I am deeply confused about the war in Iraq. Was it right or wrong for us to invade there? Is making war there moral or immoral? Should I support the Bush policies in Iraq or oppose them? I have been an outspoken opponent of the war since before the invasion. I opposed the Gulf War in 1991. I am an anti-war conservative. Politically I am right of the Republican mainstream. All my life I have been anti-communist, opposed to the growth of federal power, admired our Founding Fathers, considered our Constitution sacred as originally written, strongly agreed with the Religious Right on social issues, and believed in a strong military for national defense. During the 1960s I joined the US Marine Corps, and I was a strong supporter of the war in Vietnam because I naively thought it was a war for freedom against communist totalitarianism. I believe in war when it is fought for the right reasons. My twenty-one year old son wants to make a career in the Marines, and I think it is a wonderful idea. I am no peacenik. But I am deeply troubled by the war in Iraq.
My confusion stems from disagreements I have had with close friends whose judgment I trust, people that I love like family. Like me they are deeply religious Mormons. They believe in and receive personal revelation from God by the power of the Holy Ghost just as I do. They love, admire and follow the living prophets just as I do. They understand and strongly believe the Book of Mormon just as I do. Yet we are divided on the Iraq War. They believe that we are fighting there for freedom and democracy, for a just cause, and I believe our invasion and occupation of Iraq is highly immoral because President Bush hasn’t told us the truth about the real reasons for the war, and he is being manipulated by people who do not have our nation’s best interests at heart. To make matters even more confusing, these friends quote my greatest hero, Gordon B. Hinckley, to justify their position. Yet when I read President Hinckley’s remarks, all I can see is justification for my own position. Or, to be more exact, President Hinckley seems to support both sides of the issue equally. This just adds to my confusion.
So this morning I went in search of President Hinckley’s words of counsel hoping that I could resolve the issue. Have I been wrong about this war? I have been wrong before. Could I be wrong this time? Fortunately, I learned that President Hinckley addressed this exact issue in his main talk to General Conference in April of 2003. Unfortunately, after studying the talk, I am just as confused as I was before. In his talk War and Peace he says:
And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.
He seems to be saying that the war with Iraq is actually part of the war against terrorism, something that I have not believed but am willing to consider. He also says he hopes the war is now drawing to a conclusion. But that was back in April of 2003. Today we know that the war was not drawing to a conclusion.
Elsewhere he says:
War, of course, is not new. The weapons change. The ability to kill and destroy is constantly refined. But there has been conflict throughout the ages over essentially the same issues.The book of Revelation speaks briefly of what must have been a terrible conflict for the minds and loyalties of God’s children. The account is worth repeating:
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Revelation 12:7-9).
Isaiah speaks further concerning that great conflict (see Isaiah 14:1-20). Modern revelation gives additional light (see D&C 76:25-29), as does the book of Moses (see Moses 4:1-4), which tells of Satan’s plan to destroy the agency of man.
Here he seems to be saying that the current war is part of the eternal struggle between freedom and slavery. If I believed that, then I would be a strong supporter of the war.
But then he goes on to say:
We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure.The great English essayist Thomas Carlyle once ironically shared the observation, God must needs laugh outright, could such a thing be, to see his wondrous mannikins here below (quoted in Sartor Resartus [1836], 182). I think our Father in Heaven must have wept as He has looked down upon His children through the centuries as they have squandered their divine birthright in ruthlessly destroying one another.
Here he seems to suggest the possibility that Bush and his neocon advisers are engaged in empire building, not spreading freedom, something that I have firmly believed. But if President Hinckley says it is not so, then I will reconsider.
He continues:
In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.
I suppose he must be talking about Saddam Hussein here, but why does he use the subjunctive case when he says “Such is adjudged to be the case presently?” Does he think this, or is it merely “adjudged” by others? No one denies that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator. But is that the real reason we attacked him? He was only one of many oppressive dictators, many of which our nation has set up and sustains. And was he really a threat to the world? President Hinckley doesn’t reveal his opinion here. I don’t believe Hussein was a threat to the United States or the world. If my understanding of the world is correct, Saudi Arabia is a much greater threat to the world, and so is China and North Korea. What about India and Pakistan? They both already have nuclear weapons, and they are constantly on the brink of war.
But then he confuses me further by saying:
But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace.” (D&C 98:16)In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally.
Great. Fine. The Lord says in the Doctrine and Covenants that we must “renounce war and proclaim peace,” and the President of the Church affirms this in General Conference. I guess I’m on the right track by opposing the war.
But then he finally tips his hand. He adds a caveat in which he reveals how he really feels about the situation:
However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.
Then he goes on to liken the current situation to the conflict between the Nephites and the Lamanites. He points out that there were times when the Nephites were not only justified in “fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church,” (Alma 43:45) but they are actually commanded by God to “Defend your families even unto bloodshed.” (Alma 43:47) Apparently, President Hinckley feels that this is such a situation.
He goes even further than that:
It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matthew 10:34).
He even goes so far as to add:
It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.
What am I to do? My personal opinion is different from the personal opinion of the Prophet? He seems to have bought into the propaganda that Bush honestly wants to establish “democracy” in Iraq, and is not waging war for empire as I have believed. From my point of view, President Hinckley seems to be deceived. But how can I be sure that I am not the one being deceived? If President Hinckley is right, then I have to discount the teachings of President Benson who thought that a modern Gadianton Robber band had gained power over both our national political parties and reigned in Washington, D.C. Was President Benson deceived? I do know that he is a dead prophet, and he himself taught that following a living prophet is more important than following a dead one.
