August 6th, 2007

My Letter to the Editor

I sent the following letter to the editor in to the Deseret News which was published yesterday (a guy named Jacob agreed). The letter follows, highlighting the changes that the editor made to my original letter:

Romney not representative of LDS viewsRon Paul a true conservative

As a news junkie and political enthusiast, I have been intrigued to observe the support and attention Mitt Romney has received in Utah. I agree with others who have come to the assumption that Romney’s support in Utah stems from his religion, which is shared by the majority of this paper’s readers.

However, I am of the firm opinion that Romney does not represent LDS beliefs. His desire to “double the size of Guantanamo” and use “extreme interrogation” tactics (Orwellian doublespeak for “torture”) shows that he rejects the Just War Theory supported in LDS scripture, where war is only condoned in true self-defense. In addition, Romney has also flip-flopped on important moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, something which should be alarming to true conservatives.

While Romney’s conservative voting record is a bit murky, there is one man that deserves the attention of all true conservatives: Ron Paul. Members of the LDS faith will see in Congressman Paul a reflection of conservative values, a humble yet strong foreign policy, an economic policy based on sound money, and a desire to preserve our nation’s sovereignty.

I encourage the readers of this paper to do their research and not vote for Mitt Romney simply because he’s a Mormon.

UPDATE: The BYU Daily Universe also published my letter, printing it in its entirety. However, they did change the title to simply be “Romney’s record”.

UPDATEx2: I just spoke with Jay Evensen, the editorial page editor at Deseret News. He indicated that the paper version of their newspaper does carry the following disclaimer:

Forum rules: We recommend letters to the editor be kept short. We routinely condense and edit them. All letters must include a full name, address, telephone number and, whenever possible, a signature. Names are withheld only when publication would endanger or seriously embarrass the writer.

I suggested that they post the same disclaimer online.

UPDATEx3: The Daily Herald also published my letter, also in its entirety. They slightly altered my title, inserting the word “good” in “Romney not good representative of LDS views”.

35 Responses to “My Letter to the Editor”

  1. Dan
    August 6, 2007 at 9:45 am #

    Ah, it’s good to see real evidence of censorship. I wonder why you were not “allowed” to state that LDS scripture condones war only in self-defense…

    You need to get out of Utah, dude!

  2. Scott
    August 6, 2007 at 11:02 am #

    I’m not thrilled with Romney. I have stated here that it is folly to vote for someone simply because they share your same religion. But I also argue here that Ron Paul cannot win the presidency. I’m glad that he is in the race, because he can help influence the debate. It’s great that people support him. Supporters should do all they can. However, given a realistic view of our political process, I do not believe Ron Paul can win.

  3. Ryan
    August 6, 2007 at 11:59 am #

    Ron Paul? The guy who is supporting the Democrat plan to pull out of Iraq immediately?

    And would you please point out where in scripture it says that war is only condoned in “true self-defense?” Or more specifically, would you be so kind as to explain your definition of “true” self-defense?

  4. Kelly Winterton
    August 6, 2007 at 12:09 pm #

    Yesterday ABC hosted the Iowa debate between Republican candidates. ABC had a poll asking who won. Ron Paul (last I checked) had accumulated 29,840 votes, for first place. The next closest candidate, Romney, had only accumulated 3,823 votes. Yet, ABC’s write-up of who won the debate claimed that Romney had won the debate. Go figure. Clear proof of MSM censorship.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105288&page=1

    1http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/popup?id=3436820&POLL299=1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

  5. Tytus
    August 6, 2007 at 1:01 pm #

    Didn’t you used to like Mitt?

    http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/harry-reid-and-first-presidency-opposition

  6. Connor
    August 6, 2007 at 1:05 pm #

    Didn’t you used to like Mitt?

    What I said in that article was that I respected him for following the counsel of our Prophet in supporting the constitutional amendment:

    [I] admire and respect Governor Mitt Romney (also LDS), who issued a letter to Senators, affirming his stance on the same-sex marriage issue (and heeding counsel of the First Presidency).

