Blogger of Jared

47 Responses to “Moroni’s Preemptive, Imperialist War for Peace”

maybe the prophet mormon praised and glorified moroni in his abridgement in an effort to justify his own war actions.

Comment # 1 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

Narrator:

Whether Mormon did that or not is irrelevant because the Lord authorized its translation for us to have in our day. In other words, God has legitimized and “justified” the actions of both men in this manner.

“Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” (Alma 48:17)

Comment # 2 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

Well said Wade.

Captain Moroni seems to be a troubling example to some, and a hero to others. His was the picture on the front of my missionary cards.

Comment # 3 left by Eric Nielson on September 28th, 2006

I’m a little Tean-cum, short and stout… Here is my javellin, I’ll take you out. -

Comment # 4 left by Okie on September 28th, 2006

Okie:

AWE_SOME!!! I’m stealing it.

Comment # 5 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

I would feel much different about our current war if we, too, had a member of the church spearheading it, truly seeking God’s blessings and direction.

If we truly are in Iraq right now to spread freedom and peace, why are we also not in North Korea? And Darfur? And Palestine? And Iran? And countless other places which are currently experiencing civil unrest?

Amalickiah and his group were dissidents. They were countrymen. They had been living under and enjoying the blessings of peace and prosperity provided under the rule of their government with judges. And then they rebelled.

If we had this situation today, we would be justified in squelching sedition and treason in a like manner. We are not justified in spreading freedom and peace in other lands where we have no authority.

You’ll notice that Moroni didn’t take this pre-emptive war to the Lamanites (citizens of another government). It was to his own countrymen who had committed treason. And when they mixed in with the Lamanites and attacked, then did Moroni fight those of another nation.

Comment # 6 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

You’re Right. I say we start a coup and March against George W. Bush today. He is the devil. A power hungry dictator seeking to destroy the rights of the people if ever there was one.

Comment # 7 left by freedom fighter on September 28th, 2006

Whether Mormon did that or not is irrelevant because the Lord authorized its translation for us to have in our day. In other words, God has legitimized and “justified” the actions of both men in this manner.

“And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.” - Title Page of the BofM

just because god authorized it’s translation (and revisions?) does not mean that god gave his stamp of approval to what was translated.

Comment # 8 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

Narrator:

That’s a good point! So do you think all that space used up (especially in Alma) is just a waste? All that war stuff is just a “fault” of bloodthirsty men who also happened to be prophets? I tend to think not! I understand the “faults” in the BoM to be grammatical, punctuation, and other similar errors; NOT drawn out narratives that teach and exemplify prophetic mistakes.

But hey, I could be wrong on that. Incidentally, if I am wrong, what exact parts of the BoM are trustworthy?

Comment # 9 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

I agree with Wade. The faults in the BoM are directly related to the ability to express themselves fully in the written language they have used. That’s it.

Comment # 10 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

Narrator,

I have always been under the impression that the phrase about faults was more specifically regarding things like spelling, grammatical errors, slight chronological errors, etc. Wade is addressing an entire story complete with important principles. It would hardly qualify as “the most correct book of any on earth” if we could use your quote to summarily dismiss entire concepts. It’s not the “Wiki of Mormon”.

Comment # 11 left by Ryan on September 28th, 2006

And stupid Wade and Connor beat me to it. I hate both of you.

A lot.

Comment # 12 left by Ryan on September 28th, 2006

i think the book of mormon was written so we could learn from their narrative, their successes and their failures. the bofm promises that the wicked wil be destroyed from the land and the the righteous would remain. the bofm is largely the record of a people destroyed.

i think the bofm is far more complex than most are willing to grant it. like the bible the book of mormon was written (and translated) by fallible humans trying to understand their place in the cosmos. the glorification of captain moroni by mormon is just one of these. mormon was a warrior who faught bloody battles and slaughtered thousands of people. who else would he glorify (and name is son after) as he was abridging the texts? i’m not saying that captain moroni was all that evil, but i am saying that his praise in the bofm needs to be seen in light of who is actually doing the praising.

Comment # 13 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

to reprase what i just said to more directly address your criticisms, i am not saying that we should dismiss the faults of men, but learn from them. they were written and preserved so that we can avoid repeating the same mistakes.

Comment # 14 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

I would feel much different about our current war if we, too, had a member of the church spearheading it, truly seeking God’s blessings and direction.

Really? If it just so happened that Bush was a Mormon, you would really feel “much different” about his actions? So do you question his christian religious beliefs? Do you really think he went into Iraq to kill people for fun?

