This is a fascinating story, one I haven’t seen elsewhere. To sum up: an Iraqi insurgent sniper shoots a U.S. private, who goes down. The scene is being filmed by the insurgents so they can create a morale-boosting video to send out. The private is saved by his body armor and gets on his feet. Other US troops follow and capture the man who shot the private. The private who had been shot cuffs the insurgent and applies medical attention to him.
The story tells us the difference in the moral attitude of U.S. troops and the terrorists. But I have also noted some worrisome signs that, we, as a society, are beginning to encourage hatred against our enemies. The Book of Mormon has warned us against this.
I believe the scriptures tell us that there are a few very specific times when wars are justified. In the Old Testament, certain military activities were justified for different reasons. Isaiah, for example, writing in the 8th century BC seems to tell us that Cyrus’ military activities would be justified in the future, partly because they would restore the House of Israel to the land of Canaan and cause the temple to be rebuilt (see Isaiah chapters 44 and 45).
I have argued before that the war on terror, including Afghanistan and Iraq, is justified. I personally believe that the Lord has determined that the United States is a latter-day Cyrus, intended to use its unique force to spread democracy and relative prosperity worldwide in the last dispensation of time. I know many of you don’t agree with me on this, but this post is not intended to debate that much-worn-out topic. I am mentioning this only as part of an explanation for other positions I take here.
The first is that the United States has fought a uniquely moral war. Critics love to concentrate on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, but the reality is that U.S. forces mistreated more prisoners in a single day during 1944-1945 (during the “morally correct” World War II) than have happened in nearly four years of fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. During both invasions, U.S. and coalition forces have gone out of their way not to target noncombatants (compared to deliberately targeting them in WWII and Vietnam, for example). The scene of U.S. planes dropping food and blankets and notes on how to avoid bombing targets — rather than bombs — on the civilian populations of Iraq and Afghanistan is unique in modern warfare, and quite remarkable.
My impression is that most Americans have tried hard not to blame Muslims in general for terrorism and instead have recognized that the terrorists are a violent off-shoot of Islam. But this apears to be changing. Lately, in the wake of the London bombings, I have noticed respectable commentators on radio talk shows beginning to analyze “what is wrong with Islam that it is so violent.” These analyses inevitably lead to harangues against Muslims in general, and commentators are very slow to check this kind of talk.
I think this is very dangerous. Yes, all of the terrorists are Muslims. But of the more than 1 billion Muslims on the planet, the vast, vast, vast majority are peace-loving people just like you and I. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden wants — a worldwide tide of hate-mongering and a world of “us vs. them.” I think we need to avoid that attitude, especially since the Book of Mormon warns us of two different civilizations that destroyed themselves in the Americas because of untoward hatred.
We are very, very far from the hatred of the Lamanites, Nephites of Jaredites. We still tend to forgive our enemies and want to heal them, like the U.S. army private mentioned above. I hope that lasts.
I agree, in terms of the warnings of the Book of Mormon, I think we’ve done quite well.
That’s not to say we shouldn’t be vigilant. But overall I think we’ve conducted ourselves very well.
Since there aren’t a lot of Muslims across America, it would be a lot easier to believe mainstream Muslims didn’t support terrorists if they got out in the press and said as much. I learned more about what Muslims believe on the recent tv show 30 days than I have from any news outlet.
It’s also difficult to hear about all the funding being funneled to fringe groups. Our church is quick to distance itself from the FLDS. The mainstream Muslims would do well to do the same with their fringe faction.
It’s a risk for them to do it. If they don’t take that risk then their silence appears to be approval.
There are good men and women in the Muslim faith. They need to rise up and take a stand against those who would distort the teachings of their faith and tell the world what they really believe.
Adeline, I agree with you that moderate Muslims need to do a better job staking out their differences with Islamists. Some such as CAIR and others, did that quickly after the London bombings. Check out the information here. They seem to getting better at that. There were also no pictures of Palestinians celebrating, for example.
We need to understand that a huge percentage of Arab Muslims feel humiliated and they are angry. They are angry at their own decades-long subjection to oppressive republics and monarchies — an oppressive nation-state system that was imposed on the umma by the Western world. They are angry at the Israel-Palestinian conflict. They are angry at the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.
What is the most obvious alternative to the oppressive government? What forum best presents a forum for expression of political feeling and expression? The ubiquitous mosque. There has been much discussion of Arab civil-society organizations — but this is often accompanied by the acknowledgment that these organizations have been infiltrated or dominated by the aforementioned oppressive governments. So the mosque is the main institutional alternative that many Arab Muslims have to express their political frustration and feelings.
Many Muslims simply feel that if they lived their religion more fully and more truthfully, they would be blessed. That is a sentiment that we can understand. However, the effort to be more faithful to Islam often means that religious adherents look to the recorded actions and sentiments of the Muhajirun and the Ansar (Muhammad’s first converts and followers) for guidance. Those who read the traditional Islamic narratives know that the Muhajirun and the Ansar are famous for their victories and conquests as much as for their piety. So this kind of focus and attempt to return to a pious lifestyle by those who lived in the seventh century often leads (quite logically) to Islamic militarism or at least to sympathies for those who are Islamic militants.
In the past, many have complained about too much silence from the Islamic world in relation to vicious attacks that occur in the West. There has been a concern that the silence meant approval or equivocation — that there were too many fellow travelers in the midst of Islamic communities. That could very well be changing.
This might be one very small indication of sentiment out there … but there is a banner I’ve been seeing on at least some Muslim blogs recently.
I am honestly hoping that the democracy in Iraq will become entrenched, resilient and self-supporting. I think it potentially offers a way out from the traditional negative alternatives offered by authoritarianism and Islamic fundamentalism.
One of the problems here is that Islam is more than a religion. It has a political side as well. ITs more like an idealogy like maoism or communism. The pious muslem is commanded to make war with the infidels in a literal fashion not just religiously. I personally think that Islam is not really a peaceful religion. I witnessed in South Africa on my mission a muslim family convert to LDS and then be literally targeted for death and forced to flee to the US. The leadership of the local mosque led the assault on this family. I think we delude ourselves if we believe that Islam stands for peace and that a devout muslim can be compared to a devout Anglican. The more devout the muslim the more prone to violent jihad.
