My favorite Christmas TV special is A Charlie Brown Christmas. The best part, which invariably reduces me to tears, is when Linus steps out on stage, the spotlight fixes on him, the children hush, and he narrates the familiar passages from Luke 2:
And the angel said unto them [the shepherds], Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. . . .
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
Millions of Mormons and a billion-plus Christians around the world will read or hear or act out these verses in the coming days. They have done so for millennia, and will continue to do so as long as there are believers in Jesus.
Then, for the other 364 days of the year, we will do our utmost to prove that the angels were wrong. This past month alone has provided plenty of evidence that the birth of Jesus did not bring peace on earth. Arguments that religion is responsible for most of the world’s violence are fallacious, but it is undeniably true that Christians have failed to solve the problem, and often contributed to it. Many, including a few members of the LDS Church who played a role in authorizing the torture of foreign detainees, apparently fail to even see a disjuncture between their resort to violence and their worship of the Prince of Peace.
It’s pretty obvious that most Mormons are not pacifists. But if we are in fact going to worship Jesus, and not just make a dumb idol out of the Babe of Bethlehem, then we should think long and hard about it.
Mormons have by and large accepted the dominant Christian notion of “just war,” first articulated not in the New Testament nor by the earliest Christians (many of whom went to the lion’s den rather than serve in the military), but rather by the fourth- and fifth-century Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo. It’s only natural to believe that if someone hits you, you should hit them back. Or that violence is effective in defeating our enemies. Or that peace can come through war. The trouble is, Jesus taught none of these things—in fact, he taught just the opposite. This Christmas season, perhaps we can take a few moments to revisit the Gospels and then ponder on whether we really believe that Jesus knew what he was talking about when it came to peace and violence, or if he was just a starry-eyed idealist. Personally, I believe Jesus was and is God, and that God is worth listening to. Even more than Augustine. Even—and here I know I’m treading on thin ice—more than Captain Moroni.
On the face of it, no book of scripture more readily articulates a just war ethic than does the Book of Mormon. After all, most of the heroes, including the three main prophet-compilers (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni) wield the sword in defense of their people. Nephites repeatedly preserve their families, their faith, and their nation through violent self-defense against the Lamanites. Mormon even writes that if all people were like Captain Moroni, the very gates of hell would be shaken. No one has ever said that about me.
But to read the Book of Mormon as an endorsement of war is to fundamentally miss the meaning of the text. It is to confuse the descriptive (the way things were or are) with the prescriptive (the way things should be, or what Saints should do). The Book of Mormon is not a battlefield guide, nor a call to Christian militarism, although it has often been misread as such.
The Book of Mormon is a tragedy. From the earliest chapters to the last, it contrasts the violent world with the peaceful kingdom of God. Lehi’s family is driven from Jerusalem by violence, and the Nephites are annihilated through violence. This is not a happy story. In the long run, violence works for no one. Captain Moroni and General Mormon won some battles, and lost some battles. A vast multitude died in the slaughter—for what apparent purpose? So they could fight again the next year, or at best a few years later. The obvious fact is so often missed: Nephite warfare does not bring peace to the land. Over and over again the Book of Mormon narrators show us that war never accomplishes peace, and violence never begets righteousness. Indeed, it’s difficult to conceive of a text more poignantly testifying to the utter futility and folly of violence.
The only thing that brings peace, healing, and reconciliation to individuals and groups in the Book of Mormon is for them to follow Jesus Christ. That sounds like every Sunday School lesson you’ve ever had, but while the Book of Mormon does encourage personal morality, it doesn’t stop there. The Book of Mormon cares about politics, economics, international relations, the ethics of war and peace. The only thing that resolves the conflict between Nephites and Lamanites is when they stop calling each other enemies and start considering each other brothers and sisters, fellow children of God. The sons of Ammon, the Anti-Nephi-Lehies, Samuel the Lamanite, and then most dramatically the people inhabiting the Lehite Zion described in 4 Nephi all share and act on the theology that spiritual kinship is more potent than tribe, and human dignity rooted in a theology of the infinite worth of souls is far more salient than nationalism. Violence of any kind—and war especially—is a rejection of the worth of souls. It is a betrayal of our core theology and our core identity.
