A Plea for Peace
Posted by Tyler on September 28th, 2006Among its many identities, the Book of Mormon is a tragedy given gravity by the millions of spiritual and physical deaths it chronicles. For those who view the main story’s arc over its thousand-year span, it is difficult not be impressed by the pathos and gravitas inherent in Mormon’s closing observations as he watches his people, drunken with rage and deluded by hate, slay each other in a wretched orgy of warfare. Famously, Mormon comments:
“And my soul was rent with anguish, because of the slain of my people, and I cried: O ye fair ones, how could ye have rejected that Jesus, who stood with open arms to receive you! Behold, if ye had not done this, ye would not have fallen. But behold, ye are fallen, and I mourn your loss. Oh ye fair sons and daughters, ye fathers and mothers, ye husbands and wives, ye fair ones, how is it that ye have fallen! But behold, ye are gone, and my sorrows cannot bring your return.”
Surely Mormon’s tears only shadow those of the Lord; surely God also sorrowed as he watched the pitiful decline of the once blessed and delightsome people–how tragic is the destrction of a civilization, and how sad the war that implemented their destruction.
War is always tragic. Occasionally it is justified, but it is always tragic. It is intructive, I believe, to read the words of the Lord to the saints in Missouri through the Prophet Joseph. The Saints, remember, had been treated as outcasts and less than human. They had bourn more than their share of burdens and retribution seemed justified. The Lord, nonetheless, said:
“Therefore, renounce was and proclaim peace, and seek dilligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children….Now, I speak unto you concerning your families–if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek retribution, ye shall be rewarded…And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundredfold.”
Thus, it seems that even those who have suffered at the hands of their enemies are counseled by the Lord to seek peace rather than retribution–certainly, we cannot prostrate ourselves before our enemies waiting to die, but we must enter war only with the greatest trepidation, avoiding it if we can find any other avenue of escape.
Actually, even prostrating ourselves before our enemies is not out of the question; indeed, some of the most heroic and faithful saints in the Book of Mormon did just that:
“Now when the people saw that they were coming against them they went out to meet them, and prostrated themselves before them to the Earth, and began to call on the name of the Lord; and thus they were in this attitude when the Lamanites began to fall upon them, and began to slay them with the sword. And thus without meeting any resistance, they did slay a thousand and five of them; and we know that they are blessed, for they have gone to dwell with God…neither would they turn to the right hand to the left, but…they would lie down and perish, and praised God even in the very act of perishing under the sword.”
Significantly, the effect of this willing martyrdom was the conversion of the Lamanites, not the destruction of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. Peace, it seems, sometimes packs greater persuasive power than war, prayer is more powerful than military might, and kindness more swaying than an advancing army.
Paradoxically, of course, those who gave their lives were the parents of the Book of Mormon’s most famous army: the sons of Helaman. Significantly, these valiant warriors were nevertheless peaceful–even in the act of marching to war, they procalimed their love for peace:
“Father [speaking to Helaman], behold our god is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall; then let us go forth; we would not slay our brethren if they would let us alone.” These young men had no desire to fight, they faced war with with both faith and trepidation–the former in the Savior and the latter of bloodshed. It must ahve been an especial trial of their faith to face the prospect of taking a life after having watched their parents die rather than wield swords.
This thick and complex story teaches us, I believe, that the question of war is a complicated one. War is evil, that much is clear. It is also clear, however, that tangled mortal circumstances sometimes demand military action–Hitler cannot advance unimpeded. Still, I sometimes wonder if we jump too quickly from our pews in suppost of war. Most of us crave peace, I believe, but many of us support war so quickly and sometimes without much thought. I wonder: don’t the scriptures persuade us to enter war only reluctantly, after much thought and prayer? Ought we not seek every other avenue before supporting the atrocities inherent in war? Our commander, after all, is ultimately the Prince of Peace and while He sometimes supports his children in War, must He not weep while does so?
Tyler:
Thanks for posting this! I agree with you about war being evil. Surely God is not pleased with war in any event; and neither should we.
But you’re also right about the paradox we face: we should not seek war, but we cannot allow evil, suppression, and tyranny infiltrate our lives while we stand aside and watch it happen.
Think of the lives that could have been saved if Neville Chamberlain would have done something about Hitler! Everyone knows Chamberlain was a good man with a good heart and good intentions for peace. But his policy of appeasement allowed Hitler to turn Germany into a living hell.