Islam needs to undergo a reformation to overcome the violent tendencies of Jihad. Unless this happens the war on terror will continue till the second coming and could play a major role in the “troubles” leading up the the second coming.
I agree that the US has handled itself very well in the current conflict in regards to acting in a humane fashion.
We are in the last days. The Book of Mormon was written for us. One of its explicit purposes is to act as a sign by foretelling what things will be like in the last days. It is a dangerous “all is well in Zion” (Zion being the U.S. in your formulation) to state that “[w]e are very, very far from the hatred of the Lamanites, Nephites of Jaredites.”
I disagree, Geoff. I think that, unfortunately, Americans as a whole are much too given to hatred of their enemies, heck- hatred of anything different than they are.
Think of how intensely many American soldiers hated Germans and Japanese during WWII. Think how cruel Americans were to Vietnamese, even those who were supposed to be on our side or who were living here in the States, during the Vietnam era.
I am sure that many of our soldiers hate Iraqis and make up racial slurs about them, just as our soldiers have always done. Why would this conflict be any different than any other conflict in that regard? Our soldiers, brave and heroic as they are, are definitely not poster children for love, virtue, and lack of prejudice.
This has nothing to do with my support (and I do support it) of the war in Iraq, just my observations of the prejudiced, crude, mean types that too often serve in our military. Would that they could all be honorable men.
I would hope that a Latter-day Saint would not be doing this, but I hold out no such hope for our fellow Americans. They are people, just like everyone else- basically rotten to the core.
Most of the soldier blogs are very positive towards Iraqis, although sometimes frustrated that they won’t build up their country. Also re-inlistment is well above army goals, primarily because the soldiers believe in helping the Iraqis. The soldier strategy this time through is quite different than Viet Nam or the like. Take Afghanistan for instance where the soldiers work so closely with Afghanis.
That’s not to say there aren’t clearly cultural issues and sometimes people who look down their nose. But I really don’t see anything like the racism of Viet Nam or WWII. Far from it.
Great post, Geoff. The media needs to better publicize such acts of heroism as the American soldier giving medical treatment to the wounded Iraqi who shot him. The media has been too quick to focus only on the horrors of the Iraq war, and have been ignoring the many reasons for hope in the Middle East.
That said, I think with each bomb attack, more and more Americans (and British) are becoming less and less tolerant of the Muslim people and their religion.
B Bell-
I disagree with your statement that “the more devout the muslim the more prone to violent jihad.” In several studies Mark Tessler has tested the relationship between piety in Islam and support for extremism/fundamentalism (Click here for Tessler’s CV, where you can find references for these articles). These were several years ago, the most recent took place on the eve of the gulf war, and were limited to Arab states. According to his data, there is no statistical relationship between support for extremism and piety in Islam. To make more clear, the more a Muslim goes to mosque, the more seriously he takes his Ramadan fasting, the more willing to pay his alms and such, has no bearing on whether or not a Muslim is going to support violent acts. This does not necessarily mean that there are not “pious” Muslims who do not commit these acts. It may also mean that pious and impious Muslims support (or not) extremism in more or less equal numbers.
GeoffB: “The first is that the United States has fought a uniquely moral war.”
As if there were such a thing. While there may be moral acts by individuals within a conflict, war by its very nature is immoral. Bruce R. McConkie (in Mormon Doctrine) called it “organized and systematic murder.”
All wars involve civilian casualties, even carefully-orchestrated ones. The U.S. attacked Iraq under the justification that Saddam Hussein would give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, who would then use them on the U.S., causing tens of thousands of American deaths. But our attack has caused at least that many Iraqi civilian casualties (one recent comprehensive study puts the figure at 25,000). We have caused at least as many deaths through our action as could (note the emphasis) have been caused through our inaction.
Moral soldiers fighting in an immoral war.
But the point of your blog entry is correct, Geoff — when attacked we must “bear it patiently and revile not against [the attackers], neither seek revenge” (D&C 98:23).
To be fair, WMDs were but one of the reasons the US attacked. It just happened to be the main reason the press and much of the public latched onto. The neo-cons in particular tended to give other reasons. One must also recognize the number of casualties the oil for food program and sanctions were causing.
To be fair, WMDs were but one of the reasons the US attacked. It just happened to be the main reason the press and much of the public latched onto.
If you read President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address, it’s pretty clear that WMDs were his focus in the run-up to the war.
One must also recognize the number of casualties the oil for food program and sanctions were causing.
I reject the notion that sanctions or war were our only two alternatives in Iraq.
Geoff didn’t want this entry to turn into a rehash of support/opposition for the war, so I’ll quit this thread here.
Hinckley on war:
It seems to me that he is expressing the need for love that Geoff expresses as well as the idea that war can indeed be a moral endeavor.
Mike, what do you think were the other choices? (Honestly curious – hopefully others don’t take this as thread jacking)
Regarding the piety of terrorists, the 9/11 ones were hanging out the Pink Pony, a Florida strip club getting drunk and buying lap dances in the days before the attacks. Neither of these activities are pious by Muslim standards.
A couple of things come to mind. During WWII the US instituted camps for Japanese-Americans. I don’t know that this was because of an intense hatred for them but hatred was allowed to flourish after the real reason was given. “They all look the same”. It was a lot like the Invasion of the Body Snatchers and other cold war films. The fear was ourselves, a faction of our own population that looked just like us. That fear manifested itself later, but during WWII it was easy to distinguish the percieved enemy.
Another film, The Siege (Denzel version not Segal), illustrates the fear equally as well.
We should not forget similar passages in the Bible that roughly translate to, “you’re either with us or against us”. This is the cry for violent Islamist views. The difference is we have concentrated on converting others rather than blowing them up.
One of the great things about the US is the separation of church and state. The nations that do not have this have a strong tie, which does give great political power to the religious fundamentalists. With the people unable to rise up against those who oppress them and with education and public information falsified, they are led to believe they should fight those who they think want to oppress them. Namely, the US.
Very good topic. I don’t know enough to have an opinion about Islam. There are a few Muslims who live in our community and they are treated with respect and kindness, they are good people and they deserve it.