Indeed, Christians refuse to recognize the category of “enemy.” God does not have enemies—he has children. (“The natural man is an enemy to God” is a commentary on sinful humanity’s enmity toward God, not the other way around.) The fundamental ethic of the Sermon on the Mount—as well as the Book of Mormon’s Sermon at the Temple—reads: “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; 3 Nephi 12:44-45). The fact that Latter-day Saints have the sermon twice in our scriptures suggests that perhaps we should take it twice as seriously.
One Latter-day Saint who did seem to take the “hard sayings” of Jesus twice as seriously (at least) was Spencer W. Kimball. In the summer of 1976, in the issue of the Ensign otherwise dedicated to triumphalist celebrations of the United States’ bicentennial, President Kimball offered a jeremiad against the Saints, whom he rebuked as being “on the whole, an idolatrous people.” The Saints’ materialism was of particular concern to him, as was their reliance on “the arm of flesh.” His prophetic statement is worth quoting at length:
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 antienemy 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 [in the Sermon on the Mount]. . . .
What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.
No one has ever said it any better. We “defeat” our enemies not by annihilating them but by making them our friends, ideally through the gospel of Jesus Christ. According to President Kimball, our proclamation of that gospel has to include our renunciation of the idolatry of militarism. It will probably lead us to reexamine the assumptions that contribute to our just war ethic as well.
In our ethics, as in all things, we look not to Captain Moroni or Teancum or Nephi as our north star. While we can admire other godly women and men and model our lives after their pattern of discipleship, it is Jesus, the Prince of Peace, the Nonviolent One, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When the way of Augustine departs from the way of Jesus, there should be no debate in our minds whom we should follow.
Coming back to the Christmas story, while our modern retellings of it focus on the cute and cuddly aspects, upon closer inspection we see the story is shot through with violence or the threat of it: Joseph’s option to have Mary stoned to death for fornication; the tax or census performed under threat of force and ultimately done to support a violent Roman occupation; a colonized citizenry cowed into submission but expecting a Messiah to overthrow their oppressors, by any means necessary; the forced migration of the Holy Family, who wandered first as internally displaced persons and then political refugees; and the murderous infanticide of Herod. When we add the Book of Mormon account we find unbelievers prepared to slaughter all the believers in Jesus if the sign of his birth did not come that very night. Little if any of that will probably find its way into your children’s Christmas Eve pageantry. But we should keep in mind that the Holy Family’s first Christmases were characterized as much by fear, displacement, and terror as by love, joy, and peace.
The birth of Jesus, with herald angels announcing a new reign of peace and good will, changed the character of the universe. On that night the King of Kings was born. But as he would tell Herod some 33 years later, his kingdom was not of this world. In saying so he was not just pointing to a pie-in-the-sky kingdom, though no doubt he is King of Heaven as well as earth. His kingdom is not of this world because it operates by fundamentally different rules, where weakness is power, selfless service is strength, and nonviolence is the norm. The advent of the Prince of Peace sounded a grand amen (an end, not agreement) to the authority of all the empires of the earth whose reign is predicated on control, dominion, and compulsion—which is to say all of them.
When the angels heralded a new reign of peace and goodwill, they announced it to the shepherds, whose visitation to the manger made them the first Christians. “Peace on earth, good will toward men” is thus a prescriptive statement of the task of Christians in the world. Because we worship a different kind of king and live in a different kind of kingdom, we will reject all the trappings of earthly empires. We will denounce state-sponsored execution, torture, targeted killings, imperialism, and war as the way of Caesar. We will welcome the immigrant and give shelter to the refugee. We will “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).
We will do all this in the name of Jesus and for his sake. We are the shepherds in the field, the wise men following the star, and we are called to bow, this Christmas and always, before the Newborn King.
Patrick Mason
Patrick Mason is Howard W. Hunter Chair of Mormon Studies and associate professor of Religion at Claremont Graduate University. He and co-author David Pulsipher are currently writing a book articulating a Mormon theology and ethic of peace and nonviolence.
All posts by Patrick Mason
A terrific Christmas message. Thank you Patrick.
Amen. Peace on Earth.