Comment # 1 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006
I was thinking of posting on this very thing.
Well done young man.
Comment # 2 left by Eric Nielson on September 29th, 2006
Since this post is likely to carry on the thread from Wade’s previous post, maybe Wade could state here, in a sentence or two, the “point” of that previous post. After several readings, I am genuinely confused about what his point is/was, and find the “point” of Tyler’s post not only crystal clear but much more in harmony with what I understand to be the message of the gospel.
To the extent the Neville Chamberlain comparison has to do with the current situation in Iraq, the tricky thing, of course, is to identify the Hitlers without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Here it is interesting to note the Bush team has come to the “Islamo-facism” justification for the current war only after at least 3 other justifications (1. Irag’s weapons of mass destruction, 2. Irag’s collaberation in the 9/11 plot, and 3. establishing a “beachhead of democracy” in the middle east) have, for a variety of reasons, fallen by the wayside.
Wade notes, in his second paragraph above, “we cannot allow evil…to infiltrate our lives while we stand aside and watch….” Of course, the “Iraq evil” no more infiltrated our lives that the “evil” currently coming from several other locals. If one assumes that Kim Jung Il (sp?) or Hugo Chavez, for example, are each potential Hitlers then one explanation from Wade’s last post, which I understood to be, “well, we have to start somewhere….” is, putting aside the cost/benefit analysis, OK. Do either of these men (or others that could be named) stand in the position Hitler did when Chamberlain appeased Hitler? Did Saddam Hussein?
Wade then points out that Hitler turned Germany into a living hell. True enough, and there are several living hells on the planet today. Putting aside the cost/benefit analysis, the idea that a U.S.-led war in these places, as opposed to the gospel, will “fix” their problems, or the problems they cause us, is a bit too much, it seems to me.
If I had time this morning I would locate one of the mountain of quotes from modern prophets stating emphaically that it is only through the gospel true peace can be achieved. I assume most readers here would concede the point.
Comment # 3 left by beeshnkj on September 29th, 2006
beeshnkj: well said. I think the issues surrounding the Nazi movements in years past seem so black and white now, but at the time, the issues seemed very complex. Sure, they could have made some sort of pre-emptive strike, but I think the UK had a bad taste in their mouths from WWI. They were trying to support the League of Nations by staying out of conflich, and I don’t think they fully realized the military power and irrationality Hitler possessed.
I think it’s too easy to tell Chamberlain what he should have done. Like you said, hindsight is 20/20. We could have started a big mess if we would have acted to early in other situations (like possibly the Cuban Missile Crisis).
I like the example in the early chapters of the Book of Mormon where Nephi has to figure out whether or not to kill Laban. Its a decision that is very well thought out, based on his own reasoning, his own understanding of the scriptures, and the repeated promptings of the spirit. The decision to kill is indeed a touchy and complex thing.
Nice post, Tyler.
Comment # 4 left by John on September 29th, 2006
maybe Wade could state here, in a sentence or two, the “point†of that previous post. After several readings, I am genuinely confused about what his point is/was, and find the “point†of Tyler’s post not only crystal clear
I just got done apologizing”> for the terrible lack of clarity in my posts and comments. I suppose that same apology should extend to my post about preemptive war too. I’m sorry if my point does not come across! I love writing, but unfortunately I’m not very good at it. I can only wish to have a hundreth-part of the writing talent Tyler has! So, for your sake, I would advise not to expect the same quality of content from my posts–as you have experienced here, it will only let you down.
I will try to state my point in a sentence or two:
I had hoped the title would speak for itself: that Moroni (a righteous and good man) conducted preemptive strikes against both the Amalickiahites, and contrary to Connor’s interpretation, the Lamanites. And the narrative is quite clear about his motive; he did it for PEACE. So, my point is that sometimes peace can only be acheived through proactive eradication of threats to that peace, by means of war.
Interestingly, I never mentioned the war in Iraq! This is something you and Connor have imputed to me and my post. Yet, the purpose of my post was to discuss offensive war, not any particular war (unless the general “war on terrorism” can be defined as one war).
Of course, the “Iraq evil†no more infiltrated our lives that the “evil†currently coming from several other locals.
So what? Tyler’s post is about war and peace in general, and I was responding to that. I’m sorry you think I believe war is always the answer; but I don’t. However, I do believe people like yourself have far too simplistic of a view in terms of our “options.” Your pie in the sky hopes for spreading the gospel to/in sealed countries led by despots as the answer instead of offensive war is just not realistic.