If we truly are in Iraq right now to spread freedom and peace, why are we also not in . . . countless other places which are currently experiencing civil unrest?

This is bad logic! An extension of your thinking seems to say that we should never attempt to fight against evil if we can’t extinguish it all at once. It’s called strategy. The imminent issue is terrorism. I’m sure if N. Korea tests a nuke etc. we would go to war. Whether people like it or not, we are currently fighting WWIII. In WWII we didn’t just go around dropping atom bombs on every opposing country. Indeed, we didn’t even get involved with Japan until they attacked us. You have to take one bite at a time.

You’ll notice that Moroni didn’t take this pre-emptive war to the Lamanites (citizens of another government). It was to his own countrymen who had committed treason.

This doesn’t persuade me. In terms of morality, what difference does it make? Moroni was concerned about liberty. Also, the war was not on home turf; he pursued the enemy in foreign lands — i.e. the “wilderness”. And even if it was directly against his own people on their own turf, the principles of preemption and imperialism remain. If the dissident Nephites had taken over and infiltrated their own governments away from Moroni, how is this different than fighting a foreign war?

Speaking in general terms and morality, Moroni actively established his brand of liberty through preemptive war.

Comment # 15 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

If it just so happened that Bush was a Mormon, you would really feel “much different” about his actions?

Chances are that the war would be much different if a good LDS person were at the head of the country. If a LDS were doing what Bush is doing, then no, I wouldn’t agree.

So do you question his christian religious beliefs?

Yep.

Do you really think he went into Iraq to kill people for fun?

I never said it was for fun.

This is bad logic! An extension of your thinking seems to say that we should never attempt to fight against evil if we can’t extinguish it all at once.

Try using the phrase “I think this is bad logic” rather than making such an assertive statement. I don’t think it’s bad logic, though I do understand your point completely, and agree. My point is that you said we’re fighting this war to spread freedom and peace. There are countless other places we could be doing the same thing. I understand the immediacy of the threat in Iraq, and hence the decision to be there. But I simply wanted to illustrate that that argument isn’t too solid, imho.

Whether people like it or not, we are currently fighting WWIII.

I agree.

Indeed, we didn’t even get involved with Japan until they attacked us.

Ah, no preemption there!

In terms of morality, what difference does it make?

It’s not a question of morality, it’s a question of authority. Who authorized Bush to go out and invade other countries and change their form of government? I understand the logic behind it, but my point is that this is not a moral issue. It’s an issue of who is authorized to do what. Moroni had vested within him certain powers, and was in full control of the Nephite army. He could do whatever he wanted with the traitors. He did not have authority to take his army and attack the Lamanites. And he didn’t.

Also, the war was not on home turf; he pursued the enemy in foreign lands — i.e. the “wilderness”.

Sure, but it makes no mention of him killing foreigners in the processes. Imagine a large group of traitors in America getting a boat to sail to safety in.. err.. Hong Kong. We would be perfectly justified in going after them into the open waters (wilderness) to bring them back or effect judgment. But we wouldn’t be justified in attacking them once they got to Hong Kong, killing innocent people in the process. Would we?

Speaking in general terms and morality, Moroni actively established his brand of liberty through preemptive war.

Yes, on his own people.

Comment # 16 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

“But we wouldn’t be justified in attacking them once they got to Hong Kong, killing innocent people in the process. Would we?”

I think we would. As long as we were killing the innocent to get rid of the guilty. Otherwise, the innocent who protect, ignore, or otherwise are not involved became for me de facto enemy.

Comment # 17 left by Jettboy on September 28th, 2006

And when I say “not involved,” I mean wash their hands as if it isn’t their business that my enemy is on their land.

Comment # 18 left by Jettboy on September 28th, 2006

It’s not a question of morality, it’s a question of authority.

I disagree. If it were a simple question of whether Bush was authorized to send the troops into Iraq, you and the others against the war would have absolutely no argument! Read the Congressional Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq. The reality is that this issue is about morality, i.e. whether preemptive war is right or wrong.

He did not have authority to take his army and attack the Lamanites. And he didn’t.

Are you sure about that? I suggest another reading! (I was going to say: “You’re wrong”, but I refrained from making such an assertive statement.