But I had an interesting experience yesterday, I stopped on my way home from Vegas at a little mini-mart and a busload of Japanese people were there. I found myself looking at them and seeing if I could imagine any of the men torturing American soldiers. It was idle, not intentional, I caught myself. But war is hell, perhaps it brings out the worst in all of us.
Cracker is right, these are the last days. Geoff, I think you’re right, love of our fellow man is the only answer and I am proud of our soldiers.
We must be careful not to condemn all Muslims for the evil doings of a small percentage of them. To do otherwise would be like condemning al Irish Catholics or Protestants for the so-called sectarian war that raged for so many years over there. In the end it proved itself to be an economic war fought under the banner of religion….simply a grab for power and control.
I believe that when we get to the root causes of this war against terror, it will prove to be different than what it appears to be. When a fundamentalist terrorist is willing to blow his own people up in the name of Islam, then the motive has to be questioned. I believe that it is power and control that those behind the movement are after…not religious purity.
We should be paying attention to the condemnations that are now being made by different Mullahs across North America and Europe with respect to the London bombings. I believe that these statements represent an awakening in their people to the consequences of not speaking up and the resultant blanket condemnation of all Muslims.
We can do our part by showing an increase of friendliness to our Muslim neighbours. It won’t stop the terrorists, but it will provide an arena in which covert operatives can be exposed by the Muslims themselves.
Only by providing a place of safety for those good Muslims who live here can we be sure of protecting our own as well.
Eric Russell #15: “It seems to me that he is expressing the need for love that Geoff expresses as well as the idea that war can indeed be a moral endeavor.”
A couple of thoughts:
1. President Hinckley’s address was given during the war in Afghanistan, which was an entirely different war than the one in Iraq. Our attack on Afghanistan was an attempt to find and bring to justice those who planned and financed the 9/11 attacks, as well as to eliminate their supporters. In this sense, it was a defensive war, and while I have concerns about the number of innocents killed in that conflict, I believe it was justified. The Iraq war is a completely different situation, where we were not attacked, and false evidence was presented to drum up support for invasion.
2. With regard to President Hinckley’s mentioning of similarities between the Gadianton robbers and Al Qaeda: Please note that the Nephites’ continuing problem with the Gadianton band was not an issue of military weakness, but unrighteousness. The Gadiantons came to power because of Nephite wickedness (3 Nephi 2:18; Helaman 7:4), and the Nephites’ attempts to exterminate them through military means were never permanently successful — their secret oaths and abominations kept coming back, generation after generation. I suggest that the same is true today — we are not open to attack from Al Qaeda because we are militarily weak (we are, in fact, far and away the most powerful nation on earth), but because we are spiritually weak. If we would trust in the Lord rather than in the arm of the flesh, he would fight our battles for us (D&C 98:32-38).
Clark Goble (#16): “Mike, what do you think were the other choices? (Honestly curious – hopefully others don’t take this as thread jacking).”
Disengagement, primarily. Despite what the Bush administration claimed, Saddam Hussein was no Hitler. He was, at best, a local thug absorbed in maintaining his own power against surrounding nations that were hostile to him (Iran, in particular). As we learned the hard way, he had no chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and was therefore no more than a regional threat, best dealt with by his neighbors.
I shed no tears for him or for his sadistic sons, and the world is a better place without them. But what price have we paid to remove him from power? Two thousand of our own, dead, along with twenty-five thousand Iraqi civilians. And no end in sight to our occupation there.
Sorry if I’m threadjacking, Geoff. Although I disagree with many of your original points, I do agree that we should follow the admonition of the Savior to “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” (Matt 5:44-45).
Mike,
Just remember that in order to defeat the Gadiantons, they always had to be prepared militarily.
When you think of these terrorists today, they bear no resemblance to Gadiantons of old. The issue of power and control is still there, but the methodology is a lot different and requires a different strategy.
I am not certain that the Lord is not involved today. When I see the miracle that occurred in London when the explosives did not go off as planned, I can’t help but think that the Lord had a hand in it.
We are not blood thirsty because we fight them over there. The reasons that we are in Iraq is a direct result of misinformation put out by Saddam himself, and activities that he was involved in. The fact that they proved to be less terrifying than originally thought is not GWB’s fault nor the fault of the intelligence service.
His was a closed society that ensured that utmost secrecy was kept, even to the death of those involved directly, or on the periphery of his projects (e.g. the doomsday gun). In order to placate him, false results were published by his people, often to save their lives and those of their families.
Since verification was impossible, the apparent threat of an international inferno was justification in going after him based on previous experience.
The principles you lay out are correct, but so is the one that President Bush laid out to protect innocent lives in the long run.
To avoid further threadjacking, let me just go on record saying that I disagree with Larry’s analysis (#23).
So, the Lord protects innocent people in London on one day, while letting many innocent people die every day in Iraq?
Talk about us vs. them. All this talk of a moral war, and God protecting us so we can continue to be the richest countries(US and UK) in the world is nausiating. Maybe instead of patting ourselves on the back for being so righteous, we should consider the pride cycle and how it applies to our society. Furthermore, how can not begin to bridge a gap between us an our enemies until we acknowledge that we too have a part in the current mess of violence, and that this conflict is about men and not God.
Larry wrote: “When a fundamentalist terrorist is willing to blow his own people up in the name of Islam, then the motive has to be questioned. I believe that it is power and control that those behind the movement are after…not religious purity.”
There are very strict prohibitions in the Qur’an and in the ahadith against Muslims deliberately hurting or killing other Muslims. However, prominent Muslim figures have figured out how to overcome this. I’m actually studying this right now. One of the first examples I have found is of Ibn Taymiyyah. He lived in Damascus when the Tatars were on their way. The Tatars were nominally Muslims, so Ibn Taymiyyah had to figure out a way to declare that the Tatars were in fact unbelievers rather than Islamic converts.
In more recent history there have been figures such as Mawdudi, Sayyid Qutb and others who have re-defined the concept of jahiliya (ignorance or perhaps apostasy). Qutb determined that the secular nationalist Arab regimes were not trying to institutionalize Islam and sharia and thus they were in a state of jahiliya. That was how Qutb was able justify Islamic fundamentalists attacking these regimes.