Your economics approach to war is far too abstract and asinine. War is ugly and evil! But according to your model of cost/benefit balancing before a choice is made, offensive war would never occur! During Operation Overlord, we lost over 10,000 men in a single day. The cost in shear lives for the Allies in just one single day makes me sick! And an application of your economic approach to war would clearly have prevented that offensive assault. Moreover, your economics of war would have kept the US out of the European conflict altogether! We had no business fighting there in relation to the immediate “benefits” compared to our “losses”. Yet, that operation was the catalyst for liberating the concentration camps! And your economic approach would have prevented that; just as it would have prevented the liberation of the Kurds and hundreds of thousands under oppression in Iraq.
Do either of these men (or others that could be named) stand in the position Hitler did when Chamberlain appeased Hitler? Did Saddam Hussein?
Ask the Kurds that question! I think you would feel differently if you knew of the manner in which Saddam gassed ethnic minorities and tortured dissidents. Are you aware of the mass graves being unearthed? Were the concentration camps of WWII more worthy of liberation? I don’t think so! And PLEASE don’t use your terrible red herring logic about there being other dictators just as bad as Saddam out there! I know that. But Stalin killed far more people than Hitler and we didn’t go rushing into Russia after D-Day. According to your logic, we were not justified in our offensives against Hitler because Stalin was killing more people at the time. It’s just not good reasoning, sorry.
Now, just because I make the above arguments does NOT mean I love war. I DON’T!
I would locate one of the mountain of quotes from modern prophets stating emphaically that it is only through the gospel true peace can be achieved.
Why do you think I disagree with that? I know that is true. But how is it that the gospel can even exist but for mortal existence and freedom? Unfortunately, these two are prerequisites to the gospel on earth; despotism, tyranny, and war must be put down before they can exist. This requires offensive wars. This is why Moroni did what he did — for PEACE.
Comment # 5 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006
…and contrary to Connor’s interpretation, the Lamanites.
I won’t do a threadjack and try to rebut this.
Interestingly, I never mentioned the war in Iraq! This is something you and Connor have imputed to me and my post.
Yeah, but I think you must admit that your point was intended to draw this correlation. We had had the discussion on other posts and comments, so one can only assume that is why you decided to analyze what Moroni had done. If not, then my assumptions are way off, and I apologize.
Comment # 6 left by Connor Boyack on September 29th, 2006
Connor:
Don’t worry about the logical inference you made concerning my motives and intent for the meaning of my post! Because Iraq is such a big issue right now, it is only logical that one would think my views about preemptive and offensive war would extend to Iraq. However, my point was meant to be made about offensive war in general and the war on terrorism specifically (I don’t know how many people actually clicked on the links I set up in the post, but it’s obvious I drew analogies between Amalickiah and Bin Laden, and the means used by the Amalickiahites and the inciteful hate speech from many Imams around the world).
I just wanted to be sure people don’t think my views on war in general are an exact reflection of my views on the war in Iraq!
As for the threadjack, I just thought I’d throw in a cheap-shot while you weren’t looking.
Comment # 7 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006
Whoa–Wade, let’s take a step back.
I am genuinely sorry you thought my comment criticized your writing style–quite to the contrary I think you write very clearly, and heaven knows without all the typos in Tyler’s piece. Still, I was at a loss to understand your point on this particular occassion. I asked you to summarize your point. You did. I thank you and, in some ways, wish I had reserved comment until reading your explanation.
I admit I thought your explanation that “sometimes peace can only be acheived through proactive eradication of threats to that peace, by means of war” is easy to agree with in the abstract.
I also admit I thought your posts referred to the current world situation, not “proactive warfare for peace” in the abstract [BTW while your original post can be read as "in the abstract only," I don't see how some of your replies to comments on your post can]. Again, I apologize for assuming something you did not intend.
I apologize, as well, if I intimated you think war is “always the answer” or that you “love war.” Never said those things. Don’t believe ‘em.
Now, I hope these are sufficient, genuine apologies to get us back to where we can communicate about ideas and not personalities, personal writing styles, and such.
I read your original post to say you think Moroni’s actions in some way provide a scriptural level of understanding of, if not justification for, our current situation in Iraq. I disagree. I am comfortable with the idea you did not mention Iraq in your post and did not intend for such an interpretation to be made.