And it came to pass that Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness [again, this is a war on foreign soil]; yea, and they went forth and drove all the Lamanites who were in the east wilderness into their own lands, which were south of the land of Zarahemla. Thus, Moroni, with his armies . . . did seek to cut off the strength and the power of the Lamanites from off the lands of their possessions [take note of this], that they should have no power upon the lands of their possession. (Alma 50:7, 12)

Yes, on his own people.

You’re mistaken again. See the verses above, and also reread chapters 47 through 50.

Comment # 19 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

In addition, even if the war was only against so-called domestic “traitors”, what gave Moroni the inherent authority to do that, but not (as you seem to think) have the inherent authority to fight foreign enemies?

Also, it seems to me that a domestic, or civil war would require much more authority than would a war against an imminent foreign threat. You seem to be arguing it’s okay for the president to unleash the Army on the state of Utah because he may think their citizens are traitors; but it’s not okay for him to send troops to Iraq to “root out terrorism” there. Strange.

Comment # 20 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

I think we would. As long as we were killing the innocent to get rid of the guilty.

No, that would be invading Hong Kong. If we had their permission, then yes, we would be justified. And good luck only killing the innocents. That doesn’t seem to be working too well in our current affair.

Read the Congressional Resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq.

I don’t care what authority our own government gives Bush. They don’t have the power to allow Bush to invade other countries. Only those countries can do that. If we declare war on the state, then yes, we invade. But we haven’t done that. We’re occupying other countries without the government’s consent, and without formally declaring war.

And Wade, your use of Alma 50 only serves to illustrate my previous comment, when I said:

You’ll notice that Moroni didn’t take this pre-emptive war to the Lamanites (citizens of another government). It was to his own countrymen who had committed treason. And when they mixed in with the Lamanites and attacked, then did Moroni fight those of another nation.

Chapter 48 (which you seemed to skip over!) shows Amalickiah inciting the Lamanites against the Nephites, stirring them up into battle. In chapter 49, the Lamanites invade. In chapter 48 what did Moroni and his people do? Prepare. They didn’t attack another nation, they prepared and waited. And then when the Lamanites invaded, yes, they fought back, as you point out.

In addition, even if the war was only against so-called domestic “traitors”, what gave Moroni the inherent authority to do that, but not (as you seem to think) have the inherent authority to fight foreign enemies?

In my mind, this is not an “in addition” item. This is the crux of your post. What gave Moroni the power to execute and force a covenant of peace upon his own people? Just as our executive has the power to quell sedition, so did Moroni:

Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. (Alma 46:34)

He had power over his own people, not a foreign power.

You seem to be arguing it’s okay for the president to unleash the Army on the state of Utah because he may think their citizens are traitors; but it’s not okay for him to send troops to Iraq to “root out terrorism” there. Strange.

Unleash the army on the state? No. Unleash the army on a collective group of citizens seeking to thwart their own government and abuse power? Of course.

Comment # 21 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

I don’t care what authority our own government gives Bush. They don’t have the power to allow Bush to invade other countries.

Why not? Who or what says? And are you trying to say the President has absolutely no authority as Commander in Chief to engage the military until and unless Congress “declares” (whatever that means) war, or a foreign country begs us to attack them? This is certainly an interesting view, but I think it is neither viable nor legitimate.

Connor, do you also think the war in Afghanistan was/is illegitimate too? And what about the Korean War (under Eisenhower), the Vietnam War (under Kennedy and others), Desert Storm, and the innumerable covert ops conducted by the military since the beginning of the Nation that have protected your freedom?

In chapter 48 what did Moroni and his people do? Prepare. They didn’t attack another nation, they prepared and waited. And then when the Lamanites invaded, yes, they fought back, as you point out.

This is not completely accurate. I will concede the point that the Nephites were quote-un-quote “attacked.” But you seem to have “skipped over” chapter 49 ;). The Lamanites attempted an attack on Ammonihah, but:

[T]he Lamanites could not cast their stones and their arrows at them . . . . [T]he Lamanites, or the Amalickiahites, were exceedingly astonished at [the Nephites’] manner of preparation for war. And behold, [Amalickiah’s] chief captains durst not attack the Nephites at the city of Ammonihah . . . they could not come upon them. Therefore they retreated into the wilderness. (Alma 49:4, 9, 11, 12)

After their failed attempt at an attack, the Amalickiahites tried to attack the land of Noah. Technically, they did “contend” with the Nephites there (See 49:21), but:

Now behold, the Lamanites could not get into their forts of security . . . . [T]he Nephites had all power over their enemies . . . [and] there was not a single soul of the Nephites which was slain. And it came to pass, that when the Lamanites saw that their chief captains were all slain they fled into the wilderness . . . . (49:23, 25)