Patrick, it's Charles Inouye. Like many of the good things in my life, your post came by way of my niece Melissa. Thank you for this message. President Kimball's talk is one of my go-to speeches. I love the way it begins with a lyrical contemplation of the earth. As for your work in progress, which I know nothing about except for what is written above, allow me to give you unwanted and unasked for advice: go easy on the theology. Children of God write memoirs and stories more often than theories and treatises about what daddy is (was) like. You took a shot at Augustine, right? Duck! All the best.
I can see how you could hold Alma 43:30 against Moroni, but v. 43:54-ch44:1 and Alma 48:16, speaks against bloodlust and counteract warmongering with at least some effect, and there’s an overall theme that Moroni felt the righteousness of the Nephites was more central to their preservation than any military efforts, so to me using Moroni to justify contentious impulses is problematic. Sure, people DO it, but to blame that phenomenon on Moroni himself, feels brusque. I’d blame it instead on the way we’ve curated how we teach the books of Alma and Helaman to be “the war chapters,” when there’s so much more there than war games.
beautiful. High fives from a former-Claremontian Mormon.
Great post, Patrick. Really great.
Also, do you still wear your red converse? 🙂 I always wondered where you ended up!
Great post, Patrick. Really great.
Also, do you still wear your red converse? 🙂 I always wondered where you ended up!
Loved it. Was just discussing this message with a friend this morning. If possible, I'd love to hear your thoughts on Ammon's use of violence in protecting Lamoni's flocks.
The Christmas message I have been trying to share but couldn't find the words. Thank you.
I'm not sure on the details of Augustine's just war, though I've read it at some point. I am very familiar with what the Captain Moroni and other wartime leaders in the Book of Mormon advocated. I also have the listed talk by Spencer W. Kimball and regularly share it in light of the recent wars. I am convinced that Moroni would not condone at least 95% of the wars America has fought. The Book of Mormon leaders had very specific lines they never crossed. When the people began to cross them in spite of direct orders, Mormon loses hope and they are wiped out. One oft repeated principle is never taking the fight into enemy lands. A strictly defensive war is all God ever allowed them and once the immediate threat was over, the war was over. People who point to the Book of Mormon for justification of our foreign policy have misunderstood the principles of war it advocates.
One piece of advice. I would drop "the Nonviolent One" completely from all writings that don't offer an immediate and compelling explanation. To give Christ a label someone has never heard without a historical explanation will be enough to distract and lose people who would be interested in a theological treatise.
Here are some events I think are essential to address in your book. I recognize there is no time in an article. I would address Christ physically cleansing the temple by force twice. I would address the Old Testament account of Christ directly sending down fire to consume Elijah's enemies and giving commandments through prophets to destroy entire populations including men, women, and children. I would also address Nephi being asked specifically to kill Laban who was sleeping. Each of those are examples of God commanding or personally performing acts of violence. Each is different enough that no explanation for one would answer any of the others. Also consider explaining the general fact that righteous people receive divine help winning wars.
In addition to those, the Book of Mormon as a whole is difficult, as you are clearly aware. I agree that it does not justify the wars we fight today, but the leaders and even prophets go through a lot of trouble to point out wartime principles. The key ones are repeated several times. I suppose that even though it was written for our day, there could still be a lot of wasted space, but it places a nigh insurmountable burden of proof upon you. As a libertarian, I was a bit sore you didn't mention free trade as a cause of the peace in fourth nephi. I think it much more key than a sudden feeling of kinship. Or rather, I think it the cause of such kinship. Also, I submit the evidence of the Book of Mormon points much closer to non-aggression than towards nonviolence. Either way, in the context of our wars, an advocate of peace is welcome. I cannot help but think of C.S. Lewis's speech upon the subject of pacifism and recommend it strongly, though, I am certain you not only know of his address, but have probably reviewed it as part of writing the book. Thanks for writing something that could engage me for several hours now. I apologize for the length but it reflects my level of interest. Good luck with the book.
Well said and explained. Thanks!
Thank you, thank you.
Good article… My understanding as a member of the LDS, is found also in the Book or Mormon, "Fortify and defend… Strengthen your strongholds…do not give the first offense…"
Yet in times of war, when the offer of peace was extended and rejected, the enemy was killed rather than kept in prisoned for very specific reasons. War is an enemy to God, yet He also uses war to chasten His children (see Old Testament and Book of Mormon). I come away from these teachings with the understanding that each of us individually must "lay down our weapons" of war. It happens one heart at a time. I understand it will only worsen in the coming years for a divine purpose. My vision must include the hand and will of God. It isn't as simple as we may be led to believe. As for me, I can daily invite and follow the Spirit. And I can sincerely pray for His Kingdom to come sooner rather than later. And His will always first.
Very interesting thoughts; you got me thinking. Here area few things: particular moral injunctions can be compatible with a variety of moral principles. For example, ethicist Peter Singer invites us to imagine walking by a shallow pond and seeing a small child drowning. We could easily save the child, but doing so would cause us to ruin our expensive shoes. Should we save the child? Singer says yes, and suggests we can derive the following principle (a) from the story: “If you can prevent something bad from happening at the cost of something less bad, you ought to do it.” Though this sounds simple, it is actually an extremely demanding moral principle, requiring one to give away everything one has until the point at which giving away one more thing would make you worse off than the worst off person in the world. Anthony Appiah suggests we can derive a different principle (b) from the story: “If you are the person in the best position to prevent something really awful, and it won’t cost you much to do so, do it.” Both (a) and (b) are compatible with the story of the drowning child, but have radically different implications. (This is adapted from Anthony Appiah, Cosmopolitanism, pp. 160-161.)
I think something similar can be said for the injunctions about turning the other cheek and walking the extra mile that we hear in the Sermon on the Mount. You seem to hear the following moral principle in these passages:
(1) Never commit an act of violence against another human being, period. (strong pacifism)
Of course, Jesus doesn’t say this in so many words, but this is what you hear him saying. But this is not the only principle that is compatible with Jesus’ injunctions. The following could also be compatible:
(2) Never commit an act of violence in order to protect yourself, but it is sometimes permissible to commit acts of violence in order prevent harm to innocent persons.
(3) Never commit an act of violence unless your life or the life of someone else is in danger.
(4) Never commit an act of violence over something as trivial as personal pride or money or minor inconveniences.
(5) Never commit an act of violence unless God commands you to do it (Nephi and Laban).
(6) D&C 98:23-48.
(7) Never commit an act of violence except in order to help the person you are harming (e.g., pushing someone out of the way of an oncoming truck – if that example doesn’t do it for you, we could find another).
(8) Never commit an act of violence unless you are protecting the sanctity of the temple (Jesus cleansing the temple?).
Of course, Jesus does not say (1), (2), or any of the rest – they all (including (1), it has no privileged position) take steps beyond what Jesus says in the text. I’m inclined to think that Christians are not necessarily bound to (1), strong pacifism. There seem to be too many examples in which God does not seem displeased with particular violent actions – Nephi’s killing of Laban, the defensive work of Captain Moroni, etc. On (1), all of these actions must have been fundamentally sinful in the eyes of God. This doesn’t seem plausible in view of the record of the scriptures taken as a whole. Of course, violence should never be used lightly, and Christians should remember that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world. But I find it hard to believe that violence is unjustified under all circumstances (strong pacifism would also suggest we should get rid of police, as they sometimes use violence to enforce the law).
Patrick, Although I agree with much of what you say, you draw some unique conclusions from the Book of Mormon that is not articulated from church leaders. I remind you that the latest prophet to address war and peace was President Hinckley who said the following in 2003:
“When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, ‘Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword’” (Matthew 10: 34).
“This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. 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.”
Thanks for the insights, Patrick. As a true blue Mormon-Quaker pacifist who’s organized and/or participated in his share of marches around the world against war, as well as made a dozen or more speeches advocating peace from little Utah, to Brazil and India, I appreciate your coherent essay. Of course we can always find a rare exception that seems to justify conflict or violence. But for the 99.9% of us who haven’t had a revelation to fight or kill, we ought to “man up,” as they say. Mormons need to adhere to the great sermon by Spencer W. Kimball, cool our jets, and stop supporting everything from invading the Middle East with the righteous leadership of “Brother” Dick Cheney as our leader, to supporting illogical ideas such as the “Castle doctrine” and “stand your ground” laws. We need to take your wisdom to heart, and become a truly peaceful and loving people as the Lord requires.