I am sorry if my thoughts are asinine, make me a simpleton, or preclude me from understanding all foreign policy options open to our country. And, however “pie in the sky” it may be, I do believe that, eventually, “every knee will bend and every tounge confess” Jesus is the Christ and then we will find peace. Until then, we are left to do the best we can make geopolitical decisions in an imperfect world. Some decisions are very difficult.
I also believe that Jesus said, paraphrasing, who buildeth a tower and first counteth not the cost? Your imputation of conclusions to me concerning WWII are incorrect. Or, better put, it might surprise you to know my idea of cost/benefit analysis would not have prevented the United States from doing anything it did in WWII–not because of the costs, but because of the benefits. Your paragraph on WWII contains thoughts about Iraq. I hope that makes it OK to add to this paragraph–whatever Saddam was or wasn’t, I don’t see how, in terms of the geopolitical consequences of his actions, Saddam can be compared to Hitler. While my heart has ached for the Kurds since I saw photos of the gas-victims in “Time,” it just ain’t so that Hussein was the Hitler of our time.
But, I suppose we’ll just have to agree to disagree about cost counting and Iraq. That’s OK. For the record, and this is about ideas here, not about you, the Stalin and Operation Overlord arguments are “strawmen” plain and simple and, as I said, I disagree with the way you knock them down for me both times.
As we go about moving from the abstract “sometimes proactive warfare for peace” is OK to the real-life “is this one of those instances where warfare for peace is appropriate,” I think we proceed at our peril if we choose not to get the best handle possible on the costs–and the benefits–then to go forward knowing that, in addition to the immediate pain, suffering, and loss of life, our posterity will pay the bill for the money we spend.
By the way, I also agree that freedom of choice is an eternal gospel principle. Can the gospel exist without such freedom? I hope, at least to a certain extent, it can (the Keeper of the Gate will ultimately figure out the niceties here).
P.S. Now that we have sorted out you did not intend your original post to refer to Irag, I would be interested to know how you think the “sometimes war is necessary for peace” principle applies/should have been applied to the events leading up to the current Iraq situation.
Comment # 8 left by beeshnkj on September 29th, 2006
and heaven knows without all the typos in Tyler’s piece.
Ouch. Very ouch. Zing.
That definitely should go into the Hall of Fame. Sorry Tyler.
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on September 29th, 2006
Beeshnkj:
I am a bit at a loss of words because I was expecting quite a lashing in response to my points. But I thank you for the manner in which you disagree (disagree in part at least).
I still think your economic analysis model for war is virtually useless for decision makers in any nation faced with the responsibility to protect. Simply put, it can only work if we lived in a closed system and those employing the model were omniscient. It only works with 20/20 hindsight because both the real costs and benefits of any future action are virtually unknowable. And this is why the economic approach would have kept us out of WWII much longer than we already did resist it.
Also, I’m curious to know why Saddam cannot be compared to Hitler? Is it only because Saddam killed fewer ethnic minorities? Contrary to what some may think, I don’t use the comparison for rhetorical purposes; I really do believe Saddam is just as evil. In connection with this, will you expound on how/why my argument about Stalin and the comparison to taking evil out a bite at a time is a straw man?
And now for the real issue:
I would be interested to know how you think the “sometimes war is necessary for peace†principle applies/should have been applied to the events leading up to the current Iraq situation.
This is a really tough question for me because in general I support offensive war, but I think it should be executed only after the best preparation possible. And on the other hand, I recognize it is impossible to be prepared for the unknown. Let me set out my general thoughts:
1) Contrary to what the left would have everyone think, it is a fact that Bush didn’t lie about WMD. He may have been mistaken, but no deceit going on.
2) Saddam posed a huge threat to Israel (funding numerous suicide bombers and their families); seeking for the ability to fire WMD from Iraq directly into Israel.
3) He funded and supported Al Qaeda, harbored them, and allowed training camps to exist. And he brutally killed ethnic minorities and suppressed the Shi’ite majority for decades.
4) Saddam was warned several times to comply with UN regulations and US demands. He refused to do so. He was then given ample time to change his mind. He never did.
Because of these facts, I was not opposed to an offensive war in Iraq. However, I don’t like the way the war has been executed. The media and politics have prevented the military from finishing the job they started. I suppose this will always be the case from now on. Incidentally, if there were media cameras and news reporters on Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944, to report the events of that day and those that followed, in America there would have been outcries and mass opposition to FDR and Eisenhower’s efforts; efforts that eventually liberated the oppressed.