This was the extent of any “attack” on Moroni’s people. Clearly this attack did not justify (according to what appear to be your notions of just war) the Nephites then going on the offensive MONTHS LATER! Come on, they weren’t even legitimately threatened. They couldn’t be touched due to the awesome preparations of Moroni. Yet, a year later, Moroni calls his troops into action:

And it came to pass that Moroni caused that his armies should go forth into the east wilderness; yea, and they went forth . . . . (Alma 50:7)

And regardless, my point remains. We interpret the events of Chapter 46 differently for the purposes of the point I was trying to make in this post. It doesn’t matter in my mind whether or not the Amalickiahites were originally Nephites. That point is moot because they had separated themselves from the Nephites and “departed into the land of Nephi” (Lamanite territory) (46:29) As such, they were no longer an impending and imminent threat to the people of Moroni! But this didn’t stop Moroni from waging a preemptive, offensive war on foreign soil! He DID NOT wait until they attacked from foreign lands, he went into those lands and killed them. He then brought back many of them and went around and made sure all the domestic cities were cleansed of dissenters.

Unleash the army on the state? No. Unleash the army on a collective group of citizens seeking to thwart their own government and abuse power? Of course.

Your imagined “bright line” deliniation between “groups of citizens” and “states” is interesting. The reason Moroni had to kill people (or threaten them with death) is because it was the political forces that had become corrupt–i.e. the states/cities. (See 46:4)

Comment # 22 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

“Then with that enmity I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies … and tyrants who destroy, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!”

Which country has raped the world of it “gold and silver” (natural resources). Which country is the only superpower with bases in almost every country in the world? Who is the tyrant running this show? Who is reigning with blood and horror on the earth?

Have a good day, may your blood-thirst be quenched.

Comment # 23 left by ed42 on September 28th, 2006

ED:

Who is reigning with blood and horror on the earth?

Your view is far too simple. To illustrate:

Now Jericho was straitly shut up because of the children of Israel: none went out, and none came in. And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valour. And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once. Thus shalt thou do six days. And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. (JOSHUA 6:1-3, 21)

Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (SAMUEL 15:2-3)

And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy their cities. And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed them and their cities: and he called the name of the place Hormah. (NUMBERS 21:2-3)

Now, ask yourself that question again. War is eternal my friend! I don’t like it. In fact, I hate it! But that does not mean I will stand by and pretend like ignoring it will make it go away. No sir, passivism only makes things worse! Just ask the Europeans who lived through WWII–particularly the British who were subject to the policies of Neville Chamberlain!

Have a good day, and may your passivism and appeasement-minded view be quenched!

Comment # 24 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

Have a good day, and may your passivism and appeasement-minded view be quenched!

Wade:

So the Israelites killed innocent people, stole their property, inhabited their lands, and blamed it on God.

People do all sorts of evil things in the name of God. The more popular you are the more you get away with it. That doesn’t make it right.

But then again, maybe all that peace stuff that Jesus was promoting was a bunch of bologna.

Let’s see. Passivism and appeasement-minded view? or a war-mongering, women and children slaughtering view? Which should be quenched. Hmmmm. I’ll pick the latter.

Comment # 25 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

Narrator:

I guess you missed my point again; no surprise! I said I hate war. I don’t like it one bit. Unfortunately, it is often necessary. Also, try reading those references again; only now I’ve highlighted the parts you need to read closer this time. The Lord commanded the slaughter.

But then again, I already know we have polar opposite views of the meaning of scripture. I’m sorry you think I’m a “war-monger”; it’s only because you don’t understand my stance. But it is probably mostly my fault that I am misunderstood. I realize much of my writing isn’t very clear.

All:

Please know I am not a war-monger or one who revels in bloodshed!

Comment # 26 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

And are you trying to say the President has absolutely no authority as Commander in Chief to engage the military until and unless Congress “declares” (whatever that means) war

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8

The Congress shall have Power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Connor, do you also think the war in Afghanistan was/is illegitimate too? And what about the Korean War (under Eisenhower), the Vietnam War (under Kennedy and others), Desert Storm, and the innumerable covert ops conducted by the military since the beginning of the Nation that have protected your freedom?

War is to be waged against a nation state. Notice how you said war in Afghanistan, not against. The world is full of sovereign states - what gives us the right to invade another country for our own military purposes? If we work in coalition with that country, that’s one thing. But going in of our own free will, and to the behest of the current government, seems a bit outloandish.

