After careful consideration, Jon Spencer wrote:
How about Teancum? Was he righteous in his actions? Or will he burn in
hell forever for assasinating Amalickiah and Ammoron? Just where does one
draw the line between righteous action and unrighteous action? Clearly it
isn't just in what one does, but why one does it.
WWMD? What Would Moroni Do? He hated bloodshed, but wasn't shy about
using force when necessary.
I give up. We are so far apart on this that there is no hope of
persuading. That anyone would compare Captain Moroni to George W. Bush, or
the righteous Nephites in the days of Captain Moroni with the current,
wicked generation of Americans is truly unfathomable. Those who do it are
completely off my page. We aren't even talking the same language. I just
don't know what to say that could add anything to the current discussion.
The Gadianton Robbers were internal enemies that sought to overthrow the
Nephite government from within. They are in no way analogous to Saddam
Hussein who is the head of state of a nation half way around the
world. And anyone who cannot see the difference between attacking another
nation for any other reason than to repel an invasion, and attacking
another nation just because we think he is a Bad Guy who has got it coming,
is on a different planet. If we go ahead with this war, which I hope we
won't, the only good that could come out of it will be for the Islamic
nations to be opened up for our missionaries. And I doubt very much if
George W. Bush has that in mind. This very moment we have more grounds for
attacking China, North Korea, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia than we do for
attacking Hussein. We never should have slaughtered hundreds of thousands
of his people in the first place, much less start slaughtering them
again. During the Gulf War we killed hundreds of thousand of Iraqis. For
what? How did we profit from the exercise in mass murder? I'll bet it
didn't even give Saddam a rash. He doesn't care anything for his
people. So if we kill a couple of hundred thousand more, it won't be any
skin off his chin. When it comes to that, he can hide in his bunker and
order his political enemies onto the front lines, and he could come out
stronger than before we attacked. Are we planning to occupy Iraq like we
did Germany and Japan after WWII? If not, then we are going to gain
exactly nothing from waging another war in the Middle East. That is what
we gained in the last war with Saddam.
I have watched people stretch the truth and wrest the scriptures all my
life. I'm used to it. But I don't see how the current situation could be
stretched and wrested to justify an attack on Iraq under the guise of
national defense. And I have watched good people on this list rest and
stretch to find some justification for war to a degree that astounds me.
That is calling good evil and evil good.
Of course, I was vehemently opposed to the Persian Gulf War too. And guess
what? My fears were realized. Nothing was settled, and we stopped short
of a victory leaving the monster alive to gather his forces for another
attack. An honest war I can agree to. But no war pursued by the current
crop of corrupt politicians in Washington is going to be an honest war. In
the first place, it isn't honest to attack someone who hasn't attacked you
first.
I just can't believe what I have read on this list. The righteous Nephites
waged defensive wars against the Lamanites wherever they invaded. I have
not found a single incident in the Book of Mormon where the Nephites
attacked first and invaded Lamanite territory. Did they fight Gadiantons
on their own soil? You bet they did. And if America wants to fight our
Gadiantons on our own soil, I will cheer more loudly than anyone else on
this list. There are probably more Al Quaeda living here in the USA than
there are in Iraq. But they are a police problem, not a military problem.
The upcoming war with Iraq is unnecessary. It is dishonest. It will
accomplish nothing good for out country. It will do nothing to promote
democratic government in the Middle East. It is not a war of national
defense. It is a war of aggression. And it is a bad idea because the Lord
will not bless us for such a war.
I listened to Elder Nelson's remarks in General Conference. Unless I am
ignorant of the English language he was saying that as a Church we have to
remain neutral in this debate. That as a people, we Latter-day Saints are
obligated to serve in our military if called upon to do so. But as
individual saints we are to pursue peace. In other words, we are to oppose
war. Is there any other way to pursue peace?
And so far, nobody pays any attention the Lord Law of War. Notice that in
the last quoted verse, the Lord refers to it as his law.
---
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will asmite you,
or your families, once, and ye bbear it patiently