In my opinion the Islamist militants are acting very much like Gadianton robbers. I find it very interesting that they operate in secretive cells and that they aim to overthrow governments. They also seem to often seek refuge in remote places and to organize themselves in remote places (Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, etc.).
I am still studying up on this, but a man named Hassan al-Banna helped to establish the first version of the Ikhwan al-Muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) in Egypt and part of that was setting up what is translated as “the secret apparatus” — militant cells of the organization’s members who could attempt to assassinate or infiltrate. The Muslim Brotherhood had its above-ground political and social organization and at the same time an underground componenent. In Palestine, Hamas has established itself in a similar manner, with separate political and military wings. One group supports schools, medical clinics, etc. while the other trains suicide bombers.
The whole idea of these organizations is to Islamize their cultures and peoples and at the same time to seek opportunities to overthrow or take over governments. It didn’t work out in Egypt but I believe a similar organization did manage to infiltrate the military in the Sudan and overthrow the government there. You can read up this little bio of Hassan al-Turabi, which describes a little bit what happened there.
Mike, one small point: Pres. Hinckley made very similar points in April conference right after the Iraq invasion started. Here are some key excerpts:
It seems pretty clear to me that Pres. Hinckley was not condemning the Iraqi invasion and was in fact justifying it based on the need to fight against tyranny and oppression. It seems clear that, to keep the theme of this thread, the Prophet recognized that, like the Nephites of old, our cause is a better cause than that of the terrorists.
I’d like to point out that I lived in Brazil at the time of the Iraq invasion and listened eagerly to April conference to hear the prophet’s point of view. Brazilians were overwhelmingly against the invasion (I would estimate more than 90 percent against in terms of the people with whom I associated). I was waiting to hear if the prophet condemned it so I could know whether I should agree with them. After conference, the Brazilian saints were forced to admit that the prophet supported the invasion and many of them changed their viewpoints. It was a very sobering moment for them.
Geoff B:
Wasn’t President Hinckley giving us his personal views on the matter, and not church policy or pronouncement? There is a pretty big difference between President Hinckley personally supporting the war while noting that there exist circumstances under which war is just, and the prophet declaring that the current war is just.
The paragraphs on duty to country (that come immediately before your quotation) put this in a slightly different light, do they not?
As to the piety of the terrorists. My comments were based on interviews with the family members of suicide bombers that I have seen on various newcasts. All of them spoke of how devout the bombers were to the religion. Also the Saudis regularly raise funds on behalf of the suicide bombers in Isreal and during the fund raising drives will talk of the duty of devout muslims to wage jihad against the infidels. Read the sermons (www.memri.org) of the most important clerics in the middle east and you will hear that it is the duty of the devout muslim to attack and kill the infidels. The rhetoric is shocking. Imagine Billy Graham or the pope calling Jews pigs and monkeys and advocating wholesale slaughter. Also lets not forget the ties to the nazis of many of the countries and movements in the Middle east. The muslim brotherhood (Al Q’s grandfather) the Baathists, and the grand Mufti of Jerusalem all have deep ties to Nazi Germany. The grand Mufti of Jerusalem spent a couple of years in Germany with Hitler during WW2.
Essentially I am saying that it is more than just a few extremists that are driving the terrorists forward.
Also many of the so called moderate muslim organizations including CAIR in the US have ties to terror as well. This should come as no suprise since terrorism is supported both politically and religiously in the middle east.
latest sermon from the leading cleric in Mecca. The terorists take their cues from the leading Islamic clerics
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD93905
JCP, President Hinckley’s talk at conference is here. People can read it and decide for themselves. My take is that the prophet is telling an international audience that you can still be a good member of the Church and be opposed to the war, but that he believes the war is just and that the Church’s position is that the war is just. I don’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth regarding this speech. People can, of course, come to other interpretations, and I have seen people do that. But here’s why I think that the prophet is supporting the Iraq war:
1)The prophet starts out by saying: “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.” Clearly, the prophet is saying that the war is a continuation of the Afghanistan conflict and part of the continuing war on terror. This directly contradicts the position of many opponents of the war who say Iraq and Afghanistan were different types of conflicts (see Mike Parker’s #21 for an example).
2)The prophet points out that Saddam Hussein is clearly a regional tyrant. “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.” The prophet is setting up the argument that battling against tyrants is justified.
3)The prophet also makes reference to the fact that the Lord may be supporting the war for His own purposes: “Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. 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.” Clearly, the forces of evil and repression are the terrorists and the aforementioned tyrants such as Saddam Hussein. I read this as saying that the Lord is using coalition power to overthrow tyrants and we should not get in the way of this.
4)See post #27 for a discussion of how the prophet justifies the war and clearly says we have an obligation to fight against tyranny.
5)The prophet asks people on both sides to act civilly, especially if they are members of the Church: “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.” I see this as warning people opposed to the war to keep their opposition within the bounds of civil discourse (as well as warning those who support it to do the same thing).
As for the prophet giving his personal opinion and not the opinion of the Church, I just can’t see how you can argue that. The prophet was the last speaker on the Sunday morning of conference, just after the invasion started. The prophet asks the question, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?†and then answers it by saying that sometimes war is justified (see post #27). It seems pretty clear that he is speaking for the Church, not just himself.
Geoff B writes that he just can’t see how I can argue that the prophet was giving his personal opinion and not the opinion of the church. My answer is that in that talk, when he answers the question of where the Church stands, he says that sometimes war is justified and that in this particular case he feels personally that it is justified. To get to a “position of the Church” one has to ignore the “personally.” I don’t really see how you can do that, implying that I don’t see where one can get an authoritative church endorsement of this specific war. There is an authoritative endorsement of war in some cases, and this is clearly a case where that action may be justified, but if President Hinckley wanted to say that the war was endorsed by the church he would have done so.
Simply put, President Hinckley is an intelligent man, guided by the Spirit. I doubt he would be imprecise on such an important question. And this is an important question. If we take the prophet’s words and use them to endorse our own positions, we had better be sure that he was actually saying what we think he was saying. His words are too important to do otherwise.