And “protecting my freedom” struck a chord with me that will have to wait for another time and post. The fearmongering tactics used by the government, using the excuse of “protecting us”, have grown absurd. But I digress…

And regardless, my point remains.

As does mine.

We interpret the events of Chapter 46 differently…

That’s not a first.

It doesn’t matter in my mind whether or not the Amalickiahites were originally Nephites.

I find it interesting that this does not matter to you. I think this is a night-and-day distinction to clarify who Moroni was attacking and why.

That point is moot because they had separated themselves from the Nephites and “departed into the land of Nephi” (Lamanite territory) (46:29)

Land of Nephi is pretty vague, and does not necessarily indicate that it was a specific Lamanite city they invaded. As you mentioned originally in your post, they entered the wilderness, where they “headed” them. (46:32).

The reason Moroni had to kill people (or threaten them with death) is because it was the political forces that had become corrupt–i.e. the states/cities.

Right, so in answer to your original question about Bush “unleash[ing] the Army on the state of Utah because he may think their citizens are traitors” would only be valid, along your point of view here, if Governor Huntsman were trying to rebel and lead all of Utah on a quest against their government.

Comment # 27 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

War is to be waged against a nation state.

Classic. I like how you can define what war is and isn’t “to be”.

As for our other disagreements, we will have to part ways and agree to disagree. Moroni was clearly acting in a preemptory and aggressive manner to provide peace for his people.

The fearmongering tactics used by the government, using the excuse of “protecting us”, have grown absurd.

Yeah, well your willingness to disregard reality and forget about an unprecedented attack on the U.S. only five years ago is absurd to me. I wait with baited breath for Bush to leave office and Clinton to take over! I predict a huge shift in the way people think about what is “absurd” in regard to protection.

And finally, as you know, our views of the meaning of the Constitution are polar opposites too. Regardless, I always enjoy our discussions. It’s interesting for me to hear other people’s views; especially when we believe in many of the same fundamental things! Thanks for the healthy engagement!

Comment # 28 left by Wade on September 28th, 2006

I like how you can define what war is and isn’t “to be”.

I didn’t. Here’s Oxford to back me up: “a state of conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.”

Moroni was clearly acting in a preemptory and aggressive manner to provide peace for his people.

Indeed he was… by executing and fighting his own people.

Regardless, I always enjoy our discussions.

As do I, my friend… as do I.

Comment # 29 left by Connor Boyack on September 28th, 2006

Wade:

i don’t doubt that you hate war. perhaps ‘war-mongering’ was a little harsh. because i feel that war is rarely (if ever) justified and that the slaughter of innocent people is never justified, i see anyone who advocates or tries to justify an unjust war as ‘necessary’ is a war-mongerer. to choose and advocate a war when alternative peaceful approaches are still available is war-mongering in my eyes. i just think we need to question when someone says that god made them do an evil thing. even, and especially, when it comes from within our own faith tradition.

Comment # 30 left by the narrator on September 28th, 2006

Narrator:

I see where you’re coming from. But I still have issues with what you say about people saying God made them do evil things. Yet, this is probably substance for another post.

i just think we need to question when someone says that god made them do an evil thing.

Like when Nephi said God told him to cut off Laban’s head? I’m sure there was an easier way to get the brass plates don’t you think? Well, the issue is more complicated than we would like to think. And this is why no one has addressed my point about Neville Chamberlain.

Comment # 31 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006

Connor:

Ah, but you are only choosing a definition that supports your view and don’t acknowledge the well known fact that words often have more than one general and accepted meaning. Try this one from Merriam-Webster:

War: a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism; a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.

War is not so easily defined as you would have us believe. The threat no longer comes only from nation-states; but from groups within those nation-states and often the political leaders encourage and harbor the threat with impunity. What are we to do? What do you think Moroni would have done if Ammonihah was brutally attacked by such people posing a similar threat? Do you think he would have turned a blind-eye to it and ignored the foreign groups; or do you think he would have “marched into the wilderness”?

Comment # 32 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006

Like when Nephi said God told him to cut off Laban’s head? I’m sure there was an easier way to get the brass plates don’t you think?

