A Mormon Perspective: The War in Iraq
This blog is written from a religious viewpoint unique to Mormonism and is being posted to the following groups: America 4 Obama, Mormons for Obama, Taking Back the Red States and Utah for Obama. Future blogs on this subject will be posted only in the Mormons for Obama group. I would invite those who are Mormons and anyone else interested to join the Mormons for Obama group if they wish to follow this topic or you can visit my personal blog.
The War in Iraq
First, let me say that I am opposed to the Iraq war and that I am opposed to it more for religious reasons than for political reasons. I believe that as a Mormon I must denounce the Iraq war and seek to do so in a context of explaining my own religious and moral beliefs. While I respect the rights of others to believe differently and would not seek to impose my own religious beliefs upon others I do believe that my moral values influence my political opinions in a such a way that others may gain some insight into why I hold the views I do if I explain my reasoning from a religious perspective. The Mormons for Obama group is a good place to discuss religious beliefs in the context of the political and I hope that other members of the Church who read this blog gain a greater appreciation for why there is an opposition to the Iraq war and why many members are opposed to it and for those who share my view I hope that what I have to say will strengthen them.
Some might think that Mormons in the United States are supporters of the Iraq war because of our religious beliefs that result in a strong sense of duty to our country and and its Constitution. Latter-day scripture states, "According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles; (D&C 101:77). It is true that Mormons in the United States are patriotic and believe that our Constitution was ordained of God and that he permitted it to be established. As Americans many have been called upon to defend the Constitution and our country against its enemies and to those who have fought in Iraq, both who support and those who oppose, should not be condemned for doing their duty to their country even if we disagree with the decisions of those who lead them.
The words of President Hinckley on the Iraq war apply here "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." As we seek to understand why there is such a difference of opinion in the Church on the current conflict we have to understand that often our own personal feelings will influence our loyalties. We can and do arrive at different conclusions about the present conflict as members and President Hinckley speaking of this has said, "Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord's people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties." In this spirit I now give my own opinion on the merits of the Iraq war. I do not wish to offend but I will speak boldly against the war and explain why I believe that the present conflict in Iraq is not justified.
In D & C 98:14, 16 we are commanded to, "renounce war and proclaim peace," and to "be not afraid of [our] enemies." Latter-day scriptures are filled with condemnations of pre-emptive wars referring to these as "first offense," and let us take a moment and look at some of the scriptures which have led me to believe that the Iraq war is not justified of the Lord. This is something that is important to know when talking to other members of the Church about why you oppose the war. Often, we know we disagree with the war but we don't know why but something tells us that it isn't right. I believe that when the scriptures are considered that it becomes clear why we are opposed to the war. I also believe that the scriptures condemn pre-emptive wars. Strangely, many of those who supported the war in Afghanistan now oppose the Iraq war while still calling for the elimination of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The reason seems to me to be one of what kind of wars we would support. Because we see this war as a "war of choice" we condemn it while we call for the war on terrorism to be continued.
There are many different scriptures that could be used to explain why I have the opinion I do but I will only select a few to discuss. Starting with Alma 48:14, there will be shown in our scriptures a basic doctrine against pre-emptive wars which I believe Iraq to be. Some will assert that the war in Iraq is simply a continuation of the war on terrorism and that Iraq had connections with al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden yet there are those who reject this as not being correct and others who would still reject it as a reason to invade Iraq even if true.
Alma 48:14
Verse 14 - "Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives."
Reasoning: Here we learn that the Nephites are taught to defend themselves against their enemies and that if necessary they could shed blood. Leaving the scriptures at this point permits us to support the Iraq war as justified as it could be argued that we are merely defending ourselves against our enemies but when we continue to read and learn that the Nephites were also taught to never give offense or to raise the sword except to preserve their lives against their enemies provides additional guidance in that we know that we should not be the instigator or aggressor. That is that we should never give offense. This is re-affirmed time and again in the scriptures. It is a guiding principle that when understand prevents wars as we seek to "renounce war" and to "proclaim peace."