And why did President Hinckley make the case so well for both sides? Why did he stress that he was only voicing his “personal” feelings and “personal” loyalties in the “present situation?” I would hate to have a personal opinion that was different from the personal opinion of the Lord’s Prophet unless I had a really good reason. After all, the Lord has testified to me by the power of the Holy Ghost that Gordon B. Hinckley is His Man here on earth. Maybe I have been wrong about this. Maybe I’m right, but the Lord wants me to support the war anyway. Could that possibly be? If I am right, then President Bush and the neocons who manipulate him are trying to set up a corporate, fascist dictatorship here in the USA. And they seek to ultimately extend that dictatorship to include the whole earth even if they have to start a global, nuclear war to do it. If I’m right, and if they succeed, then perhaps I am endangering my life and my family by agitating against this war. Could that be? Maybe that is why the Lord wants me to follow the prophet even though he is wrong about the Iraq war being a struggle between freedom and slavery.
Can all of you see how confused I am? I feel like I’m groping in the dark. I guess I’ll have to ask the Lord and see what he thinks. I hope that he will bless me with the wisdom to sort this out.
August 23, 2005 at 2:50 pm |
John, I can appreciate your cognitive dissonance. Is it possible that phrases such as “my personal feelings,” “my personal loyalties,” and “it may even be” indicate that not even President Hinckley himself is sure enough of the issue to make objective claims?
August 23, 2005 at 4:32 pm |
John, long time no communicate. Being an Australian and therefore by nature cynical to most things US, I am not sure that the US motivation for going into Iraq sits comfortably with me, but the fact that they removed a tyrant and provided freedom does.
August 23, 2005 at 5:29 pm |
Adam! I’m so pleased to hear from you! I’ve wondered how you were doing over the years. Yes, I’m glad that Saddam Hussein is out of power, and I hope you are right about the “freedom” that our mainstream media keeps claiming is coming about in Iraq. But I don’t trust the mainstream media to always paint a true picture. I’ve heard from other sources that we are just setting up another dictatorship over there. Only this time there will be a dictatorship supported by the appearances of democratic process. Remember, they had elections in the former Soviet Union too. And they were hardly free. Mexico has elections too, but look how desperate people are to get out of Mexico. Apparently there is something wrong with their “freedom.”
Like I said in my post. I am really confused by all of this.
August 23, 2005 at 8:26 pm |
I remember when I heard that address in general conference thinking that, unlike the great majority of President Hinckley’s communications, it wasn’t very coherent.
August 24, 2005 at 6:10 am |
I’ve given Bush much benefit of the doubt. It is disconcerting to me to see more and more criticisms of the war coming true. (No WMD, downgrading expectations for democracy, becoming a real training ground for terrorists.)
I remember Pres. Hinckley’s talk. I interpreted it as Pres. Hinckley’s best judgment on the matter, not any kind of pronouncement of the ultimate right or wrongness of the war. Last I heard, he is not invited to intelligence briefings, nor has he claimed a briefing from on high.
Re: Pres. Benson believing a secret combination conspiracy—I don’t know much about exactly what Pres. Benson believed or when he said such things, I do know that a number of his fellow quorum members, including Joseph Fielding Smith, Hugh B. Brown, and Harold B. Lee did not share his worries. Apparently one of the reasons he was sent on a mission to Europe was to try get him to cool off a little bit, politically.
August 25, 2005 at 8:23 am |
John,
It looks like your confusion stems from the fact that you don’t want to disagree with the Prophet, but you can’t figure out what the Prophet’s position really is.
Have you ever thought that maybe the lesson to be learned is that thwe Lord wants you to think for yourself? Maybe the Lord wants you to develop your own reasoning and not rely so much on the Prophet?
I can’t imagine that the Lord wants us to rely on the Prophet for our position on every issue.
August 25, 2005 at 12:48 pm |
I do “think for myself.” I’ve been a strong opponent of the US military involvement in the Middle East since before the first Iraq war in 1991. I don’t believe that Bush is honest when he says he wants to spread “freedom and democracy” in the world by the use of military force. He is part of group of advisers that have other, less noble, designs.
But normally, my personal opinions and those of the prophets are the same. And I have long taken much comfort from that. This is a case where our opinions differ. And that means that in this area I need to examine more closely my own views to make sure they are right. Sometimes I make mistakes too.
I have prayed about this asking the Lord to clear up my confusion, and so far he has not revealed anything on the matter. Until he does, I just assume he wants me to make up my own mind.
For the time being, I have decided to continue in my belief that the invasion was unwarranted and immoral, and that President Bush is not being honest about his reasons for wanting war with Iraq. However, just in case I am wrong, I have decided to be less proactive in pressing my anti-war views on others. Because my personal opinion is not the same as the personal opinion of the Prophet, I’m not as sure of my view as I formerly was.
August 25, 2005 at 5:54 pm |
From memory, President Hinckley was espousing some principles that it is our duty to help all people be free. The other important thing to think about is long term, having a western influence in the area may help education and potentially allow a secular government as Turkey has. The Gospel has to go there sometime before all is said and done.
I also subscribe to the theory that blessed are the peacemakers but sometimes peace is found only on the other side of a war.
John, how can I get your e-mail?
August 25, 2005 at 5:59 pm |
Write to me at jredelfs at gmail dot com.
August 25, 2005 at 10:22 pm |
Nice post John. How very heterodox of you!