I’m not saying, nor do i think, we should just reject what seems to be a conflict. i am just saying that we should question things to find a greater understanding of what is, or may, be going on.

i think you’re post raises some interesting issues that should be evaluated. i think connor also raised some good responses that also deserve consideration.

i just also think that we need to take greater consideration of the motives lying behind these actions and the rehearsing of these actions. god didn’t write the book of mormon. men wrote their understandings of god’s interactions with them. god didn’t write joshua and samuel. these are much later transcriptions of oral traditions specifically crafted by later scribes to provide a narrative of the israelites’ religious and political lives.

Comment # 33 left by the narrator on September 29th, 2006

i just also think that we need to take greater consideration of the motives lying behind these actions and the rehearsing of these actions.

Comments like this are why I like you, even though I usually disagree with you. You’re right, introspection and thoughtful consideration are lost arts in our time. Thanks for your contributions here.

Comment # 34 left by Wade on September 29th, 2006

All-
Outstanding comments on a topic so near and dear to me. I thank you all for your input on this subject. It is good to hear such ‘introspection and thoughtful consideration’ put into the subject matter. Please impress these thoughts onto your neighbors, both member and non-member alike. It is through discussions such as these, that good desicions for our nation get made and good leader for our country get elected.

“Chances are that the war would be much different if a good LDS person were at the head of the country.” –Connor

You may be right, but I believe Bush has been elected for reason at this time (God, his hand is in everything). He is doing a fine job with the hand he has been delt. We will never know what life would be like had we NOT ‘invaded’ Iraq. When 9/11 occurred, the toothpaste was squeezed out of the tube–we are not getting it back in. Life in the US was changed forever as we once knew it. The decision to invade any country can never be based on a 100% solution, nor can any decision for that matter. I think Bush’s decision to NOT allow the 9/11 tragety to happen agian has been a good one; ” A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week”–Patton. Moroni violently exectued his plan and we enjoy the Promised Land and restored gospel as a result. However, I do agree with Wade’s quote, “I hate [war]”. And first hand, I will tell you, war is ugly. In addtion, many peace loving Iraqi’s have welcomed American forces since Desert Storm and enjoy their secruities today because of that action. And, contrary to what is in the media today, I believe America enjoys greater security because of that action too. Bush has also set a religious precedence that has been forgotten and tainted in the American presidency. In my opinion, that precedence will pave a new road to an LDS leader, whether it be in my lifetime or not. We cannot “stand by and pretend like ignoring [terrorism] will make it go away”.

“People do things in the name of God.”–Narrator

Terrorist included! Everything terrorists stand for is twisted into the deeply rooted religious belief of the Iraqi people. Again, action must was taken by the US and has continued this action, taking the fight into the ‘east wilderness’.

“The slaughter of innocent people is never justified.”–Narrator

I and the US military couldn’t agree more, however, innocent people often get in the way of the war machine. Again, war is ugly. I am not a war-mongor, but I am also not willing to allow infringment on my freedoms as an American. And if you have traveled via air in the last 5 years, you can see your freedoms have been infriged upon. Are you willing to allow those freedoms to be widdled away? Moroni was not about to let his people be taken little by little. We reap those blessings still today.

“I am saying we should question things to find a greater understanding of what is, or may, be going on.”–Narrator

I agree! But we will never have the 100% solution. We must act on what we know at that moment with the 60% solution. The enemy, much like Satan, is always changing his tactics. The longer we wait and create our plan, the more the enemy changes and thus our plan will have to change.

Thanks again to everyone who commented…

Comment # 35 left by shane on September 30th, 2006

Narrator said:
i just think we need to question when someone says that god made them do an evil thing. even, and especially, when it comes from within our own faith tradition

Response:
Your earlier support for this possition was from the Old Testiment, where you concluded that Israel was wrong to annihilate entire cities of men, women, children, and possesions. Your thinking seems to be that they did not really have the inspiration of God to back them up, but falsely thought they did and ended up recording it in scripture, which is not really endorsed by God but is instead a record of feeble man who tried to understand God as best as they could.

I don’t agree with this at all. There is ample evidence in the Old Testiment that Israel was reluctant to follow through with these commands, but God Himself accompanied His commands with miraculous manifestations that this was indeed His will.

God reserves the right to remove us from the Second Estate at any time and for any purpose and in any way. Whatever His purposes or methods of accomplishing this are by definition righteous because He is righteous.

Why did He declare “war” on Noah’s generation? Because they were fighting against Him and had corrupted the whole earth. He needed to clean the slate. Why did he command Israel to wipe out certain groups without first attempting to negotiate peace, and then with others to indeed negotiate peace and allow them to live in Israel if they would obey the Law? Because He could see that some groups would only cause trouble if allowed to live on, and others would work out.