I spent hours and hours researching the history of our involvement in the middle east, which has a long history. I pondered and prayed about what I studied and came to a conclusion I felt grounded in. President Hinkley came to a different conclusion. How can I argue that the prophet was giving his personal opinion and not that of the church? I don’t have my resources with me to post all of the examples of prophets contradicting each other, but there are many. If I took everything prophets and apostles said to be ultimate truth, I would either be schizophrenic or leave the church. I believe that God responded to Joseph Smith when he applied James 1:5 to himself and asked God. I also believe that he will give to me liberally if I ask. I do not need to discount my answers because of the opinion of President Hinkley.
Geoff B and JCP.
I was sitting with 6 other active LDS people when Pres H spoke about the Iraq war. We all looked at each other and said… Holy cow he just endorsed the war!!!!! You have to parse his statements to come to any other conclusion.
One of my dictionary definitions of parse: “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components.”
That I closely examined the words of the prophet is an accusation I think I can live with.
Ally, my long responses here are primarily a response to Mike Parker’s #21. My opinion is that the prophet would be the first one to tell you that you can still be a good Church member, love the Lord and follow the Gospel and disagree with his conference talk. The prophet is not commanding people to take the same stand he took — this falls more in the realm of “guidance” than “commandment.” I do think we are commanded not to break laws while opposing the war. For example, people protesting and taking over a building or throwing rocks at and threatening to beat up Jews (which happened in SF State University, btw) would be breaking a “commandment,” imho. I doubt very much that when the book of life is opened that we will suffer guilt for having opposed the war.
JCP:
I was using the more clintonian definition of parse: I did not really say what you heard or thought I said
B Bell:
I gathered as much. My comment was meant ironically. You may want to parse the word “parse” if you care about the subtext.
I know that it certainly salves my conscience to refuse to consider that the Iraqis might be doing that exact thing.
I appreciate Geoff B’s comments in #37, and I agree with them.
Let’s look at President Hinckley’s words:
Notice that he speaks of his “personal feelings [and] personal loyalties in the present situation.” He notes that there have been “times and circumstances” in the scriptures when the Lord’s people have gone out to battle to defend their freedoms. He clearly believes that this is one of those times.
I agree with his scriptural analysis and conclusion about defense in general. I disagree with him that the scriptural requirement has been met in the Iraq war. This war has nothing to do with our liberty and freedom from tyranny, simply because Saddam Hussein did not attack us, threaten to attack us, or in any way attempt to take our freedoms away. (In fact, I could make the case that the Bush administration’s legislative agenda — including the USA PATRIOT Act and the No Child Left Behind Act — has done far more to usurp our freedoms than Saddam Hussein ever did.)
One vital passage that President Hinckley didn’t mention was D&C 98:33-38. This passage is very clear on when and how we should conduct war.
I honor and respect the prophet, but I maintain my right to disagree with him on this issue. I do not do so lightly.
I know that it certainly salves my conscience to refuse to consider that the Iraqis might be doing that exact thing.
I think one might have been able to make that case last year. I’m not sure one can make that case today. I think now it is a battle over domination and the like. i.e. over whether there will be a democratic Iraq or whether there will be a small minority controlling it. Perhaps one could argue that they are fighting for some small independent sunni section. However it sure looks like they want to stop elections and go back to the time when a few sunnis controlled the entire nation and persecuted the rest. Further, they seem to mainly be attacking fellow Iraqis, including children. It’s hard to see them as Iraqi freedom fighters.
As I said, one could have made that case last year. But I have a hard time buying it this year.
Mike Parker:
The crux of D&C 98:33 – 38 seems to be the necessity of the Lord’s commandment to go to war. The problem is that I know of no specific commandment from the Lord for the United States to go to war in any of the wars since the country’s founding. Would this mean that the Lord opposed wars like World War II or the American Civil War?
Maybe the key point of that passage is the opening: “And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients.” When the Lord closes that passage calling this policy an “ensample,” it is not obvious to me that this law is meant to define the Lord’s command forever. In fact, if it was the case that the Lord was setting up an eternal standard I think the passage would be different.
To conclusively determine the passage’s meaning we need a prophet. Luckily we have one, and while I clearly don’t agree with some interpretations of his words offered here, I think that his advice is both clearer and more relevant than that passage.
In reply to JCP (#43):
The saints of the time generally believed the Civil War was a fulfillment of prophecy that the Lord would bring destruction upon the United States for failing to support their rights in Missouri (see D&C 101:85-92). Utah territory stayed out of the war.
World War II is such an extreme, unique case that it is simply improper to compare it to any war before or since. Clearly there was never a greater thread to freedom in the world than Hitler and the Axis powers. The teaching of Church leaders in the late 30’s up through early 1942 was that nations should work out their differences in peace. After the U.S. entered the war, the Church gave its support to the Allies, while counseling that all people on both sides of the conflict were children of God and that hopefully the conflict could be brought to a speedy end. Several prominent leaders condemned the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Since that time, Church leaders have been much more hesitant to speak out against specific wars. I’m not sure of all the reasons for this, but I think it’s due, at least in part, to the large numbers of U.S. saints serving in the military, along with the strong personal views of a number of leaders (e.g., Ezra Taft Benson).
One major exception was Spencer W. Kimball, who publicly warned against militarism in general and the nuclear arms race specifically.
Since the directions in section 98 were given to the ancient prophets, and then given again to the saints in this dispensation, and further canonized, I think that counsel is still applicable today. Of course, President Hinckley is familiar with that passage. He probably feels that the conditions therein have been met. I don’t.
Mike,
In the end it appears that anyone, including the Prophet, who sees things differently than you, do is flat out wrong.
Hmmm….interesting perspective on things.
Mike, are you saying that everyone who participates in war, willingly or unwillingly, is therefore immoral? I think you can make the case that any time you initiate a war, you are unjust and immoral (not that I would always agree with you), but surely those who defend themselves in war are not immoral for doing so? Which is worse, to kill someone who is trying to kill you or those around you, or to stand by and let it happen? Or are you nobly giving them the opportunity to prove how evil they are by letting them do it?
Not-so Optomistic,
please provide some context for your
Given my own observations based on 19 years (and counting) in uniform, I would say that many men in the military are more honorable than those who are not. For instance, the military still considers adultery a crime. Someone who will deceive their spouse about having an affair is likely to deceive us in other respects. If you’re living a lie, why should I trust you with a weapon and my personal safety? But we have been pressured to alter that portion of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to conform with “society’s” views. Who is dishonorable in that exchange? Honor and integrity are key precepts that most of my comrades in arms live and die by. There are those who have no honor among us, but the fact is, their actions, when discovered, are still seen as offensive and unacceptable, and dealt with accordingly, not shrugged off as “just the way the world works.”