August 26, 2005 at 7:23 am |
John,
I wasn’t saying that you weren’t thinking for yourself. But it sounds like thinking for yourself might be causing you some pshycological pain.
Basically, it sounds you are disturbed because your opinion differs from the Prophet’s. And that bothers you because you equate the Prophet’s opinon with the Lord’s opinion. For understandable reasons you want to be on the Lord’s side.
I have no opinion on whether this is a righteous war or not. But I think its clear that the Lord tolerates dissent in many areas. And this looks like one of those areas.
From what I gather, there is a great deal of dissention within the Twelve on this issue. So its understandable that there would be dissention within the membership as well. Maybe this illistrates that the Lord does not reveal His will on many issues and perhaps most issues we confront. He may not want us to ask him about everything. Maybe this is one He wants us to figure out for ourselves.
August 26, 2005 at 4:17 pm |
I struggle with this too. I’d like “the final answer.” But I think that in the cautionary stance, we’re being counseled to seek out the truth on our own. It would be quite radical for President Hinckley to speak against other religious leaders that in other areas, he is doing great works with. Here’s my take.
The religious right gained a tremendous amount of forward momentum through great PR rhetoric during the 2004 campaign and later, to drum up support for the war. Like Greek Sophists worked to twist and turn words to support their causes by veiling the truth and decieving, the religious right has hijacked the bible to support their cause. It is hard for the common believing man/woman to refute the bible – so the rhetoric was easy to follow. Mormons however, should not fall into this trap because the very people that want us to vote on moral issues are the very people that will not acknowledge Mormons as Christians in the end.
Some of the great right wing media sources include, Billy Graham and son, the 700 club, CBN, Sunday morning televangelist church services, Christian talk radio and Fox/CNN right wing anchors with their own shows. In reality, they are pushing the rhetoric of the Reconstructionists – a small, but radical group that wants to see America as a theocratic state based on OT biblical law – eye for an eye; death by stoning for immoral indescretions; reversal of women’s rights; and so much more. Sort of a Christian form of Islamic sharia law.
When we remember the war in heaven, we must remember that Lucifer’s plan was to sort of keep us all in boxes so we couldn’t make “bad” choices. We’d all return to heaven. Well, the current government/Repulicans, appear to be making up those little boxes for us. Micro-management of common sense things. Laws redefining our privacy and so on. Everytime we support a religious right driven cause, we are taking away our agency. It is time that we act as Eve did, and take a bite of the apple (commit a sin by voting for liberals that do not push moral causes). In doing so, we could begin to push down the liberal right and save our right to freedom of religion and so much more. Hopefully the Repulican party will split between the radical right and the moderate right so we do not have to commit a transgression that goes against morality guidelines set by the Prophet/Church.
Some reading you may want to do to form your personal opinion would be from Rushdooney, Gary North, the 700 Club, Chalcedon and others. Much of it will sound like it jives with what we as LDS stand for regarding morality.
Pat Robertson is a Reconstructionist. His recent call for the assassination of Chavez reflects his determination to see the US wipe out non-Christians. BTW – LDS are not considered Christian – they are viewed as a cult by Evangelical Christians. Here is a reference to that from the 700 club:
http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/churchandministry/evangelism/understanding_cults.asp
Here are some links for more info on what it would be like to live in the US should the right continue to grow toward a Christian state:
http://www.tylwythteg.com/enemies/reconstruct2.html
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
http://www.chalcedon.edu/
Um…sleep well tonight?
August 26, 2005 at 4:32 pm |
Here is the link to the 700 Club view on LDS (I broke it up so it would all come through):
http://www.cbn.com/
spirituallife/churchandministry/
evangelism/understanding_cults.asp
I think that ALL Christians need to seriously take a look at the long-term implications for voting on laws that dictate moral issues. As strength in laws gain, so will the Reconstructionist movement. It’s time to consider if we (as individuals) want to be a part of “their” plan to build Zion – a Christian state – America, here on earth. For the LDS, that answer should be a loud NO. Afterall, under “their” laws, as a cult member, we would be vulnerable to their wrath – being buried in the sand to our necks, and stoned to death.
As for removing a tyrant – we don’t need American’s waging Christian Jihad. But as a Reconstructionist – that is a thought that is in their realm of thinking…
March 31, 2006 at 12:36 pm |
John,
I really apppreciate what you are saying when you say you are confused about the prophet’s opinion on the war in Iraq. The feelings you have expressed are my feelings exactly! I have given this topic a great deal of thought and much prayer also. I have not recieved any revelation about wether I am right to appose the war or not. I really do believe the Lord sometimes wants us to come to our own conclusions about things. In the case of this war and what the neocons are doing, I dont think we can really say for sure if they are lying or not. I fully believe they are scamming America, but I have no way to prove it or to be 100 % certain. Our articles of faith state that we believe in being subject to kings, presidents and so on. I think this is why Pres Hinckley, after saying all those other things about the war that agreed with our antiwar view stated his support for the government. His statement about empires of the past is telling though. He knows full well that most of what happens in politics is designed to advance an agenda on the part of the powers that be, not to advance some lofty ideal like freedom.
The other thing to keep in mind here is that Prse. Hinckley doesnt have the liberty to really speak candidly about what he might believe is really going on. All earthly governments are controlled by the God of this earth (satan). Pres. Hinckley knows this, but he is wise to not yank on the tail of the beast and draw the ire of the federal government onto the church by opposing them publicly in general conference. The church has worked hard to gain some good will with the government over the years. They wont ruin all that by openly saying Bush is a liar and working to establish the new world order and that Mormons should oppose him. I think if you could speak behind closed doors with him he would probably be quite a bit more clear and would agree with your position. He might also say that in the end we need to support our government. I agree with this notion, but I am having a hard time doing that myself. I cant support something I believe to be evil!