Introspection is good, but faith is good too. It is right to wonder why God would command such things, but if your conclusion is that He would not, then this is inherently a conclusion that the Old Testiment and any other example where God endorsed or commanded war is not really scripture but is just “struggling man” attempting to understand God.

So the parts of scripture that make sense on first read, and don’t have miracles, they’re ok. But the parts that are difficult to reconcile or have supernatural occurances, they simply can’t be right?

Comment # 36 left by Mike Brown on October 1st, 2006

The magic of Moroni was that he could see through the mists and discern what constituted a threat or an attack before the more traditional interpretation of “when 10,000 bad guys invade and kill our people, then we’ve been attacked and can fight back”.

What is an attack? What is war? To Moroni, he understood the ambitions of Amalikia and knew that this man had “declared war” on freedom lovers even in the early days before he had left the nation and begun securing weapons. He was right to attempt to take this man and his followers out early when their intent to destroy freedom was discernable. Later, before any formal attacks, but when he was “rallying the Lamanites against the Nephites”, this was also an attack that would materialize, and nothing wrong with treating pre-cancerous simptoms before you’ve got a big problem.

Moroni knew that Amalikia had “declared war” on his nation even while the majority were still arguing about how threatening this guy really was. Moroni knew that once war was declared upon the Nephites by one man with a lot of followers, he was justified in every strategem, offensive or defensive, to take out that man and his followers, or cause them to take an oath to live in peace.

And of President Bush?

Shane said: We will never know what life would be like had we NOT ‘invaded’ Iraq.

But we will never have the 100% solution. We must act on what we know at that moment with the 60% solution.

Amen. Bush believed that the status quo in the Middle East was unacceptable precisely because there are so many who are “rallying the Lamanites” against us and Israel. That is a state of war even if they haven’t yet attacked. In Nephite days, you had to carry sharp steel to your enemy and run it through them at arms length. Today, you can simply tell lies about the “nuclear energy” you’re producing in you back yard, and then consume your energy in our yard all of the sudden.

Did Bush have a 100% solution? Obviously not, but neither did anyone else at the time. No one knows all the answers to hard problems, but sometimes you just have to jump in where it looks the best, and figure out what to do as it unfolds. Is he directed by God? I think so. He is not LDS, but it is not necessary. He is a faithful Christian prayerfully seeking to act in the world as God would have him do. That is enough, and God certainly will respect that and answer his prayers. Unless, of course, we as a nation are no longer worthy of God’s assistance and are now left to fight without His aid.

If that’s the case, then prepare for disaster in America of all sorts - not just terrorist attack.

Comment # 37 left by Mike Brown on October 1st, 2006

Mike-
It is good hear someone else feels Bush is called of God even though he is not LDS. If you had the time to read my firt post “The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilence” I mention this in there. Christopher Columbus, not LDS; Founding Fathers, not LDS. Witnesses to the BOM, not LDS. History is full of good men, making hard, unpopular decision for the greater good, who are not LDS. In fact some are not even christian. The greater purpose (good), God’s plan, will move forward, whether LDS are the chosen leaders or not. Every person on this earth came from the same Heavenly Family having our memories of that place erased. Now each of us, LDS or not, have come to this earth at this particular time to fulfill some part of that plan. God’s plan will continue to move forward and He will use whoever fits the bill at that particular time.

You also said, “Unless we as a nation are no longer worthy of God’s assistance…”.

I can’t recall the scripture reference off the top of my head, and I am sure a more scrutpure savvy member will, but unless we take care of this Promise Land, it will be taken away from us and given to some who can. And right now we are protecting our country by maintaining posts throughout the world.

Semper Fidelis

Comment # 38 left by shane on October 1st, 2006

You’re Right. I say we start a coup and March against George W. Bush today. He is the devil. A power hungry dictator seeking to destroy the rights of the people if ever there was one.

Have we who have taken upon us the name of Christ slipped unknowingly into patterns of slander, evil speaking, and bitter stereotyping? Have personal or partisan or business or religious differences been translated into a kind of demonizing of those of different views? Do we pause to understand the seemingly different positions of others and seek, where possible, common ground?

…

It is far too easy sometimes to fall into a spirit of mockery and cynicism in dealing with those of contrary views. We demoralize or demean so as to bring others or their ideas in contempt. It is a primary tool of those who occupy the large and spacious building that Father Lehi saw in vision. Jude, the brother of Christ, warned that “there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.”