“Crude” I will grant you freely. What is your point?
“Prejudiced” I will not accept, unless you define prejudice as saying “there are things that are right, and things that are wrong, and we don’t tolerate things that are wrong.”
“Mean” in what sense? That men will accept orders to kill others, when told it’s in the best interests on the nation to do so? Note that I said they accept orders, not that they enjoy killing for its own sake.
If you are basing this on reports of interrogations and prison abuse, then I would suggest that you refrain from tarring those who serve honorably with the same brush that those who committed those atrocities deserve to be tarred with. If everyone in the service was prejudiced, crude and mean, then such events would be acceptable, and no investigations or punishments would be required. It wouldn’t even be a scandal, just standard procedures.
I think it’s a stretch to say that all Americans are “rotten to the core”–just because you yourself may be completely corrupt does not mean everyone else is. But is very noble of you to admit your flaws. I have some too, but I don’t think that makes me rotten to the core.
ok, you may all begin pelting me with rotten veggies now!
But isn’t that the way we all think, Larry? We all have firm personal convictions and opinions, and believe those who hold beliefs different from ours are wrong, no matter how sincere they may be. The key is to disagree without being disagreeable.
I sincerely believe the Iraq war was entered into using badly flawed intelligence, and possibly outright deception, and that it cannot be justified in that Saddam Hussein did not attack or threaten to attack us. I understand that others hold a different view, and I grant them the right to hold that view without questioning their faith, sincerity, or intelligence.
Space Chick, amen to you. Thanks for serving your country, and keep on truckin’!
Space Chick (#46): “Mike, are you saying that everyone who participates in war, willingly or unwillingly, is therefore immoral? I think you can make the case that any time you initiate a war, you are unjust and immoral (not that I would always agree with you), but surely those who defend themselves in war are not immoral for doing so?
I do not believe our men and women serving in the military are immoral for serving in the armed forced and following orders to fight. Many prophets — including President Hinckley — have taught that it is not murder to serve in defense of one’s own country.
The responsibility ultimately lies at the feet of the political and top military leaders who initiate the conflict. If Iraq is an unjust war, then George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz will one day be called to account for their actions. The soldiers on the ground are exempt from that judgment.
The only exception to this is when a soldier is given an order to commit an act that is clearly immoral, in which case it is his or her duty to refuse to follow that order. For example, the soldiers who participated in the My Lai massacre are responsible for their acts, and their leaders (military and civilian) are exempt, as long as they did not encourage the act or seek to cover it up. (I think this is generally accepted U.S. military law.)
Which is worse, to kill someone who is trying to kill you or those around you, or to stand by and let it happen? Or are you nobly giving them the opportunity to prove how evil they are by letting them do it?”
This is a complex question with no simple answer. Clearly the Savior taught us to “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also” (Matt 5:39). The Spirit restrained Alma when the people of Ammonihah were killing those who believed Alma and Amulek’s teachings (Alma 14:8-11). The Anti-Nephi-Lehies laid down and allowed themselves to be killed rather than shed the blood of their brethren — but they had previously made a covenant not to take up arms.
In general I think that we should be willing to defend innocent life, including our own and our family’s. I believe that’s consistent with the teachings of the prophets, including Joseph Smith:
Mike Parker:
It seems to me like you are making the flip side of an error I criticized above.
Just because the prophet says that there exist conditions where a people should go to war does not necessarily imply that a particular war is a good idea, or that the church has endorsed that war. Your comment 41 (in spots) seems consistent with this idea. But the flip side is also important. If the church does not explicitly endorse a war, that does not make the war necessarily wrong. It simply indicates a lack of guidance on that specific point.
I’ll finish by returning to what I think is the most important point. Whatever we personally believe, we cannot go wrong by thinking clearly, carefully and prayerfully about what the Lord and his prophets have actually said. To do less is to take that guidance lightly.
We need to follow the prophet and not let our own opinions override the prophets conference talk on the Iraq war.
I’m a bit bored by this discussion of whether the prophet supports or does not support the war in Iraq.
B Bell (#51):
So, “when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done”?
I reject that viewpoint, and affirm that all men are allowed to hold to their own opinions and seek the guidance of the Spirit in making decisions. Listening to the prophet’s counsel is an important part of that decision-making process, but prophets are not infallible. We should take their counsel seriously, but realize the Lord allows them to have their own beliefs and opinions, too.
Mike,
Not infallible like the Pope (ha ha) but pretty close. I keep seeing eventual apostacy from people who do not stay close to the CURRENT prophets CURRENT counsel in my calling. It starts small and then sometimes it will mushroom. IF we can ignore GBH on this then what is next? Porn? WOW? Tithing? Same Sex marriage?
Its better to stay close to the prophets counsel then to not.
B Bell (#54): If you’ll read my previous comments again, you’ll find I have never said anything about “ignoring GBH”. We ignore him at our own peril. We sustain him as a prophet, seer, and revelator, and we should expect prophecy, seership, and revelation.
However, not everything that comes out of his mouth — even in General Conference — is channelled directly from God. He has his beliefs and opinions, and it is up to us to listen and then pray on which things we should act on.
A friend of mine wrote something interesting on this subject recently:
Mike,
First you say:
“However, not everything that comes out of his mouth — even in General Conference — is channelled directly from God. He has his beliefs and opinions, and it is up to us to listen and then pray on which things we should act on.”
And then you quote your friend:
“Now, that’s the opposite extreme, those who believe that “a prophet is a prophet as long as what he says agrees with ME.” Doesn’t anybody pray about these issues any more?”
Do you understand the conondrum you create by using these two statements. How do you know that she hasn’t prayed about it. Just because she uses words that don’t reflect that she prayed doesn’t mean she didn’t.
However, my point is the contradiction you create with your first statement about not everything said in General Conference is the word of the Lord, and then you condemn her for doing the same thing you do in denying that President Hinckley was doing anything more than expressing his opinion and not the word of the Lord.