In addition, world politics are much different and much of America doesn’t believe in US Sovereignty anymore. This prevents us from finishing the job too.
So, in sum I guess I am only opposed to the manner in which the war is being fought and not the concept of the war in general. I hope this answers your question.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006
Tyler slinks into a corner to lick his wounds…
Comment # 11 left by tyler on September 29th, 2006
Wade: Thanks for your forthright answer. This weekend is busy for me, and I hope you will indulge a short response.
First, let me say you relate my thoughts on “cost/benefit” to some form a of “classic economic model.” Maybe you give me too much credit, or maybe we just can’t quite get on the same wave length.
I use cost/benefit in the broadest sense possible to signify sound decision-making taking into account all of what must be given up to approach an effort in light of all we can hope gain from success. It doesn’t only work with 20/20 hindsight–or at least I hope not. I assume a similar model was in place when, after Hussein invaded Kuwait, and Kuwait was retaken, we had to decide what to do. It would have been relatively straightforward to proceed to Baghdad, “finish the job,” and “take out” Hussein. Nobody “wimped out.” Somebody in the decision-making mix suggested that, bad as Saddam was, the region was more stable with him in power than with without him. The (at that time) relatively small cost of “taking care of him” did not outweigh the implications of doing so. I think those people were correct. With 20/20 hindsight, of course, that initial decision has turned out to be very incorrect–unless we account for the possibility that the current effort to “take him out” [I really don't mean that to sound as funny as it will to some readers] was mis-guided and never should have happened.
I appreciate your description of the decision to proceed to war in Iraq as “tough.” I don’t agree that it was “tough,” and the justifications you offer (the benefits, I might call them) do nothing to change my mind.
Whether the Administration did or did not lie about WMD is beside the point for me–there is no room in this day and age, when satellites can read numbers on license plates (almost) to be “mistaken” about something like whether or not the WMDs were present–unless and until he used them to harm neighbors. And technological ability to monitor such things, I believe, likely protects us agaisnt that idea that, “by that time it’s too late.”
Hussein’s funding of Israel-hating terrorists and otherwise seeking to harm Israel put him in the same category with most Arab leaders. The Al Qaeda support falls into a less universal category. Still, the nature of the connection is subject to question. And, I think I understand the “one-bite-at-a-time theory.” But, if we are looking for a justification for the cost we knew we would have to expend on a War in Iraq, these arguments remind me of what Oblio was told, “a point in every direction is the same as no point at all.”
Yes, Hussein repressed minorities and did terrible, terrible things. But, horrible as his actions were, with the exception of the Kuwait incident which I believe was properly handled, they were never extraterritorial. While certainly not the only one, this is one significant reason Hussein cannot be accurately compared to Hitler.
Yes, Hussein blustered and chaffed at UN edicts. So?
Add them all up–the ones you mention and any others that I have heard mentioned–how could they have ever justified the outcome we hoped to achieve? Not just the outcome we see in partial 20/20 hindsight [a country on the brink of civil war, internal separationist movements that have been emboldened, tougher resistance than we maybe should have expected, etc.], but the costs that no thinking person could have overlooked at the outset–tremendous loss of Iraqi and other life, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, destabilization of not just a country but a region [the rise of Iran's influence--potentially much more troublesome than anything Iraq has ever done--and problems there simply cannot be a surprise] and on and on and on.
Bottom line–bad decision, really, really bad decision. From the outset–and not just in hindsight.
I could not agree more with what you allude to, Wade, concerning the compounding of the initial bad decision by prosecuting the war effort understaffed, underequipped, and with grossly unrealistic expectations of what it would take to bring “victory” (whatever that meant before the war–whatever it means now). I respectfully disagree that this is the fault of the media, politics, or lack of commitment, inside the U.S. or otherwise, to U.S. sovereignty. While one or more of these factors may have played some role, they pale in comparission to the lack of planning, lack commitment, and lack of reality check both before and immediately after the campaign began.
Sorry for the quickly prepared response. I need to get to conference. Maybe the Brethren will have something to say that will shed light on the ideas we have exchanged.
And, no need for Tyler to slink anywhere–back to his post, if thoughts of Jesus do no more than slow us down when we consider — war or no war — we will do well.
Comment # 12 left by beeshnkj on September 30th, 2006