An Lds Perspective On War

[Uncle Dale]

I'm curious to know if anybody has read an advance

copy of Duane Boyce's new book...

 

Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War

 

My own ancestors participated in the 1834 Zion's Camp

paramilitary expedition to Missouri. I'm fairly certain that

they were ready and willing to give their lives, in the

cause of redeeming their "Inheritance" there. But the

only lives then lost were to disease.

 

Another ancestor rode with Lot Smith in 1857-58, in

attacks against Johnston's Army, near Fort Bridger.

But I don't think the guerrillas killed any of the dragoons.

 

I myself was taught how to kill enemy combatants when

I was and RLDS in the U.S. Navy (thankfully I never had

to do that).

 

I'm wondering just what the "LDS Perspective" on a

war against "the Gentiles" might be -- as that is the

only likely battle of the future that Mormons might

willingly participate in. During WWII there were said

to have been a couple of instances in which German

or Austrian LDS soldiers fought against the Allies --

but I suppose that was a rare and exceptional case.

 

In 1835 David Whitmer was set apart and commissioned

as the LDS Church's "Secretary of War." I suppose that

the Nauvoo Council of Fifty also preserved that office.

 

I wonder... does it still exist?

 

UD

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm wondering just what the "LDS Perspective" on a

war against "the Gentiles" might be

 

It is clear that war is only justified when the enemy is an imminent threat according to LDS doctrine. The book of Mormon teaches 

 

"The Book of Mormon gives insights into when war is justified and when it is not. “The Nephites . . . were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church . . . For the Lord had said unto them . . . ye shall not suffer yourself to be slain by the hands of your enemies” (Alma 43:45-46). Also, the Book of Mormon teaches that arming for defense is acceptable, but it is against preemptive strikes: “The Lord forbid; for if we should go against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; . . . we will wait till they come against us” (3 Ne. 3:21)"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-truth-about-the-god-makers/xiii

Edited May 15, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Uncle Dale]

It is clear that war is only justified when the enemy is an imminent threat according to LDS doctrine. The book of Mormon teaches 

 

"The Book of Mormon gives insights into when war is justified and when it is not. “The Nephites . . . were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church . . . For the Lord had said unto them . . . ye shall not suffer yourself to be slain by the hands of your enemies” (Alma 43:45-46). Also, the Book of Mormon teaches that arming for defense is acceptable, but it is against preemptive strikes: “The Lord forbid; for if we should go against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; . . . we will wait till they come against us” (3 Ne. 3:21)"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-truth-about-the-god-makers/xiii

 

 

I was thinking the other day about Joseph's younger brother,

Apostle/Patriarch William Smith. In 1861 he joined the Union

Army and saw combat in Kentucky (I think it was) -- There was

at least some chance that he would have occasionally had to

fight against fellow Mormons. According to Brigham Young, all

the Saints who had refused to move west in 1851-52 were

"apostates," but I'm sure that William and other MidWest Saints

still tried to obey the Doctrine & Covenants commandments.

 

If ordered to shoot a rebel soldier, who had also been a member

of the Nauvoo Legion, along with Smith and other RLDS, I

wonder if William would have obeyed the orders?

 

Union officers who had served in the Mexican War sometimes

found themselves engaged in battle against former associates,

even friends, who had joined the Confederate forces. Still,

they fired their cannon and muskets upon the fellow Americans,

fellow Presbyterians, fellow Methodists.

 

It must have been hard for them.

 

Given the orders today (or in the future) would LDS members

enrolled in the U.S. armed forces willingly drop bombs upon

Hong Kong, or some other "enemy" city -- destroying a

"House of the Lord," and, likely, brother Mormons?

 

Perhaps not.

 

There are participants in this forum who have been officers

in the military (or still are) -- It would be interesting to hear

their understandings of what God (and the Prophet) want

done in a wartime situation.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm curious to know if anybody has read an advance

copy of Duane Boyce's new book...

 

Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War

Haven't seen it.

 

.................................

Another ancestor rode with Lot Smith in 1857-58, in

attacks against Johnston's Army, near Fort Bridger.

But I don't think the guerrillas killed any of the dragoons.

Brigham Young's express policy was that no lives be lost.  The LDS guerrillas harrassed the troops heading for Utah effectively enough to bring them to a standstill, and General Johnston meekly sought a compromise.