For your convenience, here is the link to Pres. Kimball's full talk: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng
Rock Waterman, whatever you might think of his shortcomings, articulated a beautiful BoM viewpoint of defensive vs. offensive war and the Nephites' ultimate downfall as they started acting like – well, like 21st-century America. God save our poor benighted country.
(BTW, Did David Pulsipher ever study at Minnesota?)
http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2009/03/toby-keith-and-destruction-of-nephites.html
The Lord is not a pacifist. You forget the cleansing of the Temple, and of the Promised Land in the Old Testament. You can't just wish away <a href="https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/43.46?lang=eng#45">Alma 43:46</a>. Even the People of Ammon were not pacifists – they were afraid of loosing their salvation. Go read the story again. They later had to be persuaded out of taking up arms in their defense, and it was the rash <i>covenant</i> they (and not God) had previously initiated that prevented them fighting, <i>and not the nature of the fighting itself</i>. You then see them do something even harder than fighting for their freedom: they send their "very young" sons to fight. I would rather fight myself than send my young children, any day of the week! Ask yourself this: if their fathers were pacifists, where did those sons learn to fight? And those sons, the ones who covenanted to fight for liberty, are the only ones in all of our records who enjoyed that sort of continuing protection that brings every single one of them home again at the end of not just the battle, but the war. Even the 10 Commandments, though they look pretty cut and dry at "Thou shalt not kill," require us to consider if this verse doesn't need some translational help from the 8th Article of Faith. The Hebrew verb "ratsach" that this verse was translated from isn't just any killing, it's murder, and specifically premeditated murder. This verse would probably be better rendered, "Thou shalt not murder," and if had been rendered that way it would be a whole lot better in harmony with the rest of scripture. If you look in the Book of Mormon, nearly every hero and prophet in the entire book is involved with killing, and the situations run the gamut from the execution of Laban and political dissidents to defense of home and country. The men who we have no record of them fighting tend to be ones like Abinadai and Samuel the Lamanite, about whom we know so little as to make it impossible to say one way or the other. In no case is there a hero or prophet who specifically espoused pacifism. Look, too, at the fruits of pacifism the one time that we see it practiced, by the People of Ammon: thousands died. Consider the potential effects on the history of the Lehites had those murdered people been able to have families and teach their children and raise a generation of children so faithful and and true to the gospel, how would that have affected the history we have recorded in the Book of Mormon? How many unborn children (and grandchildren and so on) had to go to unbelieving homes because of pacifism? Evil triumphed the day that they allowed pacifism to persuade them just lay down and die.
Patrick, consider the following on just causes.
In summation, the LDS scriptures and words of LDS prophets convey that there are just causes for war. Although there are many reasons cited, the following causes are most relevant for today: to defend against an aggressor force; to defend lands, liberties, families, rights, houses/homes, and freedom; to recover people taken away captive; to restore peace; to prevent bloodshed; to preserve freedom from bondage, protection of families, the establishment of peace, and the assurance of God’s blessings; to put down civil rebellions; to enforce conscription; to bring an end to harm by aggressors brought on others; to preserve the privileges of the Church and of worship and in the cause of the Redeemer; to perpetuate and sustain free institutions against misrule, anarchy and mob violence; to provide for the defense of the Church and its membership; to protect the right and ability to self-government; to defend a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a ruthless one; and finally to support the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.