D&C 98:32-36
Verses 32-34 - "Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles. And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them. And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;"
Reasoning: In choosing to go into Iraq and to go war with that country and with Saddam Hussein we chose to proclaim war against them, and did not lift a standard of peace instead we chose war over peace. In doing this we did not "renounce war and proclaim peace" but instead we as a nation chose to renounce peace and to proclaimed war. We already know that the Lord does not approve when we give the first offense and that he does not justify us in going to war with our enemies simply because they are our enemies but requires that we only go to war to preserve our own lives after having sued for peace. This law is given to all people of every nation and of every tongue. It should not be our goal to prefer military option before diplomacy. Here, the Lord makes quite clear in scriptural language that he has commanded us to prefer the diplomatic option before the military option. In this, I agree with Obama and I believe that Obama has shown that he prefers diplomacy before military force and that he leaves all options on the table.
Verses 35-36 - "And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord; Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people."
Reasoning: We learn the purpose of this commandment or law which has been given by God in all ages including to the ancient prophets and that law is to not give the first offense, or the second. He provides a method by which we are told to proclaim peace even after our enemies have proclaimed war against us. Had Iraq declared war on the United States it would have been our duty and our responsibility to extend an offer of peace. Yet, the role was reversed and the United States ignored Saddam Hussein's calls for peace and diplomacy and President Bush chose to invade Iraq and now many innocent people have died. We did not lift a standard of peace once, twice or three times and because of this we are not justified of God in going to war in Iraq. This requirement is "an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me." It could not be any more clear that the Lord does have a standard by which we are justified in going to war with others. The Iraq war does not meet that standard and in my opinion there is no justification for the decision to invade Iraq. I consider it to be an immoral, and unjust decision which violates the commandments of God and promotes war and violence instead of brotherly love between different peoples.
Alma 43:46
Verse 46 - "And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies."
Reasoning: There is a simple rule being applied here which is if a country proclaims war against us we are to extend an offer of peace but if they do not accept that offer than we are not to suffer ourselves to be killed and are justified in defending ourselves against our enemies. The scriptures make it clear that pre-emptive war is condemned by the Lord and that we are not to give the first offense and be the aggressor and should not give the second offense but should first sue for peace and in doing this we are justified in defending ourselves if another nation rejects that offer of peace and commits a second offense upon us. Applying this to Iraq it would have required that Iraq had proclaimed war against us (first offense), and then we would have to sue for peace and if Iraq were to reject that offer and commits the second offense we would be justified. Yet, if we were to respond by force when met with force without proclaiming peace we would not be justified of the Lord because this would have been the second offense which resulted in an escalation of the conflict. We understand that the end result of not doing this is an escalation of the war.
3 Nephi 3:20-21
Verse 20 - Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands."
Reasoning: In this scripture the Nephites are asking the Prophet Gidgiddoni to lead them up into the land of the Gadianton Robbers and to destroy them in their own lands. We know that the Gadianton Robbers was armed band of terrorists who had plagued the Nephite people for many years so it is understandable that the people would want their leaders to fight the Gadianton Robbers in their own lands and not on Nephite land but the Prophet Gidgiddoni responds to this by saying, "
Verse 21 - But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands."
Reasoning: We often hear from some that it would be better to fight the terrorists in their own lands and not on our soil but what does the scriptures tell us about this? This may sound at first to be pacifist but it is not as it makes it clear how to deal with terrorists. Gidgiddoni is giving sound military doctrine as well as the word of the Lord and that doctrine is that they should put all of their efforts in increasing their defenses and that if their armies were spread around in the lands of the Gadianton Robbers they would surely be defeated. The Guerilla type of warfare practiced by the Gadianton Robbers is similar to that of al-Qaida and the problems that the Nephites would have faced is the same as those with which we are now faced which is that our military is stretched thin and it weakens our national security. Having our soldiers in Iraq and putting resources in fighting our enemies in their lands requires that we spend less of our resources on our own national security. Many people do not understand why Democrats are so against the Iraq war, so in favor of securing our country, our ports, airplanes, etc and in favor of defeating the terrorists at the same time. How is it possible that these seemingly opposing values are held by Democrats. The answer here I would assert is that the Democratic Party has taken a page from the scriptures without even realizing it.
