUSH BLINDLY BECAUSE HE HAS AN "R" BY HIS NAME. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS- OUR SCRIPTURES STATE THAT THE US CONSTITUTION WAS INSPIRED AND SHOULD BE UPHELD. HOW CAN WE SUPPORT BUSH WHEN HIS ADMINISTRATION PUSHES A "UNITARY EXECUTIVE" (LOOK IT UP) THAT DESTROYS THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND BREAKS THE LAW ONLY TO GO BACK TO CONGRESS AND ASK THEM TO RUBBER STAMP WHAT HAS BEEN DONE (UNFORTUNATELY, THEY DO IT, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT). AS THE SAYING GOES, WE USE TO ROAR LIKE LIONS FOR FREEDOM NOW WE BLEAT LIKE SHEEP FOR SECURITY. THE BOOK OF MORMON HAS A LOT OF WAR IN IT, NEVER WAS A WAR STARTED PRE-EMPTIVELY BY THOSE SEEKING TO DEFEND THEIR FAMILY, FREEDOMS, AND HOMES (DO NOT CONFUSE BATTLES W/ WARS). "PRE-EMPTIVE" WAR IS IMMORAL. BUSH & CHENEY PLANNED TO GO INTO IRAQ FROM THE BEGINNING AND WOULD USE WHATEVER EXCUSE THEY COULD FIND. BUSH ADMITS IRAQ DID NOT HAVE WMD'S AND THERE WAS NO CONNECTION TO 9/11 (TYPE "BUSH ADMITS" INTO YOUTUBE). DEMOCRATS ARE NO BETTER. WAKEUP!!!!

Thomas | 1:06 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Matt -- Re "unitary executive," to borrow from Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The concept of the "unitary executive" has been stretched, mangled and exaggerated beyond recognition by fear-mongers who type-scream in ALL CAPS. The basic premise of the doctrine is simply that the executive agencies are extensions of the President, and subject to his ultimate authority. It's basically a separation-of-powers issue, in which Congress is limited by its Constitutional scope in how much in can direct the day-to-day operations of executive-branch agencies. (As opposed to creating them, and setting up the basic laws they are to enforce.) It's basically a subject for law professors to haggle about in mind-numbingly dry law review articles footnoted to Hades and back.

To hear the ALL CAPS people talk, it's a claim of dictatorial powers by the All-Highest Mighty Dark Lord of Doom, George W. Bush.

Chill, dude.

Thomas | 2:27 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Astounded --

Re: a "scriptural justification" for "preemptive war," check out the Book of Mormon, in Alma, chapter 46.

Short version: When Amalickiah advocates changing the government to a monarchy, Moroni rallies the supporters of the present system (and of the church), gets them fired up, and organizes them into an army. Amalickiah (who has not yet made any overt act to overthrow the government by force) is terrified and tries to leave the country with his followers.

Moroni is concerned that Amalickiah's faction will join the Lamanites (who have just been defeated in a war) and increase their military power, so he sends an army to bring the dissenters back by force, and compel them to swear a loyalty oath or be killed. (Amalickiah is to be killed regardless.) Amalickiah gets away, and most of the dissenters are sensible enough, when caught by Moroni's army, to swear loyalty, so only a few of them get the ax for being unpatriotic.

Moroni's actions are portrayed as unambiguously positive. How is this not a scriptural defense of preemptive war? American policy regarding Iraq (and Iran) has been downright restrained, in comparison.

Mark B | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

I am amazed that in these dozens of comments, there is almost NO reference to the proceedings of General Conference, concluded less than ONE DAY ago. Clearly, the church leaders aim their message at the individual heart/mind, and any reference to "war" or "peace" is a metaphor for individual happiness or conflict. That's one reason why you won't find many LDS faithful at protests. Another is that some probably consider such events unpatriotic (not me), or somehow illegal in a carryover from the Vietnam era. A 3rd is that the church now has members in over 100 countries, and must send a message appropriate to all of them, not just those embroiled in war. My words available are too few, but I find Thomas' rationalization for preemptive war by use of scripture to be deeply flawed. Nice try, though.

Focused | 3:24 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

This string is an example of America's primary problem today; as a nation we can't stay focused on one issue any longer then a few hours. Pride and contention are killing this country from within faster than any enemy from outside. If you are serious and really want peace and righteous leaders, get on your knees and start praying now. Pray with the same conviction that you added your comments to this string and then pray somemore.

In Spanish | 3:32 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

La Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Ultimos Dias no tiene porque emitir una opiniï¿½n sobre la guerra de Iraq. Podrï¿½a hacerlo sobre la guerra en general, pero no por una guerra especifica.

El presidente Hinckley es el Pte de la Iglesia y esta abarca todo el mundo y no considero que el deba emitir una declaraciï¿½n oficial sobre cada acto, de cada gobierno, de cada paï¿½s.

Los miembros de la Iglesia de cada paï¿½s tienen el derecho de opinar sobre el actuar de sus respectivos gobiernos, cuidadosa y respetuosamente, ya que la mayorï¿½a de las veces la informaciï¿½n no es la suficiente, ni la mï¿½s acertada para emitir un juicio.

Thomas | 4:06 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Mark -- Nothing's stopping you from re-starting the 200-word count with a separate post. "Thus sayeth Mark: Thou Art Flawed" doesn't carry the day.

The point is not whether preemptive war is or isn't justified -- it's whether a particular passage of scripture can be used as support for it. I simply don't see how anyone can honestly deny that the 46th chapter of Alma reports favorably on just such a war. Amalickiah hadn't made war on Moroni; Moroni made war on him specifically to prevent the strategic situation from deteriorating. That's the absolute definition of a preemptive war.

Now, I have my own problems with that passage (and others). My point is that Mormon liberals are going to have to argue their liberalism without invoking the Book of Mormon. It just doesn't support their argument.

Reasonable people can disagree over the justice of the Iraq war. (I believe the "war for oil based on lies" narrative is simplistic to the point of dishonesty, but that's another argument.) That's probably why it's a good idea for churches to leave the argument to the political process where it belongs.

Mike | 4:07 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

I second Randy's comments.

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.