LDS Perspectives: Three Scriptures about War

This posting was left under the blog instructions, and I thought it might belong under the LDS Perspectives on War and Peace - but decided to put it out here in the main blog section (even though I didn't write it). This comment jumps the gun a bit - because there will be an extensive discussion coming about the justice of war - but I want you to think about a few things as you read these quotes:

1. Do these scriptures endorse war? Or, do they acknowledge the tragic fact that people may be forced to defend themselves with force?
2. Is there any significance that all of these scriptures pre-date the coming of Christ? What effect do Christ's teachings, and the changes that stemmed from the shift from Mosaic Law to the Law of Christ? The Sermon on the Mount taught us to turn the other cheek, and to love our enemies (see the quote in below from Pres. Kimball about becoming anti-enemy). Are there modern scriptures that express even this level of approval for war?
   
3. These scriptures appear to justify defensive war. Obviously, a war of unprovoked aggression is morally wrong - but what about this new doctrine of "preemptive war" promulgated after 9/11? There is a very good argument that we cannot effectively fight terrorism without preemption - but the doctrine strongly challenges the traditional doctrines of just war, and defensive uses of force.
   

TEXT OF ORIGINAL COMMENT:

When (if ever) is it appropriate for an LDS person to engage in war? Three Book of Mormon scriptures might be helpful to understand the LDS view:

Alma 43:46-47

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the DUTY which they owed to their god; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, atheir country, and their rights, and their religion.

From Alma 48:14-15, 23-25


14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.

15 And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger;

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea, and this was not all—they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world, unprepared to meet their God.

24 Nevertheless, they could not suffer to lay down their lives, that their wives and their children should be massacred by the barbarous cruelty of those who were once their brethren, yea, and had dissented from their church, and had left them and had gone to destroy them by joining the Lamanites.

25 Yea, they could not bear that their brethren should rejoice over the blood of the Nephites, so long as there were any who should keep the commandments of God, for the promise of the Lord was, if they should keep his commandments they should prosper in the land.

And from 3 Nephi 20:20-21:

20 And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles.

21 And it shall come to pass that I will establish my people, O house of Israel.

There are some interesting principles taught in these basic verses found in the Keystone Scripture.

The Fading American Dream

I believe that the biggest challenge of our society is to assist those less fortunate than us. When I mention that the world’s problems might be helped immensely by redistributing wealth – many people react negatively. There is a distinctly American attitude that wealth is attainable for anyone – and that one’s class, social position, or race has little to do with it in most cases. The American Dream, where a poor, recent arrival to America works day in and day out to build a business that eventually makes the entire family wealthy may have been a possibility for some in the past – but the current gap between rich and poor only seems to widen – and critical opportunities for people from one class to transcend into a higher, more autonomous class, are evaporating before our eyes. Two ready examples include the skyrocketing cost of higher education, and the ever-rising price of home-ownership. Just getting into the “club” of homeowners or into a good college can cost the entire life-savings of a middle-class individual. While many options exist for borrowing your way to an education – such acts only entrench the poor in debt, making it more difficult to compete with those who are able to obtain their education with funds from parents or pre-existing savings accounts (both vestiges of an elite status). The rapid expansion of corporate entities in the past century has diverted traditional stores of wealth from individuals to entities: while corporate entities succeeded in redistributing old familial wealth – corporations have failed to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor in this country. The buying power of those who earn wages on a salary or an hourly basis has steadily declined. I dare say that the American Dream is for most of us just that – a dream.

The different political parties have very different views on how to address this problem. At the risk of overgeneralization, I will briefly describe what I see in each party. The Republican Party focuses on individual responsibility. The Bush Administration’s plan to convert Social Security and health insurance to “private” accounts stems from beliefs that 1) people are more responsible with their own money, so turning it over to them will be more efficient; and 2) the government does not have a responsibility to ensure the retirement stability or health of individuals when they are capable of providing such security for themselves. Critical to the Republican view is the assumption that the only thing holding poor people back is government – otherwise they would have succeeded in resolving the problems already. People feel “entitled” because of over-reliance on social programs, therefore, excessive government spending has created a dependent poor class – and only a healthy dose of opportunity with an expectation of performance will resolve the problem.

The Democratic Party favors social programs to address these challenges. The Democrats’ justification for heightened social spending stems from beliefs that 1) poverty is created by class, race, and circumstance; 2) that a person’s state of need is often caused by factors beyond his or her control; and 3) government has a duty to provide an escape from poverty that it helped create or entrench. Critical to the Democrat view is the assumption that social programs, if done right, will address the causal factors of poverty.

The more I study various conflicts, wars, uprisings, and inequalities, the more I am convinced that class disparity causes almost all conflict. Tom Friedman used to talk about the McDonald’s theory of conflict (that no two countries with McDonald’s ever fought). I have a Class theory of conflict: no two conflicts exist where the country has effectively addressed class disparity. The Marxist dream of balancing classes turned out to be a terrible failure under communism – but I wonder if some of the truths espoused by Marx are not absolutely true. In my religion, there is a story of a people here in America who successfully maintained a peaceful (in the positive sense) society. The “Nephites” who remained in the land just after Christ visited the Americas (if you don’t know about this, email me and I will explain) – a great civilization of people rose in peace. Two interesting aspects of this society: 1) they “had all things in common” (economically); and 2) they there were no “-ites” in the society (i.e. Isrealites, Nephites, Lamanites, Zoramites, etc.). In short – they had addressed the class fissures in their society, enabling a positive peace to emerge. Now, many might argue that I left out the critical element – that they were all bound to the Gospel of Christ – which helped combat any violent urges to fight. This may be true, but I wonder whether a society that truly resolves class disparity would be able to embrace peace while maintaining its pluralistic nature? Several members of the Church have answered that peace is unattainable without widespread acceptance of the gospel. They argue that we cannot expect much progress until Christ returns to the earth to organize the “1000 years of peace.” True? So, then, what is the point of worrying about peace, or studying conflict resolution? Even if it were true, would it justify our purposeful participation in a system that exacerbates poverty, and entrenches class structures? Some might say that since we cannot change the problems inherent in the system; that we ought to do as best we can for ourselves, our families, our communities, and our nation – even if that means harmful competition with “others” (broadly defined). I find this attitude a challenge to the way I view the world, both politically, and religiously. What do you think?

Positive and Negative Peace

What do we mean when we say we seek peace? Generally, two types of peace exist: negative and positive peace. The absence of war or conflict marks the negative peace. But, positive peace entails more than avoidance; positive peace emerges when proactive efforts to build an equitable, balanced, fair society succeed in harmonizing society with the elements that are normally in tension. The positive peace requires ecological balance, class equity, and fairness in all things. Lofty? Certainly.

Are either of the forms of peace achievable? Our methods for securing negative peace often involve modes that block substantive progress for positive peace. For example, the Cold War geopolitics codified the radical class structures of the world, and depended on a posture of force for peace. MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction ensured the negative nuclear peace between the Soviets and the Americans – but this form of deterrence involved two elements that severely traded off with efforts to build a positive peace. First, the politics of the world ran along the lines of force: power, structure, balance, and compromise were all measured in terms of force: who had the most of it, and who was most willing to use it. Second, the balancing of nuclear power entailed an acceptance of nuclear weapons, of overwhelmingly powerful standing armies, and of the massive spending necessary to secure such a balance. The military industrial complex accounts for a massive proportion of government spending in the world. Maybe such money could have been better spent building positive peace – and the problems associated with war and conflict would not have to be forced away – but would naturally subside. Many proponents of the military industry note that our largest advances in technology (health care, computer technology, clothing, you name it) have military roots. True – but that does not prove what kinds of advances would become of a world focused on improving the lives of everyone – rather than defending territory or destroying life for political gain.

So, some questions:

1. Is ecological balance an issue related to peace? Is it necessary for a peaceful world? How about racial peace?
2. Are capitalistic markets peace-building or peace-destroying?
3. Is a negative peace sustainable? Is it sufficient? Is it desirable?
4. Can we ever obtain positive peace? Do we want it?
5. Is the redistribution of wealth a moral imperative? If so, how should it be accomplished?

Dora Maria Tellez - Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?

I sat in the car talking with my wife when the NPR station ran the story about former Sandinista leader Dora Maria Tellez, and her denied student visa.

The Divinity School at Harvard University offered her a position to teach a class on Nicaragua and the Sandinista aftermath, as well as a seminar on Caribbean identity. Ms. Tellez has visited the U.S. on numerous occasions to travel, teach, attend conferences, and conduct official business. After the successful overthrow of their dictatorship, Ms. Tellez was appointed as the minister of health in the first elected Sandinista administration. The rift between the U.S. and Nicaragua blew open when the Iran/Contra scandal broke - exposing the covert efforts by Reagan's Executive Branch to circumvent express Congressional orders to cease interference with Nicaraguan politics. Reagan and his staff continued to support the bloody dictatorship of the Somoza regime because they saw it as holding back a "red tide" of left-leaning Sandinistas. After Congress had explicitly barred the Executive Branch from selling weapons (or even giving them away) to governments or guerrillas in Latin America, the Executive Branch orchestrated an elaborate quid pro quo deal to secretly supply weapons to Iran, in exchange for money channeled to the contras in Nicaragua.

Ms. Tellez led a guerrilla movement in 1978 that eventually succeeded in overthrowing the Somoza regime. At one point, she was "Commander 2" when a group took over the National Palace, held 2,000 government officials hostage, and demanded free elections and a cessation of human rights abuses. This stand-off marked the turning point and beginning of the end for the Somoza regime.

Heralded as a liberation fighter, and a hero among the masses, Ms. Tellez served her people as the minister of health, and later became a prominent historian - an expert in Latin American Political History.

Although the State Department refuses to divulge the details of individual visa determinations, the letter sent to her quoted a section of the law that bans visas for anyone who "has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, incited terrorist activity." This part of U.S. immigration law is just one of myriad provisions revised under the USA Patriot Act. This and other hastily-drawn-up provisions have caused problems for universities trying to hire or invite foreign scholars.