Mormon 3:9-11
Verses 9-11 - "And now, because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies. And they did swear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies, and would cut them off from the face of the land. And it came to pass that I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination."
Reasoning: We know that it came to a point that the Nephites were so intent upon destroying their enemies and seeking revenge for those that were slain by the Lamanites that they and the Lamanites became so polarized that the scriptures tell us that they were destroyed from the face of the land and a battle so horrible and universal in nature at the Hill Cumoruh resulted in total destruction. This should be a warning to us that if we polarize the world along Muslim and non-Muslim, Arabic and non-Arabic countries that the end result will be a battle so horrible that it will result in our own destruction. We know that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons and yet our leaders are so intent on making us enemies with Iran and to continue an antagnostic relationship with that country and others in the Middle East that should they ever get nuclear weapons we may find that the Hill Cumoruh of the scriptures is our modern-day Armageddon where nuclear weapons are employed. In this I see Obama as hopefully bringing us back from the precipice by seeking to bridge the divide as did others with the Soviet Union and to build bridges of understanding. I agree with Obama that Bush's policy of not talking to Iran is the worst policy ever and that we should seek to find common ground and that it is likely that Iran may become more democratic, and an ally in the Middle East by our influence.
President Spencer W. Kimball
"We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel -- ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 5:44-45.)"
Reasoning: President Kimball's words hold great meaning for me as I see the desire of many to label those who are anti-enemy as patriots while condemning those who renounce war and seek to proclaim peace as not being patriotic. This concerns me as many are beginning to see the present conflict in Iraq in a less than positive light. Conflict will follow as a result. Most of us wish to defeat terrorism regardless of what our political or national values may be. This we saw after 9-11 where the world united in its sympathy for the United States. It was a time where many people came together to oppose evil and to oppose those who would do harm to others because of an ideology that they hold. Some have accused Muslims of being the problem but let's not forget that it isn't Muslims or Arabs who are our enemy but those who would do us harm but even when others would do us harm we should bear in mind the teachings of our Savior Jesus Christ and reach out to our brothers and sisters in the Middle East.
Yet, soon after Afghanistan our President chose to take us into war with Iraq based on what now appears to be factually incorrect information. This decision has affected people in such a way that it divides us. We are no longer united either as nation or a world in fighting in a common cause. Instead, people around the world and in the United States have become angry, bitter and upset. As someone who has been opposed to the Iraq war from the start I can say that it has been somewhat upsetting to hear people question the patriotism of those of us who choose to proclaim peace and to denounce war. Those of us who oppose the Iraq war are not opposed to all wars. In the words of Barack Obama:
"I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war."
So what kind of war would we as Democrats support? What is our position on the Iraq conflict? And what is our values not only as Democrats but as Americans and as citizens of this great country? And for those of us who are Mormons: What is our beliefs on this war and why do we hold to those beliefs? These are questions that are difficult to answer but as we seek to understand our opinions we should bear in mind that we shouldn't attempt to separate our religious and moral values from our political values. Instead, our values should be simply what they are and our opinions should then be based on those values. I am often asked how I can be a Democrat and be a Mormon and my answer is that I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon. The values which make me a Democrat also make me a Mormon.
Conclusion
I have used only a few scriptures and examples to explain my reasoning that the scriptures do not justify the Iraq war and I will attempt to explain in another blog why I think Obama's position on Iraq and foreign policy is consistent with the scriptures and with my values as a Mormon. Yet, most of this does not matter now as we are at war and now it is more of a matter of how we will handle the war and how we will bring it to an end. I believe that the Democratic plan is correct and that Obama's position on the Iraq war is the correct one. Let us all take a stand against the war in Iraq and call for its end through strategic re-deployment of our troops combined with regional diplomacy.
Comments are closed for this post.