For specifics study the following just causes with references provided: To protect one’s people and defend one’s land may be just causes for going to battle/war (Mosiah 9: 17-19). God may sanction the use of force to defend and protect His people (Alma 2: 15 – 24). Recovering people taken away captive may be justified by God (Alma 16: 4-11). Protecting and defending another people from attack may be justified (Alma 28: 1-12). Defending one’s lands, liberty, and church may be just causes to go to war (Alma 43: 30). Liberties to defend may include rights, religion, freedom, peace, protection of families, and the assurance of God’s blessings (Alma 46: 12, 20-22). A just cause for being engaged in war may be to defend liberties, lands, families, peace, and one’s ability to live unto the Lord (Alma 48: 10). An army may have to be employed in civil disputes or civil rebellions to restore peace and to prevent bloodshed (Alma 50: 25 – 36). Enemy forces established on one’s borders may justify military action to remove the threat (Alma 50: 7, 11). During times of war, unique laws may be enacted and enforced to ensure the security and protection of the people (Alma 51: 15-16). Laws may be necessary to require conscription to military service in order to provide the defense for a people/land/country (Alma 51: 15-16). Those who refuse to fight may be compelled to fight by threat of trial, imprisonment, or death (Alma 51: 15-20). Going to battle against dissenters may be necessary to put down a rebellion (Alma 51: 18). The righteous cannot expect to be delivered by God if they do nothing for their own defense (Alma 60: 11). God will not look upon you as guiltless while you sit still and behold harm brought upon others (Alma 60: 23). Defense from attacking external enemies may be justified (Alma 61: 10). Defense by force against rebellions and dissensions may be justified (Alma 61: 11-12). It may be just to resist rebellions and dissensions by force for the purpose of retaining freedom, preserving the privilege of worship, and in the cause of the Redeemer (Alma 61: 14). Going up by force against rebellious brethren may be justified when they repent not and God commands it (Alma 61: 20). Going on the offense against dissenters may be justified to restore peace in the land and enforce laws for providing defense (Alma 62: 7-10). In battle with dissenters, one’s intent should not be to destroy them but to bring them to justice (Alma 62: 9). Just causes for war include maintaining rights, freedom, liberty, the privileges of the church, and for people to be able to worship (3 Nephi 2: 12). The Lord justifies war in accordance with His law of war (D&C 98: 32-36). A just cause for engaging in war is to fight for wives, children, their houses and homes (Mormon 2: 23). War may serve the purposes of God when it furthers His own kingdom on earth as with the Revolutionary War (“‘Delivered by the Power of God’: The American Revolution and Nephi’s Prophecy,” Ensign Magazine, Oct. 1987). Just causes for military defense may include saving the innocent unoffending citizens from the iron grasp of the oppressor and perpetuating and sustaining free institutions against misrule, anarchy and mob violence (LTG Joseph Smith Jr., Joseph Smith and the Restoration, 513). Supporting the formation of military units demonstrates Latter-day Saint “…attachment to the state and nation, as a people, whenever the public service requires our aid.” -(Joseph Smith Jr. and the First Presidency, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 153). The quorums of the priesthood have been and may be organized to provide for the defense of the Church and its membership “…in readiness to act in response to threats.” – (The Story of the Latter-day Saints, 207-208). Latter-day Saints may enlist for war as an act of loyalty to their governments and for the benefits and/or assistance it would afford the Church and for the Saints themselves (Brigham Young and the Mormon Battalion, Ensign to the Nations, 60 and 61). When force is brought to bear upon a people, they may resort to the great first law of self-preservation, and stand in their own defense and rights that are guaranteed to them by their government (Brigham Young, Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43, 370). People have a duty to themselves and their families not to tamely submit to be driven and slain, without an attempt to preserve their lives and way of life (Brigham Young, Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43, 370). Duty to country, to holy religion, to God, to freedom and liberty, requires a people to not quietly stand still in the face of aggression/oppression (Brigham Young, Church History in the Fulness of Times, Religion 341-43, 370). It is righteous and just for every people to defend their own lives and their own liberties and their own homes, with the last drop of their blood (Teachings of Presidents of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, page 402). The Lord will sustain any people defending their own liberty to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience and any people trying to preserve their wives and their children from the ravages of the war (Teachings of Presidents of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, page 402). The common people have the right and ability to self-government (“First Presidency Message,” Deseret News, 3 Oct., 1942). One’s involvement in war may be justified when there is an attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency (David O. McKay, Conference Report, Apr. 1942, 72). One’s involvement in war may be justified when in defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one (David O McKay., Conference Report, Apr. 1942, 72). “…we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.” – (Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign Magazine, May 2003).“While Latter-day Saints believe they are to ‘renounce war and proclaim peace,’ they also believe that it is a worthy duty to serve their country by protecting their family and neighbors, their ‘homes and their liberties, their wives and their children … their rites of worship and their church.’ Latter-day Saints share a commitment to both peace and freedom, and as such, ‘support the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.’” – (http: //www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/military-service, 8 March 2014). Those nations defending Israel in the final great battle will be allied with the God of Battles (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2d edition, 826-827).
Hi Patrick . Here is hoping you enjoy my Christmas music message to humanity
Celebraite The Joy