 

..........................................................

 

I'm wondering just what the "LDS Perspective" on a

war against "the Gentiles" might be -- as that is the

only likely battle of the future that Mormons might

willingly participate in. During WWII there were said

to have been a couple of instances in which German

or Austrian LDS soldiers fought against the Allies --

but I suppose that was a rare and exceptional case.

.............................................

There were many instances in which LDS soldiers and sailors fought on both sides in WW II, and several books and articles are out about it:  See R. C. Freeman & D. A. Wright, Saints at War (American Fork, UT: Covenant Communications, 2001).  Of particular interest are the instances in which LDS soldiers were captured by other LDS soldiers.

 

For a thoughtful perspective on the matter (and a powerful LDS condemnation of war), see Gordon C. Thomasson, ed., War, Conscription, Conscience and Mormonism (Santa Barbara: Heritage, 1971), which is reviewed here:  http://www.jstor.org/discover/pgs/index?id=10.2307/43042484&img=dtc.133.tif.gif&uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106407756281&orig=/discover/10.2307/43042484?uid=3739256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106407756281 .

[Robert F. Smith]

It is clear that war is only justified when the enemy is an imminent threat according to LDS doctrine. The book of Mormon teaches 

 

"The Book of Mormon gives insights into when war is justified and when it is not. “The Nephites . . . were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church . . . For the Lord had said unto them . . . ye shall not suffer yourself to be slain by the hands of your enemies” (Alma 43:45-46). Also, the Book of Mormon teaches that arming for defense is acceptable, but it is against preemptive strikes: “The Lord forbid; for if we should go against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; . . . we will wait till they come against us” (3 Ne. 3:21)"

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/the-truth-about-the-god-makers/xiii

Hugh Nibley saw the continual tendency to go to war in the Book of Mormon as the "Nephite disease."

[Uncle Dale]

Haven't seen it.

 

Brigham Young's express policy was that no lives be lost.  The LDS guerrillas harrassed the troops heading for Utah effectively enough to bring them to a standstill, and General Johnston meekly sought a compromise.

...

 

 

Indeed -- there is documentary evidence for that conclusion.

 

Nevertheless "commanding general" Daniel H. Wells gave a newspaper

interview later on, saying that the Mormons were fully prepared to destroy

the Federal troops, had they ventured any closer to Great Salt Lake City

than the Fort Bridger area.

 

Martial law had been declared throughout the territory, and any offender

would have been risking death to disobey the military orders. It seems

that a couple of straggling immigrant trains made it through, just as the

martial law was being put into effect -- so there were almost no Gentiles

remaining in the territory by October of '57. That meant that offenders

against the martial law would necessarily have been Federal dragoons,

their teamsters, sutlers, etc.

 

There have been lingering claims that some offending teamsters were

indeed executed in late '57 or early '58 -- but I've seen no firm evidence

to back up those old charges.

 

My great-great grandfather possessed a gold watch, taken from a Federal

officer near the continental divide. He was supposed to turn such plunder

into Church authorities, but he never did. I don't know whether the soldier

was harmed or not -- those stories (if told) never reached my young ears.

 

UD

[Robert F. Smith]

Indeed -- there is documentary evidence for that conclusion.

 

Nevertheless "commanding general" Daniel H. Wells gave a newspaper

interview later on, saying that the Mormons were fully prepared to destroy

the Federal troops, had they ventured any closer to Great Salt Lake City

than the Fort Bridger area.

Sounds like psychological warfare to me, and it served its purpose well.

 

..............................................................

 

My great-great grandfather possessed a gold watch, taken from a Federal

officer near the continental divide. He was supposed to turn such plunder

into Church authorities, but he never did. I don't know whether the soldier

was harmed or not -- those stories (if told) never reached my young ears.

........................................................

It is called "looting," a very common practice among armies.

[strappinglad]

Have the Brethren ever spoken out publicly against any US wars? I think LDS troops have been present in all conflicts in recent history. I don't believe I have heard any statements from Church leaders discouraging LDS participation in a particular engagement , so should we conclude that , from the First Presidency and the Twelve's perspective, all fighting so far has been justified? I know the Brethren have spoken against war generally.

In my personal opinion, since WW2 the US has not followed the rule suggested by the BoM and has seen limited success thereby.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Have the Brethren ever spoken out publicly against any US wars? 

 

They can't because the church is tax exempt. 

 

In my personal opinion, since WW2 the US has not followed the rule suggested by the BoM and has seen limited success thereby.

 

because that rule is not found in the Bible, and because many Christians want the second coming to happen soon. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[The Nehor]

The Doctrine and Covenants law on war is pretty much our standard. You are only allowed to go out to war in defense when the provocations are continuous. You are also allowed to go out to war aggressively but only when God SPECIFICALLY instructs you to.

 

I find the United States continuous "preventative" conflicts to be opposed to Book of Mormon principles. The final war the Nephites launched was preventative. "We have to destroy the Lamanites before they destroy us." God appears to have been unimpressed with that justification.

[The Nehor]

They can't because the church is tax exempt. 

 

Not a chance. Churches throughout US history have taken stances on wars without their tax-exempt status being brought into question.

[thesometimesaint]

War, Peace, and the Saints.

SEE https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

[morgan.deane]

I'm curious to know if anybody has read an advance

copy of Duane Boyce's new book...

 

Even Unto Bloodshed: An LDS Perspective on War

 

My own ancestors participated in the 1834 Zion's Camp

paramilitary expedition to Missouri. I'm fairly certain that

they were ready and willing to give their lives, in the

cause of redeeming their "Inheritance" there. But the

only lives then lost were to disease.

 

Another ancestor rode with Lot Smith in 1857-58, in

attacks against Johnston's Army, near Fort Bridger.

But I don't think the guerrillas killed any of the dragoons.

 

I myself was taught how to kill enemy combatants when

I was and RLDS in the U.S. Navy (thankfully I never had

to do that).

 

I'm wondering just what the "LDS Perspective" on a

war against "the Gentiles" might be -- as that is the

only likely battle of the future that Mormons might

willingly participate in. During WWII there were said

to have been a couple of instances in which German

or Austrian LDS soldiers fought against the Allies --

but I suppose that was a rare and exceptional case.

 

In 1835 David Whitmer was set apart and commissioned

as the LDS Church's "Secretary of War." I suppose that

the Nauvoo Council of Fifty also preserved that office.

 

I wonder... does it still exist?

 

UD

Haven't read this book, I'm a bit surprised I didn't get an advanced copy considering my specialty, but you can find my book Bleached Bones and Wicked Serpents: Ancient Warfare in the Book of Mormon here: http://www.amazon.com/Bleached-Bones-Wicked-Serpents-Ancient/dp/1456622862/ref=as_sl_pc_ss_til?tag=legsavnin-20&linkCode=w01&linkId=DFU3R5J6R56UAF4L&creativeASIN=1456622862

 

Of course I post on just about every subject concerning mormonism and warfare on my blog as well: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/

Edited May 15, 2015 by morgan.deane

[carbon dioxide]

Have the Brethren ever spoken out publicly against any US wars? I think LDS troops have been present in all conflicts in recent history. I don't believe I have heard any statements from Church leaders discouraging LDS participation in a particular engagement , so should we conclude that , from the First Presidency and the Twelve's perspective, all fighting so far has been justified? I know the Brethren have spoken against war generally.

In my personal opinion, since WW2 the US has not followed the rule suggested by the BoM and has seen limited success thereby.

The US can't expect God's blessing or help if they go to war simply for petty reasons like "US national security interests".  Killing people for an "interest" is not a good reason to fight.  Many of the conflicts that the US has be in have turned out bad and some have not completely resolved themselves like Korea.  I suspect the more we fight for the purpose accomplishing a foreign policy rather than out of real necessity will only result in more poor outcomes. 

 

Unlike gay marriage where the Church position is really clear, the issue on war needs to be addressed by a proclamation on war.  Members of the Church are too easily persuaded to support fighting a foreign operation  especially if a republican is leading it. 

Edited May 15, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[The Nehor]

The US can't expect God's blessing or help if they go to war simply for petty reasons like "US national security interests".  Killing people for an "interest" is not a good reason to fight.  Many of the conflicts that the US has be in have turned out bad and some have not completely resolved themselves like Korea.  I suspect the more we fight for the purpose accomplishing a foreign policy rather than out of real necessity will only result in more poor outcomes. 

 

Unlike gay marriage where the Church position is really clear, the issue on war needs to be addressed by a proclamation on war.  Members of the Church are too easily persuaded to support fighting a foreign operation  especially if a republican is leading it.

This is not really a church problem. It is an American problem. War support in the U.S. always seems to be high prior to and right after the beginning of a conflict and wanes quickly when the war goes poorly but still diminishes slowly and surely as the conflict is drawn out even if we are doing well. The U.S. is a pretty jingoistic nation. We need to be more skeptical in the beginning before it starts.

[strappinglad]

Remind me again what repercussions fell on Saudi Arabia after it was clear that most of the 9/11 guys and Bin L  were Saudi ? Sorry, my mistake, I am just too naïve when it comes to geopolitical concerns.

 

  It is too much to ask that US leaders be briefed thoroughly on the history of any nation they are about to fight. Even a cursory look at Afganistan would have shown the quagmire that  was awaiting .

[rpn]

The church has posted directions to their members in the military section of lds.org

[The Nehor]

Remind me again what repercussions fell on Saudi Arabia after it was clear that most of the 9/11 guys and Bin L  were Saudi ? Sorry, my mistake, I am just too naïve when it comes to geopolitical concerns.

 

  It is too much to ask that US leaders be briefed thoroughly on the history of any nation they are about to fight. Even a cursory look at Afganistan would have shown the quagmire that  was awaiting .

 

If the decision to occupy Iraq decision is any indication we need to make it mandatory for Representatives and Senators to actually read the intelligence reports before they vote on funding any military action.

 

If it makes you feel any better the United States government appears to also be naive about geopolitics. Someone actually thought Russia would be quiet while we supported a coup in the Ukraine right on the border of Russia and even made noises about bringing them into NATO, the anti-Russian military alliance.

[Uncle Dale]

...

 

It is called "looting," a very common practice among armies.

 

On the other hand, I'm told that the Iron Co. Militia DID

turn in their wartime confiscations -- to the tithing office

in Cedar City. On that score, at least, they were more

honest than my "looting" great great grandfather,

Samuel Broadhurst.

 

His convoluted history is briefly mentioned in Taylor's

"The Kingdom or Nothing." -- Not long after the 1858

Utah War, he quit the Church and associated with the

Josephites. So, maybe he saw no reason to consecrate

the watch ("liberated" from the enemy United States)

unto The Lord -- in Deseret, after all.

 

UD

[thesometimesaint]

The conflation of religion with military is a dangerous game.

[The Nehor]

The conflation of religion with military is a dangerous game.

 

I am pretty sure military action is dangerous whether or not you conflate it with religion.

[Tacenda]

I wonder if people weren't so sure of an afterlife, if they might take this life more seriously. Or those religious zealots that are anxious to get to the other side for an award or even those that just get so tired in this life and the card dealt them, would it change their perspective.

I might be struck down for saying this, but if we thought this life was our only one, how different might it be? Possibly less war, or less suicide?

Edited May 16, 2015 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

I wonder if people weren't so sure of an afterlife, if they might take this life more seriously. Or those religious zealots that are anxious to get to the other side for an award or even those that just get so tired in this life and the card dealt them. I might be struck down for saying this, but if we thought this life was our only one, how different it might be. Possibly less war, or less suicide?

I think I would be more likely to commit suicide if this life was it. If life got hard why not check out early if things go badly?

As to war I think some might take life more seriously if this life was it but there is also an element of desperation if this life is it. If this is all you have sometimes drastic solutions to create utopia or to fix some injustice or perceived injustice are seen as necessary and vital because this is all we have. My faith makes me more patient. I will not get or experience everything in life I want before I die but I do not spend my life lamenting those as I have eternity to catch up as needed.

[Tacenda]

Nehor, that is definitely the flipside!!

[Calm]

I wonder if people weren't so sure of an afterlife, if they might take this life more seriously. Or those religious zealots that are anxious to get to the other side for an award or even those that just get so tired in this life and the card dealt them, would it change their perspective.

I might be struck down for saying this, but if we thought this life was our only one, how different might it be? Possibly less war, or less suicide?

If I was certain that this life was all there is, I probably wouldn't have made it through my teen years.