To add to the confusion, Elder Nelson stated one year ealier that LDS are to be peace makers and that war was not a righteous means to settle disputes and so on. Go read the october conference address of his and see for yourself. He sides completely with your antiwar view.
The real problem here is that Mormons are having a tough time seperating support for true principles with thier support for leaders they admire that dont uphold true and righteous principles. They think that because Bush is a republican and states a belief in God, that he can’t possibly be an evil man. I’ll bet eveything I own that if
Bill Clinton started this war then, the latter day saints would line up to oppose the war.
Over time all of this will become more clear to all of us. Remember, the slothful servant needs to be commanded in all things. You are to be commended for pondering this and taking action without being told what to think or do. You are on the right track!
Love ya brother!
April 24, 2006 at 5:08 am |
Here is another point of view from a Swede. It seems to me obvious that you all are confused in this matter, like you are walking around the hot spot not daring touching it. I live in a socialdemocratic country close to Socialism and Communism. I have experienced how our government for National Security reasons have lied about many important issues. For example the Estonia Catastrophe 1994. but it is a different climat in USA and especially for Mormons who generally with all their heart believe in the religious leaders and in a smaller amount in their worldly leaders. But prophets in the past have warned us for to blindly depend and trust on our leaders, we need to think for ourselves. How else could we one day manage to be Gods ruling over our own universe? maybe we even then need to ask some former leaders for advice? if that would be the case we can not become Gods. In fact to keep it short its quite easy the whole matter. First and all our prophet is a guideliner in religious matters, not political. And the church stands out for a religous belief, not a political. Satan is the ruler over this world, and he has kingdoms and he have appointed his angels to rule over these kingdoms. As we can see in Daniel 10:13,20. An angel fought against the spiritual dark angel leader over the persian kingdom and in history in the real world the same battle appeared between Greek and Persian empire. Correct me if i am wrong, but you see the point. There is even now a war in heaven, and on earth. And what is heaven in hebreew language? it is the sky.. the universe.. And arent we fighting against dark angels in the sky, and arent Satan the prince of the sky? We suppose Satan is living here, helpless with all his angels. Read the Book of Henoch and the Book of Giants. Angels has visited the earth in the past, builded great monuments and inspired humans to do the same. What is seraphim and Cherubs? Why was it thunder, lightning, smoke on the mountain of Sinai when God visited Moses. Because God and his angels have chariots, high advanced, What we call spaceships. That was what Hesekiel saw. And the dark angels have command center probably in our solarsystem and on earth and some of them have also scientific ecuipments. Why would an angel from Heaven have a sword? Why did the jews on the time of Christ believe that millions of angels would help them fight the war against the roman empire? Because God uses technology as well as his priesthood and mental powers. As it is on earth it is in heaven abraham said. but much more glorified. And do you believe Satan was cast out of heaven without a fight? Did you believe he was fighting with words? My point is… to be short… Bush is lying, it is a secret government in USA, WTC 2001 was an inside job. A World government, world dictator, world bank, world army, world computer will appear and be stronger. Antichrist will sit on the throne in the themple in Jerusalem after it has been built. Israel will gain more power. So will sion and Satan. The world will fight against Israel and Sion. Why? because Antichrist will appear sheltered by the christians in the jewish religion. the jews are waiting for their messiah but he will be the antichrist. Holocaust was false, jewish freemasonry is strong. Wether Hinckley knows all this or not i cant tell. But i hope he has a strategy to cope with the facts about the world. If he is a true prophet wich i believe there can be two options. Either he know and act there after as he does now. Or God doesnt want him to know. The church in the last days could be more complicated than we can comprehend. The 3 nephis is here, John the beloved is here somewhere. we have several living prophets on earth but only 1 with the keys for the church as a president and revelator. The scriptures from the ten tribes will come. A new David and Elias will appear. A prophet will fall like a lightning like Ussia in the bible did when he tried to save the Arch. Well.. i think i have to end here. If anyone wants to discuss these matters with me you are welcome to email me on Truthwalker@hotmail.com
The truth shall make you free.
April 24, 2006 at 6:50 am |
and at last… will the seed of satan returns in the last days? Giants and Angels.
or did they ever exist?
http://www.hissheep.org/hebrew/giants_and_evil_spirits.html
June 28, 2006 at 3:16 am |
Dear Friends:
John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban, was close to politics in America as usual. His father Frank Lindh is an attorney for Pacific Gas and Electric Inc, the company which the Erin Brockovich case showed had poisoned water wells in Hinckley, California. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s bailout, not for the $333 million settlement in the Brockovich case, but as a result of its part in the Enron induced California energy crisis was in the multi-billions. Governor Gray Davis tried to give P G & E a blank check. Frank Lindh had been a Reagan staffer before that. Would you know if Hinckley, California is related in ANY way to John Hinckley who shot president Reagan since his father was CEO of Vanderbilt Energy, a company with its own ties to the Bush political machine and since John had gone to Texas Texas and seems to have signifcant ties to families in Houston? Would you know if the founder of Hinckley, California is in any way related to Gordon Hinckley? Is the Walker name in John Walker Lindh a family name from the Walkers in the Bush family?
Walker Freeman
October 15, 2007 at 1:15 am |
We are the church, but there is also the Church. The Church is a 501c3 corporate sole. It cannot legally speak out against the government, or it will lose its non-profit state favors. Now do you understand the talk?
October 26, 2007 at 3:40 am |
What we need to do is learn from history. WW2 Some members of the church were Nazis, did the church stand forth and command the members of that nation not to fight. People ned to know the church stays neutral for one reason only! Satan has massive sway in governments all over the world. If the church takes a stand satan will command that government to do the opposite! But i am against all war and the God i serve is a God of love and peace. God is not in this war or else ot wold of been over a long time ago. I too have had disagreements with all my family members on this war with Irac. Im English and i know that the constitution is there for the people. The government and President is there to serve the people not the other way around. You tell the congressman to send there sons on the frontline of Irac and Bushes daughters they would Not send them because of one childish famous saying. “We know something you dont know!” May the Lord reveal to us what is what but for now we must study it out in our minds until then stay NEUTRAL. ( Just on that point why are the angels of heaven not swooping down to help us destroy the wicked or why did they not help the son of God on the cross, because there is a time and a season to fight back but for now we turn the other cheek!)
January 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm |
Dear John,
i will like to say that the Book Of Mormon is centered in Teachings (prophecies) of the infiltration of a secret combination by a secret society with secret oaths and covenants that wiped out the entire nephite people.
The jaredites were also destroyed because of the secret combination….
God has consecrated the Land Of America and pronounced it to be a choice Land above all other Lands and if you read the book of Ether the decreed of the lord ( that this land he would have only the righteous to inhabit the land and that would worship him) .
But when the people have turned away from GOD and broken the covenant , when they are ripped in iniquity he would have them wiped out and replaced (this decree stands
for always).
April 23, 2008 at 7:42 pm |
John – I know this seems like a difficult question to answer. The media has been no help at all – just an echo chamber for the BushHouse. Now let me be very clear as to why we never should have gone to Iraq in the first place:
There was NO congressional declaration of war to invade Iraq. This first point is the most important because it means our president, his advisor’s, and congress failed to uphold their oath of office when they swore to obey the US Constitution. It is clearly stated in the constitution that we will not go to war unless the congress officially declares war. Since this did not take place before invading Iraq, it makes this war illegal and unconstitutional.
The second most important thing is that Bush & Company deceived everyone by lying about the ties of al queda to Iraq. Fine go into Afghanistan and get bin laden…however dragging Saddam and WMD’s into the equation was about as dubious a reason as they come. But because the media played this song n dance over and over and over and over…telling us Saddam might have a WMD…oh look out Mr. Hussein might lob a WMD our way. Seeing as how Russia had 30,000 some odd nuclear warheads and never once shot one our way, how come we’re all of the sudden concerned with poor Iraq?
Anyway the point is Bush & Company along with the MSM repeated over and over and over: “Sadam has WMD’s and he is bent on using them against us or giving to the TERRORISTS to use against us”.
You know the saying “A lie told often enough becomes truth”
Well the same thing happens here to most regular folks. They figure the TV news anchors can’t be lying…I Mean how could they? Is it not their job to be reporting facts? So a great deal of the American public just accepts what they hear about terrortists, bombs, saddam etc and they go along with it long enough for Bush & Company to start an illegal war. Years later most Americans now have come to see this war in Iraq and this “War on Terror” is stupid and wrong. Too bad congress didn’t stop the president when they could. We could have saved a couple trillion dollars oh and maybe 4000 American lives….and a hundred thousand Iraqi lives.
So you can see right here this is not a question you need to even ask the Prophet or even God. Prophets have told us to obey the law of the land…and when Bushy and Congress decide to circumvent the law…well you see where I’m going….they BROKE the law therefore…
This war is ILLEGAL & UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
My 20 cents on Pres. Hinckley:
He had to walk a fine line as the president of the church. He can not outright endorse a political party or it could risk the church’s status as a non profit organization. It would also alienate possible investigators of the church who could be turned off by a political affiliation seen in the church. Pres. Hinckley knew better than to mix church and politics. He was a very good public relations president and worked very hard for many years to improve the image of the church. Why jeopardize it by making political affiliations?
So you see this isn’t really all that hard of question when you look at the absolute basic principles. When the president broke his oath of office by disobeying the constitution, and congress let it happen, the war was already illegal. There is no need to even involve President Hinckley on this point.
May 25, 2008 at 7:08 am |
I too have wondered.
I keep wondering to myself, “If he really is a prophet of God, why he he not screaming against these atrocities? He knows this war was preemptive. Why did Christ put the guards ear back on and heal him? What did he say after he healed him?
I’m disgusted in my government and am quickly losing faith in the concept of a “Latter Day Prophet”.
Somebody help me.
July 2, 2008 at 2:02 pm |
Just found you on the internet today. Perhaps the conflict is between personal knowledge and reason versus belief in church leaders as inspired of God. LDS people feel very uncomfortable when their is cognitive disssonance. When we compare early church teachings with present teachings and their is some conflict. A good recent example is the DNA evidence of “lamanites” vs american indians. A change to the Book of Mormon was necessary to right science with religion and few LDS recognize the significance of this. If you don’t think about it or talk about it, the disssonance can fade into the background though. Sometimes it seems we need to turn a blind eye in order to keep faith whole.
Does anyone out their know about the statement signed by Pres Hinckley on September 20, 2001. Jon Huntsman flew him out to Washington, DC for a sort of ecumenial meeting with top national religious leaders with Pres Bush. Has anyone seen the statement or maybe have a copy? It was written by a catholic ArchBishop from I believe New York. Pres Hinckley said it was a splendid statement and would have no problem signing it. Since that time the ArchBishop was forced to resign his position for his cover up of sex scandal. I just hope Pres Hinckley was not conned by this man to sign something that might have over committed himself or the Church.
The Mark Hoffman historical documents scandal a few years ago made alot of people wonder how inspired leadership could buy forgeries with sacred church funds.
If anyone knows anything about the document Pres Hinckley signed please email me at:
eyereading@networld.com
July 11, 2008 at 3:05 am |
Imagine a cop who comes accross a man believed to have been involved in a recent home invasion and murder where a gun was used. the cop asks to see the mans hands but the man refuses saying he doen’t have a gun and hurriedly buries one hand into his jacket liner. Is he reaching for a gun? or his ID? the cop believes his life to be in danger and shoots. the mans hand is empty. Did he make the right choice? Suicide by cop.
This is the game Iraq played. They had WMDs up until the UN inspectors left in 1997, but refused to account for what happened to them. Claiming we don’t have WMDs but no you can’t come look.
500 tons of weapon grade urianium was found in Iraq but the media refused to report this. A mile long convoy of military trucks left Iraq heading into pakistan the night before the US invasion. What where they carrying? Bush and every member of congress except barack obama voted for the use of deadly force did they make the right decision?
In the process the US freed a people from ages of murder and tyranny. We took no land, no oil, and took great care, many times at great personal risk, to protect the innocent civilian population. Our troops are the greatest heroes to ever live!
The Liberal media will do anything to mislead the american people to accomplish their goals.
Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and
designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last
days, I have warned you, and forewarn you….
July 11, 2008 at 3:28 am |
Degrading our leaders decisions and making us feel ashamed of ourselves and our countryu is only a part
The same battle that was fought in our pre- mortal lives is being fought and played out again here on earth. Through a political front evil is being called good and good is being called evil. There are those that would convince us that we are wrong and that we should turn over control and responsibility to them so they can force us through government regulation to do good. This theology was so convincing that in the presence of God a third of the hosts of heaven rebeled.
They would have us believe science and secular knowledge can explain everything therefor the wisdom of god is outdated and irrevalant. They would say God is something man just made up to force their morals on you, Let us tell you whats right and wrong.
They would also have us believe the family structure is outdated and irrevalant. They teach mothers that competing for a wage is how they should measure sucess and they teach men to follow carnal desires and then call them oafs and boffoons. They teach that govenment knows best and should substitute for the failing family.
August 18, 2008 at 1:31 pm |
John, this is a genuine double-bind here. I think the war talk confuses the issue with opinions so I’ll focus on the spiritual questions you raise. Here is a thought that may help solve the conundrum if it still exists. Joseph Smith said on one occasion in relation to a completely different topic that the true course is straight down the middle (paraphrased). He also taught that God walks a razors edge never deviating to right or left but continuing His course in one eternal round. I think Pres. Hinckley did the same thing in this talk as best he could given his audience’s tendancy to fly off the handle at the mention of certain ideas, personal or otherwise. Other thoughts continued…
The Lord uses the wicked to fight against the wicked. He did with Enoch in the cause of Zion. D&C 45: 68 states “And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.” People among the wicked will flee to Zion? That sounds like a good day for the Church of God! And also Moses 7: 20 “And it came to pass that Enoch talked with the Lord; and he said unto the Lord: Surely Zion shall dwell in safety forever. But the Lord said unto Enoch: Zion have I blessed, but the residue of the people have I cursed.” Zion was so righteous the Lord fought their battles for them. Literally! (Just as He wanted to do for the Israelites who were too wicked to accept His Kingship over them and proved themselves faithless and unsteady time and time again, so they fought by their own hand with the assistance from Him they would accept. Think Aaronic priesthood directed warefare of Joshua vs. Melchizedek priesthood directed warfare of Enoch) Rivers turned out of their course, armies turned on themselves instead of continuing their march on Mount Zion, famine stunted the ability to further the war machine efforts. And other miraculous but natural seeming events kept Zion safe. God suffered the people’s wickedness for decade upon decade even after Zion was taken from the earth until there was no option left but to send in the Great Deluge and start over with Noah’s family. The same pattern of safety in the midst of a war torn world will continue to be the case in the latter-days if we live up to it.
The Lamanites fought against the Nephites and God utilized it for a very specific reason which he tells Nephi (1 Ne. 2: 24) “And if it so be that they [Nephi's posterity] rebel against me, they [Laman and Lemuel's posterity] shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in the ways of remembrance.” And indeed the Nephites had peace when they lived the Gospel of Christ and only fought when they were sliding or well into wickedness. Just as we Americans are doing today… Pres. Hinckley references the wars in the book of Alma which to me was significant and prophetic. The wars in Alma all started with dissenters from the true faith combined with secret conspiracies to gain power and control (Who financed the Nazi’s, how are the Arab princes financed?). Moroni, a hero to many if not all who read the Book of Mormon, was great because he waged war in defense always and relented in great mercy at even the slightest hint that his enemy might be inclined to stop fighting. Does America fight with such morality and principles governing the strategy and tactics from top to bottom? Sadly no. Moroni fought against Kingmen (which are definitely here in America and most other nations for that matter) that sowed corruption from the inside and made illegal pacts with the Lamanites to overthrow the governance of judges (Are their internal factions trying to re-write the constitution by interpretation?). Is the Lord allowing the wicked in high places to send a mixture of wicked and some few righteous persons who have oglibated themselves to fight against the wicked to bring about His purposes? I think so.
I re-read the talk of Pres. Hinckley’s and I find he left unsaid significant things that suggest to my mind an understanding of the issues at hand with Iraq, Afganistan, and terror in general. But whether or not Pres. Hinckley understood and knew the fullness of what was and is going on, doesn’t matter a bit. My trust is in God and he knows ALL. I also trust that if He wants His prophets to know something, He’ll tell them! And if He wants us to know something, they’ll tell us! Or He’ll tell us directly, as it is expedient, for our families salvation! Joseph Smith reaffirmed that God does nothing unless it is revealed to His servants (meaning the prophets ancient and modern) first. And I believe it.
Shawn York: Trust in God and refrain from judging so quickly. You and I know so little it would be folly of the worst kind to think we know more than Him or even His prophets to judge them. Surely God in His wisdom has His hand firmly at the helm. Prophets are mortal men. They are still in a probabtionary state as we are, to be tried and to learn as all mankind must. They are on the watchtower at His discretion. Have mercy and pray for them and for your own soul’s sake don’t criticize them lest you fall into apostacy and loose everything that really matters here and hereafter!
September 29, 2008 at 6:46 pm |
I just stumbled upon your blog and must tell you I enjoy it. You are thorough and honest. I especially appreciated your musings over the war in Iraq. I am an avid student and teacher of History, scriptural accounts included. Early on I too was very confused about the war and the president. I had to take it to the Lord. I asked a simple question with faith and a consuming desire to know: “Is President Bush a man I can trust?” My answer was a resounding “Yes”. I have trusted his judgement ever since that time. That doesn’t mean I believe he is infallible, far from it. But there is a big difference between a man who intends to deceive and a man who honestly makes mistakes. That may seem too simple for some, but I trust the answer I received and it has brought me great peace. While others argue his motives, I know he is an honest man. I got it straight from the only one who really knows.
October 10, 2008 at 7:48 am |
John,
I am completely flying by the seat of my pants here as I respond to your blog posting. I actually stumbled upon it while I was looking up some information on things that Ezra Taft Benson had said during General Conference many years ago.
I find the subject interesting and confusing. Now I have not read the other comments so I don’t know what position they have taken so my comments are purely based on your posting. If I am repeating other comments or contradicting them I apologize. This is merely my own opinion in response.
You are good to carefully analyze the words of the living Prophets. I would submit that this opinion however. President Hinckley when he spoke, as do any of the General Authorities, must be very careful in what they say and write anymore. This church is an international church now. We have members in nearly every country on the planet. When in conference, when listening to those talks I think we have a tendency to look at them as merely applying to us and forget that he is speaking to the world in all their political environments.
The key is in the word adjudged as you pointed out. You see even the prophet can only respond and make personal judgments based on how good his information is. Albeit he definitely has a leg up on us, he still can only act and speak in accordance with his own personal knowledge and with what he knows through inspiration is correct and right. The word ‘adjudged’ lends itself to be passive implying that it is based on external information. President Hinckley himself clarified that it was his personal opinion, even though he stated it over the pulpit.
Further as I have studied the words of Prophets living and past I in my opinion believe that we are in that prophesied time of when the heavens would be closed for the 15 minutes of silence. I base this opinion on comparisons of what prophets said per 1970 and how they said it to now. I see now a trend and I have to ask myself why 15 minutes of silence. The answer is multi-faceted however the reason for it I want to point out is this.
The Prophets no longer issue controversial statements from the pulpit that could cause disturbances in the general member ship (remember they are /General/ Authorities). Their council is basic, rarely even do you hear anymore council to get food storage, or for admonition for us to make significant life changing changes in our personal lives. You still get it, but often times it is either masked subtly so only those with “…eyes to see and ears to hear…” will catch it.
Instead what you hear more today are basic generalities that if followed will guide you carefully to better attunement with the whisperings of the spirit. My question is why? Do we not need more than ever specific direction given from The Prophet than ever before? To me, the answer comes in two scriptures.
The first being where the Lord declares that we should not be commanded in all things. The second is in the Old Testament where two of the sons of Israel went out about the camps of the outcast Israelite nation and began to prophesy (notice the capitalization). Inflamed, some of Moses priests went to Moses to complain, to which The Prophet declared that all would be prophets.
More so than ever we are being tested that we will be as a prophet, receiving personal revelation to direct us for our salvation. Zion will not be established by the general membership of the church but rather by those who have proven themselves to be prophets.
So in conclusion, I believe that you were right on the money in believing that the Iraqi war was/is illegal. You listened to the spirit. However, we are subject to kings, magistrates, presidents etc. and we must sustain and uphold the law where ever we may reside, insomuch as it does not contradict the fundamentals of the gospel. In many regards the Iraq war is an international, world, war. The Prophet of the /world/ therefore must address it from that standpoint and not merely just from an American standpoint.
November 29, 2008 at 8:35 am |
Prophet,I now doubt that . George Bush is pure evil,if Gordon B or the apostles coud’nt see that , somethings wrong
November 29, 2008 at 8:41 am |
Why do fat people get temple recommends?Oh were supposed to buy that they have glandular problems.How about the TRUTH they have no discipline with their eating habits thus not really obeying the word of wisdom,but lets appoint them to be relief society presidents
December 17, 2008 at 9:24 pm |
Where is the United Order…? Where is the Plan of Salvation that I seek for the Lord…? Where are the people of faith…?
December 17, 2008 at 9:25 pm |
Don’t you know the Lord is with me that has punished the world for the sake of the Son and the Father…? I give you the warning to prepare. If not, then the Lord my God will decide something for them. I will have pity.
June 10, 2009 at 11:53 pm |
John R.
A dear friend pointed me to this article, he is a mormon (as am I) but sort of tips to the left. After reading this article and working on his points of view, I can say that you, he and most of the responders to this post don’t get it.
I am also a Canadian, and as such have even more doubts about the Iraq mess and no reason to like Pres. Bush.
The part that the left and most people don’t get is that, G. Bush isn’t important in the topic. Whether or not he started the war for good reasons or not is irrelevant. (Personally, I think he is just a mediocre president and probably beholden to many groups, similar to my opinion of Pres.Clinton and Pres. Obama)
(Different groups, different problems, different corruption)
Back to the thread, It doesn’t matter that Pres.Bush had no policy in place for transforming Iraq, or that his intelligence was flawed. (Those that say Bush lies People die are just plain biased and stupid)
It doesn’t matter that he dropped the opportunity to do something decent (there) in the short days after the Iraq army was no more. It wouldn’t even matter if his goal was the Iraqi oil, which it obviously wasn’t.
The important thing is that for some quirk of history, we are in Iraq and we need to do something smart.
All this talk by the left is just counterproductive to the Iraqi people, particularly the women and children that have and will suffer. Harry Reid , (another Mormon) said we lost the war. How is that helpful. If he had come up with a plan to get us out without a humanitarian disaster, then good.
Fact, we are stuck there. Do something smart.
To the Blogger that said republicans wouldn’t have supported a war started by Bill Clinton. Are you Stupid? Bill Clinton went into lots of wars. Bosnia, Mogidishu and so on. Even missiled an aspirin factory to cover up his oval office foibles.
Did the Republicans diss him like the Dems did Pres. Bush over these stupid wars. No. We have history on that subject and you don’t know it or chose to ignore it. You stupid Moron. I have zero tolerance for drivel like that.
Vietnam was started by JFK, most people think it was Pres. Nixon. Did Repubs diss that war, no, they stood up for it when the Riots at the Dems convention were sucking the life out of America.
Now to Prophets and war. Show me in history where a prophet embraced a secular war. The apostles (peter and such) went out of their way not to get political, even though there was a great opportunity there.
I think it was Pres. Grant during WWII and if my memory is correct he gave his blessing (so to speak) to the lives of allied soldiers and an end to hostilities rather than an outright godly endorsement of the war. Correct me if I’m wrong. I obviously haven’t read everything he wrote.
To the person (bruce) who had a problem with the fat women in the temple and the word of wisdom. The word of wisdom isn’t the requirement for the temple. When was the last time your bishop asked you if you had that extra T-bone last week. The entire word of wisdom is advice not constraint, read it will you. However, booze, Caffeine and “drugs” (which isn’t mentioned in the W of W) are by revelation no-nos.
Why, a little wine isn’t really a problem? We are required from time to time to obey some law because Heavenly Father said so. Take it up with HIM if you have a problem.
To Jim: The Iraq war isn’t illegal, immoral maybe, but under the U.N. rules that S. Hussein was supposed to live up to, he pretty well broke them all. Get your facts straight.. Prophets do not as a rule pontificate on international issues. The only issue the church has taken a stand on lately is the protection of hetero marriage. Why does everyone expect that the prophets will do all your thinking for you. Get a life and get the spirit. (Which I don’t have right now because I’m angry at the stupid posters)
In closing I do know that feeding your political enemies into a wood chipper is evil, and if you can live with that, then I really think you’re just lazy or at worst aiding and abetting world dictatorships.
The U.S. really didn’t have to go to war with Hitler either. That was a choice made by Congress and FDR, yes Germany declared war on the U.S. first, but it would have been real easy to get a side deal. If fact, it was offered to both the English and the Americans, (see Rudolph Hess)(See OSS files Switzerland) Technically FDR was breaking the law in aiding the English before the declaration of war by Congress. So, I suppose you thought it o.k. to let Hitler massacre millions of Europeans? NO? Then why let S. Hussein off the hook. Perhaps you only object to millions, not hundreds of thousands. You’re lazy and duplicitous.
Had we not gone to war with Iraq, would you be speaking out about female mutilation, gassing Kurds,
repression of basic Liberty, even killing Gays? If you were not actively attacking this corrupt dictatorship and others before the war, I fail to see how you have any credibility after it started.
Dragging the prophets and God into this subject before using history, fact and logic and somehow waiting for the Spirit to direct you is just plain lazy. The answers are all in History, therefore it is unlikely, to my mind, that anyone is getting a Spiritual message about world affairs;personal maybe. If you didn’t know there were pacifists in large numbers in the U.S. before WWII, the VietNam war, the Civil War, any war, you haven’t done all you can before asking for help.
In conclusion, I don’t agree with Pres. Bush on much.
(You will note I use respectful terms when taking about people who held or hold office regardless of their positions)
I think until Gen. Petraeus came along that Iraq was a huge mistake, and it may still be. I wouldn’t have made that call, I would have used other more insidious ways including continuous propaganda at home and abroad. Having said that, we’re there now, do something smart, figure out how to get out without a huge blood bath and a regional destabilization by Iran. Can’t you think in two logic levels at once?
Pres. Bush is gone as is Pres. Clinton, so far it doesn’t look like Pres. Obama has much of a clue about anything, but time will tell, as history always does.