* * *

As I sat there listening, I said aloud, "Under that standard, George Washington, Paul Revere, and the entire Boston Tea Party gang would be barred from entry into this country!" At that instant, the commentator noted that the standard would likely apply to many of our forefathers.

In fact, the "Revolutionary" war was in its essence, a war of rebellion, and in its tactics, a guerrilla war. Knowing their inferiority to the British Troops, the militia fighters resorted to covert violence to throw off the yoke of the British Crown.

While I understand the old adage that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist;" this seems both ridiculous, and counterproductive. I obviously think that Ms. Tellez ought to come in and teach our young people what it is like to oppose a violent regime; about what it means to defend your right to vote and to be free from fear; and I think we all should listen to her tell what it was like to be on the receiving end of U.S. Cold War Politics in Latin America. We credit Ronald Reagan with surmounting the Soviet Union - but we ignore the cost (in lives) to those who suffered in the several "proxy" conflicts that were integral to the "containment" of Communism.

I observe a few things about this piece of unfortunate news.

First, we must be clear about whom it is that we intend to keep from our midst with the Patriot Act, and our counter-terrorism legislation. We send the wrong signal to the world when we bury our heads in the sand and refuse to think clearly about individual cases like Ms. Tellez. Furthermore, this incident is not isolated; the sweep of our counter-terror response has been too broad. Now, with some time to sort things out, we should reconsider the lines, and add an ability to be more precise in our exclusion of foreigners. Making friends is the key to peace - not isolationism. Our porous borders will always leak - and we must rely on our outreach, rather than our grip, on others for security.

Second, what are we teaching Americans with acts like this? Take Mr. Bobby Fischer (another unfortunate public relations debacle) - who broke U.S. sanctions against Yugoslavia to compete in a Chess Tournament in 1992. When he turned up in Japan, they arrested him and sought to extradite him to the U.S. for trial on criminal charges that could land him in jail for 20 years. This is the same man who fought the war against Communism on the chessboard in front of the world - defeating the best player the U.S.S.R. could produce - at the height of the Cold War. What thanks do we give, but an extradition order? Sure, he is adamantly un-American now; and publicly decries the U.S. and all it does; he is fiercely anti-Semitic, and appears to struggle emotionally; but if he has no desire to return to the U.S. ought why not to let him be?

These policies and decisions teach American children the very same lack of understanding and cultural imperialism that we decry in the terrorists we pursue around the world. After 9/11, we complained that extremist terrorists simply "didn't understand" what Americans were really about - that if they only understood that we don't seek their annihilation, and do not seek to dominate the Arab world - that they would no longer feel the need to attack us. President Bush has, on more than one occasion, accused extreme elements of Islam of lacking proper tolerance for a diversity of opinion. The "War on Terror" is supposedly about promoting the freedom to think and the democracy that protects that freedom. It is this freedom and this democracy that Ms. Dora Maria Tellez so bravely risked her own life to obtain - and she succeeded!

Maybe the folks at the State Department and the White House ought to get out of their plush offices and walk the 1.5 blocks to the Korean War Memorial at the foot of the Lincoln Monument. Inscribed on the wall is a quote: "Freedom is not Free." If that is true (and it is), then Dora Maria Tellez deserves a Hero's welcome, not a red stamp reading "denied."

LDS Perspectives on War and Peace

I have begun a project to analyze LDS Perspectives on Peace and War. It should provoke some interesting debates, as I intend to challenge our common beliefs about conscientious objection, the justice of war, and our so-called-duty to support the President whenever he decides to lead the nation to war.

For starters, I submit the following two quotations from prominent LDS Church leaders.

"Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us of this. If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth . . . [We] Americans wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian populations with the atom bomb in Japan . . . [Not] only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, . . . it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery." - J. Reuben Clark, in General Conference, 5 October, 1946 (Conference Report, 46).

"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 Lord's teaching." - Spencer W. Kimball, "The False Gods We Worship," Ensign Magazine June 1976, p. 6.

How to Use the Blog

This blog has a companion website. Clicking the link to the right of the blog entitled "talk hard, be heard - Resources" will guide you to my website that contains full versions of material that I reference in the blog. I am an amateur web-guy, so be nice if you don't like the sites.

How the Blog Works:

1. I read something interesting.
2. I post a response to the blog, and maybe include a quote or two from the original piece.
3. I put the piece (in its entirety) up on the Resource website, and include a hyperlink from the text of the blog posting (it might just be denoted by different colored text, not necessarily a "www. . ." address - click on it to jump to the site).
4. You read the blog.
5. You either respond by clicking "post comment" and drafting a reply; or you investigate the full article by clicking on the hyperlink to the resource website.
6. If you investigated the article and now have some thoughts, return to the blog and post. NOTE: On the "Home" page of the Resource website there is a link to the blog entitled "visit the blog."
7. Visit the blog often, read, enjoy, and participate!!
8. If you do this, I get an A in class, we learn a lot about peace, and maybe find answers to really tough questions.
   

I sincerely appreciate your time in visiting and participating in this forum. Thank you.

-Joe