Closely related to mockery is a spirit of cynicism. Cynics are disposed to find and to catch at fault. Implicitly or explicitly, they display a sneering disbelief in sincerity and rectitude. Isaiah spoke of those who “watch for iniquity” and “make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.” In this regard, the Lord has counseled in latter days that we “cease to find fault one with another” and “above all things, clothe [ourselves] with the bond of charity, as with a mantle, which is the bond of perfectness and peace.”

President George Albert Smith observed, “There is nothing in the world more deleterious or harmful to the human family than hatred, prejudice, suspicion, and the attitude that some people have toward their fellows, of unkindness.” In matters of politics, he warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” Speaking of the great mission of the latter-day kingdom, he counseled: “This is not a militant church to which we belong. This is a church that holds out peace to the world. It is not our duty to go into the world and find fault with others, neither to criticize men because they do not understand. But it is our privilege, in kindness and love, to go among them and divide with them the truth that the Lord has revealed in this latter day.”

Elder Robert S. Wood
Of the Seventy

Comment # 39 left by Dustin Davis on October 5th, 2006

Dustin,

When I heard Elder Wood say that, I immediately thought of the bloggernacle. His talk actually served as the text for a lesson I gave in an Elder’s Quorum a few monts ago.� It’s a great talk.� Thanks for bringing it up in this context.

Comment # 40 left by Wade on October 5th, 2006

[quote]It is good hear someone else feels Bush is called of God even though he is not LDS…History is full of good men…who are not LDS.[/quote]

You’re right that history is full of good men that are not LDS… and if you didn’t already know, Christopher Columbus, George Washington, and many Founding Fathers are now LDS. (Wilford Woodruff was baptized for many of them after they VISITED him in the St. George Temple).

Instead of only claiming that W Bush is definitely not called of God, I will give you some reasons why I know he is not called of God:

D&C 98:5-7
(5) And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. (6) Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; (7) And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

First, W Bush has done numerous things, as President, that are unconstitutional and that take our freedoms, rights and privileges, and are thus EVIL, according to God. Here are just a small portion of those: No Child Left Behind, PATRIOT Act, Security & Prosperity Partnership, CAFTA… (there are many more).

Second, when W Bush took his oath of office as President of the United States of America, he made an oath to God and the people saying: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Since W Bush has done many unconstitutional things he has completely broken his job description, his oath - this is not to be treated lightly. Remember, his OATH is that, as President, he will do nothing other than that which the Constitution states he can do - he has overstepped his bounds

Comment # 41 left by Brian on October 18th, 2006

Wake up people, these wars aren’t about defending our freedom. They’re about expanding Imperialism. 9/11 was an inside job. Look at the facts surrounding the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 event was a tool of the secret combination in our government to implement the police state which was being planned for us. The Patriot Act was already written up and ready to go before 9/11/01. The invasion of Afghanistan was also planned well before 9/11/01. And no, Bush is certainly NOT a Christian. He’s a member of the Skull and Bones society, a Secret Combination. Search the facts for yourself. Turn off the Television and do some real research.

Comment # 42 left by Sam on December 26th, 2006

Look at the facts . . . .

Yes, please do; it’s time for Doctor Sam to have a dose of his own prescription.

Comment # 43 left by Gadfly on December 27th, 2006

Oh, sorry Gadfly, obviously my “prescription” is too strong for you. I must have hit a nerve.

Comment # 44 left by Sam on December 28th, 2006

Nice non sequitur!

Comment # 45 left by Gadfly on December 30th, 2006

OK Gadfly, let’s get back to the discussion.

For those of you who think Bush is such a good guy, read what he thinks about the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

Comment # 46 left by Sam on December 30th, 2006

Nice, citations to double hearsay are always really persuasive. It is extremely irresponsible to attribute that statement to Bush. But again, it doesn’t seem to me that you have taken the time to read through this thread; I’m pretty sure the post was not intended to be pro-bush, but rather a display of scriptural support for preemptive war.

As for Bush, I suggest taking a bit more care in what you read and believe. Even if there was a shred of authenticity to that statement, the leftist press that fills this country (e.g. New York Times, Left Angeles Times etc.) would have a field day with it; unfortunately for you, they haven’t and you are repeating propaganda you have been duped into believing, hook-line-and sinker.

You may want to read something of value to give you a little background about the Constitution and the founder’s view of it being merely paper too: try Federalist # 73.

Comment # 47 left by Gadfly on December 31st, 2006

Post a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail