Close Topic Options

Law Concerning War - Page 2

President David O. McKay said the following during the April 1942 General Conference:

Now under these conditions, obviously the US is not justified in the present action. I do believe, however, that the above can help to understand it.

1. The US was attacked, in September 2001. But not by a single nation or government.

2. There is growing evidence that other tragedies in the US had links to Muslim terrorists, including TWA 800 and the Oklahoma City bombing. The evidence is not conclusive, but I do believe it.

3. Decades of evidence show that the extremist Muslims, goaded on by Wahabbists and Iranian clerics, have declared war on the US, and on Western Civilization in general. This includes Mormons and Mormonism, along with all of Christianity and Judaism.

4. Iraq provided extensive material and moral support to the Muslim extremists, including training sites, training personnel, weapons, and finances. Afghanistan provided refuge for Al Qaeda.

The fact is, this is a war between cultures. The West didn't start it, the Saudi Arabian Wahabbis did. In fact, it is actually a continuation of WWII, as there is a direct link from Nazi Germany to the leading houses of the Arab world, including Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. There are also direct ties between Nazi Germany and all of the terror organizations.

President McKay's statement about enforcing a new order of government is the strongest single indictment of US actions in this war. Yet I can see no alternative to what is happening. We cannot allow these people to carry out their attacks on US soil. Last week's attempt to use chemical weapons in Jordan should point out that this doesn't exactly come in to President McKay's experience.

Finally, in terms of Last Days events, remember that the wicked will be destroyed by wicked, in terminal warfare. It is horrible. It is counter-productive. Yet it is, ultimately, necessary to usher in the Millenium of our Lord.

War Law

Well, after finishing my little rant on the Guantanamo issue, I just felt like bringing up some discussion here, in the LDS area.

I have a friend, a member of our ward, who has a hard time really accepting the Book of Mormon these days. He is a lifelong member. He is very intelligent, well read, well versed in the doctrines of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And he is an extremely far-left liberal.

He, and his wife, are so far to the left, that they are absolutely sure that the only problem with communism is that the right people haven't tried it yet. They seem to be disappointed with European socialists, because they are too conservative.

Anyway, as I said, he is having a real problem with the Book of Mormon. He is having a problem with the fact that it is filled with descriptions of wars and conflicts. He seems to want the Gospel to only be about bringing "Peace" to the world.

The Gospel doesn't' bring "Peace" to the world. Yes, if everyone in the world lived Gospel principles, there would be peace, but as long as there is moral agency, and the ability to choose, some people are going to choose to be evil, to be greedy, to usurp authority over other people. And these things lead to war.

I notice that JB has a "tag" on his information that says, "I Believe in Peace". That is all well and good. But I prefer to say, "I Believe in Liberty" or, "Death before Dishonor".

Permanent, abiding peace is readily available in this world. Just visit any graveyard, and you will find it. Life is struggle. Struggle frequently leads to conflict. Conflict can lead to war.

A world wherein Celestial Law is universally upheld will be free of conflict. A world where Terrestial Law is universally upheld might be free of war. A world where Telestial Law is normal will be filled with war.

However, a lot of people seem to want only "other people" to fight the wars, to be involved in the conflicts. That seems to be my friends point of view. To him, and to many others, the US, for example, shouldn't be involved in such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc, only because the US should be a proponent of peace, above all things! This is where I disagree. The US should be a proponent of liberty, of honor, of the great virtues. We, along with the rest of the industrialized world, should be working tirelessly to promote personal and religious liberty, freedom of all people to express themselves, defend themselves, and govern themselves. To do this frequently requires war to overcome oppressors.

With this view in mind, I cannot support the concept of "peace at all costs." Perhaps I am blind to some things. Perhaps I am too quick to support the US in some of its shadier actions. But I am firmly convinced that most of the things that we are criticized for regarding war are seriously distorted by those criticizing us.

Yes, the US will eventually fall, partly due to overextending ourselves in wars outside our borders. But even the prophecies that point this out never indicate that the US is wrong in those wars and conflicts, only foolish. (At least as I remember them.)

Should the US have stayed out of Afghanistan? I don't believe so.

How about Iraq? I believe we were right there, also. I think we were 11 years late there.

Anti-war demonstrations, or expressing anti-US or anti-war sentiments certainly isn't going to promote the cause of peace. Only the establishment of a Zion society will truly promote peace. And I don't see that happening without some huge changes in other areas first.