    This had nothing to do with his presidential campaign. I’m sure I would “like” the guy as an individual, I just don’t want him to be the next POTUS.

  7. Frank Staheli
    August 6, 2007 at 3:27 pm #

    I saw your letter in the paper this morning and I completely agree with it. It’s interesting what kind of parts the DesNews editor will hack from the original letter (sometimes the most salient points). I’ve had that experience several times. It’s good to see what you wrote in total (above), and I agree with it even more!

  8. Curtis
    August 6, 2007 at 3:40 pm #

    Ryan,
    See D&C 98 for the Lord’s rules about going to war.

    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/98

  9. Brandon
    August 6, 2007 at 10:02 pm #

    Is it common for a letter to the editor to be edited like that? It seems to me that the whole point of a letter to the editor is to express your view, not the editors.

  10. Connor
    August 7, 2007 at 9:34 am #

    Is it common for a letter to the editor to be edited like that?

    I was not aware of that practice, but apparently some papers do take it upon themselves to edit the letters, whether for size constraints or “clarity” (clarity for one editor might mean censorship for the author…).

    While not indicative of other papers and publications, the DesMoines Register’s page instructs the potential author:

    Remember — ALL letters are subject to editing.
    MOST letters are edited for clarification and length.

    Hmmph.

  11. Jacob
    August 7, 2007 at 2:44 pm #

    I have heard that a rumor has been circulating around on the internet about Ron Paul supporters riding Romney-Paid busses into the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa this weekend, and voting for Ron Paul. I hope they do, so the true character of Ron Paul supporters who’s sole purpose seems to be to attack Romney rather than create awareness of what Ron Paul stands for, comes shining forth.

  12. Connor
    August 7, 2007 at 2:50 pm #

    Mitt’s Nephew Jacob,

    So all Mitt supporters are saints and Ron supporters are defamers? Is a candidate’s reputation tarnished, or platform diminished, because of the actions of those for whom he is not accountable?

    Isn’t this what we preached, those of who served LDS missions, that one cannot judge the Church nor its doctrines by the actions of its members? If a Bishop apostatized, if a member fornicated, if somebody didn’t pay their tithing, that none of that mattered because if was the actions of a select few that should bear no weight on our judgment of truth?

    I don’t condone the actions of these people (although, Mitt never specified that those for whom he was paying had to vote for him. It was, as I understand, an open invitation), but I do feel that your willingness to cast aside any of your Uncle’s opponents because of the actions of some of their supporters is a bit naïve.

    (Said with love.)

  13. Doc
    August 7, 2007 at 3:03 pm #

    So are members true conservatives or true Mormons when they vote for Paul? You need to disentangle your religion and politics man. Otherwise you may be on the high road to disillusionment.

  14. Connor
    August 7, 2007 at 3:25 pm #

    So are members true conservatives or true Mormons when they vote for Paul? You need to disentangle your religion and politics man. Otherwise you may be on the high road to disillusionment.

    Certainly if any person ought to interfere in political matters, it should be those whose minds and judgments are influenced by correct principles — religious as well as political. Otherwise those persons professing religion would have to be governed by those who make no professions; be subject to their rule; have the law and word of God trampled under foot, and become as wicked as Sodom…. The cause of humanity, the cause of justice, the cause of freedom, the cause of patriotism, and the cause of God requires us to use our endeavors to put in righteous rulers. Our revelations tell us to seek diligently for good and wise men. (John Taylor, via Quoty)

    And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
    Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
    Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. (D&C 98:5,6,10, via Quoty)

    We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other. (John Adams, via Quoty)

    The Elders of Israel should “understand that they have something to do with the world politically as well as religiously, that it is as much their duty to study correct political principles as well as religious.” (John Taylor, via Quoty)

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

    It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. (George Washington, via Quoty)

    There is a duty which we, in common with all men, owe to governments, laws, and the regulations in the civil concerns of life; these guarantee to all parties and denominations of religion, equal and indefeasible rights, all alike interested; and they make our responsibilities one towards another in matters relating to temporal affairs, and the things of this life; the former principles do not destroy the latter, but bind us stronger, and make our responsibility, not only one towards another, but unto God also: hence we say, that the constitution of the United States is a glorious standard, it is founded in wisdom, it is a heavenly banner. (Joseph Smith, Jr., via Quoty)

    The highest glory of the American Revolution was that it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity. (John Quincy Adams, via Quoty)

    The disentanglement of religion and politics is what is destroying our nation.