You take a convenient position vis-a-vis your position on war, but deny her the same right on her issue.
Again I repeat: Hmmmm….very interesting.
And if you say you prayed about it, then I assume you are suggesting that President Hinckley didn’t; in which case I would ask – when did you take priority over the Prophet with respect to the Lord, or when did you come to know more than Pres. Hinckley; because, I believe, he is infinitely more familiar with the scriptures you use than you are.
Geoff-
Thank you for your considerate remarks. I agree with you, I don’t think it is the prophet telling us we can’t disagree with his talks. I think President Hinkley is a loving and humble man who would never say that he knows the truth on all matters, or the scriptures better than anyone else in the church. His role is not to direct our personal lives, it is to direct the church. President Hinkley did not take a stand supporting the war for the church, he gave his personal opinion and stated it as such.
B Bell and Larry- I’m sure that you have the best of intentions in what you say, but think about what you are saying. We go to people of other faiths and tell them that God will speak to them and reveal the truth about the gospel to them. We encourage them to trust the spirit which guides them to truth. I don’t know about you all, but I never taught anyone seriously investigating the church that after they were baptized they can only trust the answers they get if those answers are in alignment with what the prophet says, or has said. That once the prophet has spoken concerning a matter, don’t even bother studying it out in your own mind or praying about it. I have a feeling we don’t teach that because people would run.
Ally,
If you read my statements carefully you will see that I am broaching the arguments that Mark uses and which I consider contradictory.
In any event, I would need convincing, beyond silly argument, that when the Prophet expresses his opinion in General Conference, that he hasn’t given it considerable thought and prayer. That being said, I believe that we still have the obligation to pray about it for ourselves. But when I notice people in conflict with what the Prophet says, and using scripture, that he is fully conversant with, to counter what he says then we have a dichotomy.
Is the Prophet wise enough to lead us under the inspiration and direction of the Lord, or are we the final arbiter in whether or not he is a servant of the Lord? And if we disagree with what he says because of our prayers, then what do we do? Do we still stand and bear testimony that he is the Prophet, or do we slot him in, when and only when, he agrees with us.
This is important, because when we are teaching investigators about a living church, and prophets that guide us as prophets of old did, do we want to confuse them with the concept that a lot of what he says in General Conference is his own opinion (expressed as such or not) and we are free to agree or disagree at will. Remember, the Church is not a democracy, and “whether by my mouth, or the mouth of my servants, it is the same.”
So let’s be consistent in our arguments. Either the Prophet is a prophet and we pay serious attention to what he says, personal or otherwise, or he is not…in which case people should turn in their membership as a matter of integrity.
As a Zion people they were of one heart and one mind…
I don’t mind that Mark wants a better approach to solving the world’s problems, because I agree with him on the ideal, but he has to be realistic enough to understand the times and circumstances under which we exist, and the solutions we are using now may well be the harbinger to bring about the solution he desires. Always a process…never an event.
I have not read all the comments in this thread but when I read this artcile in the SLC Tribune today, I thought others might find it applicable. It was about how Mike Wallace came to GBH’s birthday bash. And the Prophet apparently commented to Mike about his current feelings about Iraq:
“LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley “was not and is not happy with the war in Iraq,” CBS newsman Mike Wallace said Friday. “He deplores what’s going on there.”
The longtime reporter, who interviewed Hinckley for “60 Minutes” in 1995, was in Utah to participate in Hinckley’s 95th birthday gala at the LDS Conference Center in downtown Salt Lake City.
“It wasn’t an interview situation, so I didn’t press” Hinckley, Wallace told a half-dozen or so reporters. “But I was sorry I didn’t have a camera.”
I am not sure if this sheds any light on the “when is a prophet speaking as a prophet” debate. But I guess if he can change his mind on the issue, then his comments were more personal opinion than doctrine. Since the former changes and the latter does not.
That is interesting. Where did you read that?
I agree with the first sentence. I’m not sure I agree with the second.
Mormon got to the point where he realized he could no longer stick with the program of avenging “the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies” and that of cutting off their enemies from the face of the land. He walked out. He took the principled stand of refusing to do that which the majority thought needed to be done, and claimed that God told him to do so.
Does God no longer expect our men in uniform to make a principled stand? Of course, any service man who attempts to walk away, claiming that God told him to do so, is going to find himself thrown in the clink.
And the interesting thing is that (if my math is correct) 8 years later, Mormon “repented of [his] oath which [he] had made that [he] would no more assist them” and led them to battle again, even though it was without hope, because his people would not repent. I wonder if he felt that God would hold him blameless for doing so. He certainly doesn’t say that God commanded his return.
And he has an interesting warning for the Gentiles: “Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you—lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver.”
Are we assuming that the remnant of the seed of Jacob referenced here means the descendants of the Lamanites, or could it actually refer to a remnant of the seed of Jacob left behind in the old world?
Hmm?
Larry: I’ve tried to explain my position several times, but it seems that I’m unable to help you understand it. I’m not sure whose fault this is, but I am simply not interested in trying to explain it again. Sorry we couldn’t come to agreement.
Mark N. (#61): Individual soldiers in a conflict are only held accountable by God for those acts they do which are illegal or are motivated by blood-thirst. The following is the Church’s position on this, from the recent manual True to the Faith: A Gospel Reference:
Clark: It was in a Salt Lake Tribune article by Peggy Fletcher Stack. I think it was printed on the 23rd (today) but I am not sure because I read it online. http://www.sltrib.com
The article also states: “LDS spokesman Dale Bills was quick to say the church “has no position on the war in Iraq.”
That’s all well and good, Mike.
Now where in the standard works do I find that last sentence quoted again?
Obviously, it can be found in the book of Simon Dewey, but I’m not sure it’s been cannonized yet. Of course, since we have an all-volunteer army (well, not if you count the stop loss orders that have thwarted the plans of some soldiers to come home and get the heck out of harm’s way), the conditionals “If Latter-day Saints must go to war” and “if they are required to shed another’s blood” seem to be difficult to meet.
Isn’t that sad? Sounds kinda, oh, lukewarmish to me.
Clark, could you post some references to the soldier blogs? I would be really interested to read them.