    However, neither this post, nor my letter to the editor itself, is about the entanglement of religion and politics. If anything, my letter supports your idea that religion and politics should be “disentangled”, to the extent that I argue that any person voting should only support Mitt Romney based on their agreement to his political views and record, not to his membership in a church!

    Members of the Church are true conservatives and true Mormons inasmuch as they support and defend the Constitution. The fact that we have a “champion of the Constitution” in our day, a man compared to Thomas Jefferson, speaks volumes about what Latter-day Saints should do in supporting his policies.

  15. Connor
    August 8, 2007 at 12:39 pm #

    See “UPDATEx2” at the bottom of this post for information on Deseret News’ disclaimer for letters to the editor.

  16. Doug Bayless
    August 8, 2007 at 1:52 pm #

    Hey Connor, I thought it was awesome to see your letter in the Deseret News. To be fair, I felt like the way they edited it still conveyed your thoughts pretty accurately — which I thought was commendable. Your title would have been better, but I can see why they’d change that; the clarification of the “Just War Doctrine” is pretty important, but perhaps they could argue it was implied. Your list of Paul policies I thought was the worst hack, but at least they published your letter and left your last sentence intact. I was pretty happy you sent it and that they published it. Kudos.

  17. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 2:46 pm #

    Paul’s closed-border idea is bad for the economy. It’s evident that he didn’t study economics.

  18. Connor
    August 8, 2007 at 2:57 pm #

    Paul’s closed-border idea is bad for the economy. It’s evident that he didn’t study economics.

    Rep. Paul doesn’t have a closed-border idea. It’s evident that you didn’t study his platform.

  19. shestalou
    August 8, 2007 at 3:00 pm #

    I think Jacob should read this link before making such an assumption. Wow, Romney supporters can’t win with politics so now the stupid rumors start… so sad.

  20. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:11 pm #

    From Wikipedia:

    Paul voted “yes” on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which authorizes the construction of an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S and Mexico.

    That’s called a closed border.

  21. Connor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:14 pm #

    That’s called a closed border.

    No, that’s called true national security. Closed borders indicates a refusal to allow immigration, imports/exports, or multilateral diplomacy. Ron Paul is in favor of open borders to the extent that America’s presence should be felt and spread by example throughout the world.

    However, leaving America’s borders to be entirely porous encourages further illegal immigration which drains our national resources, spits in the face of the rule of law, and shows the hypocrisy of politicians promising to secure our borders but doing nothing about it — and often doing the opposite, as is evidenced by the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

  22. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:19 pm #

    Illegal immigration is good for our economy. Mexican laborers drive down wages which raises our standard of living since everything is cheaper. The borders should be open.

    Why would you deny human beings the right to come here and work?

  23. Connor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:22 pm #

    Condor,

    News flash of the day:

    Illegal immigration is…

    ILLEGAL!

    And besides, it is in no way good for our economy. Those supposedly driving down our wages are sucking away our social security, raising hospital fees, usurping educational resources, and are being completely subsidized by the government.

    If you subsidize something, you get more of it. Since we’re heavily subsidizing illegal (yes, illegal) immigrants, we’re only going to get more of them. I don’t care what phantom (and phony) economic benefits they may bring with them: they are illegal!

    Another topic for another day… but this is a threadjack.

  24. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:32 pm #

    Connor,

    No, this topic is relevant because is shows how Ron Paul doesn’t have a clue.

    A free labor market allows supply to meet demand. A job should go to whoever will do it for the lowest wage. It increases efficiency.

    The laws prohibiting human beings from coming to the United States are flawed. There should be no limit to the number of people who want to come into this country.