I think people were dying daily in Iraq before the war, and they were dying after being tortured by the agents of Saddam Hussein, who I equate with Hitler. I think he was equally as evil and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. I think he is perfectly capable of setting up concentration camps killing millions.
But I wish we weren’t in Iraq. I didn’t support that war when it started. Now I feel I must, there are many men from my community fighting there. They are good men. I want them to live and to win.
One thing I keep hearing, albeit quietly, is that the influence of the church is being spread across Iraq and the middle east in the person of devout Mormons quietly living their faith. I think that has to come from God.
I guess my conclusion is that this is not a black and white issue. George Bush isn’t all good or all bad, he is not all right or all wrong. Except Hussein and his minions, who are evil people with evil purposes. Doesn’t that give us some moral ground?
annegb,
You make an interesting point that the walls have to come down somehow. It would naturally be better if the gospel could come peacefully to countries where Islam is the dominating religion, but war does bring the saints and establish a toehold. Many of the first LDS meetings in Korea were held by servicemen during the war.
The moral ground is so slippery. The bulk of US society condemns American soldiers who take pictures of Iraqi prisoners in demeaning positions, but expresses no outrage at the filming of the beheading of an Amercan newsman.
I think the point is, or should be, as Mark pointed out in #62: do we “delight in shedding of blood”?
Anne, there are literally hundreds of blogs by soldiers. They often get linked to by the big blogs, like Instapundit or Belmont Club. Instapundit in particular has a regular section linking often to soldier blogs discussing unreported news in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s always interesting.
Mark N. (#64): That’s all well and good, Mike. Now where in the standard works do I find that last sentence quoted again?
Just because it’s not in the standard works doesn’t mean it isn’t true or Church doctrine. The essential concept in the quote I gave has been repeated by numerous Church presidents, and I think it’s pretty well-established doctrine.
Personally, I find the idea of a standing peacetime military politically and morally questionable, and my opposition to most wars prevents me from recommending the military as a career. But it is not my place to counsel others on this matter — that is between them and the Lord.
Mike, thanks for clarifying. As someone else already pointed out, the example of Mormon’s behavior is also important to remember, where he could no longer lead his people in battle because he knew they wouldn’t “fight fair” and were going to war for the wrong reasons. There are similar options for someone in the service to abstain from fighting–if the man in the field thinks he’s being told to violate the “law of war” (yes, there is such a thing), he has not only a right but an obligation to disobey the order and report the violation.
Geoff :
A fascinating story indeed. But is it, um, true?
Remember the Jessica Lynch story.
Remember the Uranium/Niger story.
Remember the aluminum tubes story.
Remember the story about Iraqis in US uniforms.
Remember the false-flag-of-truce stories.
Remember the UAVs equipped to spray biologicals stories.
Remember the long long list of stockpiled biologicals.
Remember the terrorist training jet.
Remember the mushroom clouds.
There were others…you can find a collection of about 50 in Sam Gardiner’s pdfs which you can get here.
With one exception, all of these stories seemed immediately wrong to me when I first heard them. The gave me the same feeling I am getting now from the story you have just quoted. And they all proved wrong subsequently. The one exception was the Jessica Lynch story. I’d more or less shut down in disgust by then, but couldn’t avoid that one, and didn’t see any reason why they would’ve needed to lie. But they did.
I have learned to trust my misgivings.
The most politically astute of my friends was telling me in 2000 that if Bush won the election, there would be war in Iraq. She is LDS and Republican and brilliant—and black.
Sam Gardiner, by the way, is a retired Air Force colonel who used to teach strategy and strategic war games at the National War College. His conclusion is that someone is running black propaganda. There is certainly room for it—the State Department has a budget of the order of over half a billion a year for what is called Public Diplomacy. The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence was shut down, but its functions appear simply to have been moved elsewhere.
I remember Amalickiah’s towers.
I remember breastwork to be built before them, that they might rest their bodies and their arms upon.
I remember six ontis.
Various :
President Hinckley’s talks seemed very clearly to me to support Mr. Bush’s invasion. His Sunday morning talk was, if anything, underlined by the talk that immediately preceded it, in Priesthood Session on Saturday night, on loyalty. If you read the Sunday morning talk carefully, he did everything that he could personally do to support the war, but was nonetheless constrained from giving it the church’s imprimatur.
Frankly, to have done so, he would have needed the unanimous support of his counsellors and the Quorum of the Twelve, and I doubt either that he would have asked for it, or that they would have given it.
Those of you who insist that you can get by following the President in all things might contemplate why we don’t have just a pope, why we don’t have a doctrine of infallibility, why the President has Counsellors, why there is a Quorum of Twelve, why the presiding Quorums act only by consensus, doing nothing until the last holdout in the Quorum agrees, and why there are Standard Works, which Presidents Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith taught supervened anything said by anyone, including the President of the Church.
Katie’s report of Peggy Fletcher’s report of Mike Wallace’s report of President Hinckley’s misgivings is interesting. President Hinckley has spent a good fraction of a long life in church public relations, and he is extremely media savvy. Dale Bills’s stating that “the church has no position on the war in Iraq” is also interesting, not only for what it says, but for what it does not say—in particular, there is no denial of Wallace’s report of Hinckley’s misgivings.
And what Bills says is new only to those who think that President Hinckley’s older personal pro-war position was ever a church position.
I also find it interesting that Dieter Uchtdorf has been called to the Twelve, given that he very deftly but very clearly opposed the war in an earlier conference address.
To those of you who still think this invasion and occupation were correct—I do not call it a war, because it was so unequal from the begining—I ask you what you think your political responsibilties are under Mosiah 29. Why do you load onto President Hinckley a burden that belongs as particularly to you as does your home teaching?
CORRECTION
I said that Bills’s statement contained no denial of Wallace’s report of Hinckley’s misgivings.
I’ve now found something that includes a fuller version of Dale Bill’s statement. In particular :
While not an outright denial of Wallace’s report, neither is it in any measure an admission. It also indicates a determination not to clarify President Hinckley’s current personal position.
Some people have posted that Islam should move away from these Islamic Terrorist hate groups like our Church has moved away from the FLDS. The fact of the matter is that Islam does not have a centralized hierarchy like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does.
That is a major difference and I believe that is perhaps the main point that keeps Islam from moving en-masse away from the terrorist organizations.