    Mexicans do drive down wages. You betray yourself by saying that they “supposedly” lower wages. Imagine how much more expensive everything would be if it was done by Americans who demanded $15 an hour? How much would a hamburger cost? How many small businesses would fold? How much would it cost to have bathroooms cleaned?

    I want lots and lots of illegal immigrants. Let’s open the borders and let them in. I’m glad that I only have to pony up $6 for a fast food lunch (instead of $12). That’s what I call prosperity.

    And then it’s a human rights issue. Why won’t you let other humans come here if they want to?

  25. Connor
    August 8, 2007 at 3:43 pm #

    A free labor market allows supply to meet demand.

    A free market is not free without the rule of law. Destroying a nation’s sovereignty and subverting established law is not a free market.

    A job should go to whoever will do it for the lowest wage. It increases efficiency.

    Subsidizing those who break the law, and hence encouraging more of it, is the opposite of efficiency. What, pray tell, is the opposite of efficiency? One antonym would be chaos. A free market should be based on law and order, not on chaos and rogue individuals breaking established laws.

    The laws prohibiting human beings from coming to the United States are flawed.

    No doubt. That is why Rep. Paul favors reforming immigration law. But that is not something we can adequately do when our borders are porous and we’re looking the other way while millions break our laws.

    Imagine how much more expensive everything would be if…

    Imagine how much more inexpensive everything would be if … all of this wasn’t true.

    That’s what I call prosperity.

    Go read Atlas Shrugged.

    Why won’t you let other humans come here if they want to?

    Why won’t you let me steal your money? Why won’t you let me kick you out of your house and live there instead? Why won’t you let me have your job? After all, these are “human rights issues”, are they not?

    You won’t let me, and we shouldn’t let illegal immigrants, because they are breaking the law, just as I would be breaking the law by taking what is yours, by injuring another, or whatever else goes against the established and Constitutional laws of this nation.

    Do you really think that our nation would prosper with a hundred million illegal immigrants working here for next to nothing? If so, your definition of prosperity, as it is linked to standard of living, is severely warped.

  26. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 4:02 pm #

    You obviously missed the point of Atlas Shrugged if you read it. The book advocates enterprise unfettered by government regulation.

    Restricting people from coming to the United States restricts the labor market. Supply doesn’t meet demand; that’s why it’s inefficient.

    The law is flawed because it restricts people from coming to the United States. It should be changed to allow anyone come here who wants to.

    Laws that enforce property rights can foster a free market. Laws that restrict supply and demand harm a free market.

    I don’t think it’s a human right to usurp property from others. I think there are immoral crimes. But I think it’s very much a human right for human beings to have the freedom to emigrate to a country.

    Do you really think that our nation would prosper with a hundred million illegal immigrants working here for next to nothing?

    Yes. You see, I understand economics.

  27. California Condor
    August 8, 2007 at 4:03 pm #

    If so, your definition of prosperity, as it is linked to standard of living, is severely warped.

    I define prosperity as being able to purchase goods and services for a low price. How is that warped?

  28. doc
    August 10, 2007 at 6:59 pm #

    Connor,
    And Joseph Smith, Christ, and others were liberal and radical for their time. Sure you should base your politics on what you feel are correct principles, but when backed by religious certainty things quickly become my enlightened views vs. everyone else. Me vs. other. good vs evil. Hugh Nibley put it this way,
    “Highly characteristic of the hierocentric doctrine [of the old sacral state] is an utter abhorrence of all that lies outside the system. The world inevitably falls into two parts, the heavenly kingdom and the outer darkness, a world of monsters and abortions. Whoever is not of the frithr is a nithung, without rights and without humanity. All who do not willingly submit to Alexander or Constantine are, according to Dio Chrysostom and Eusebius, mad beasts to be hunted down and exterminated. For the Roman, all the world is either ager pacatus or ager hosticus, says Varro,5 the only alternative to submission being outrageous rebellion. Anyone who resents the Roman yoke is a guilty slave, says Claudian, who should be consumed by remorse of conscience.6 For the Moslem, all the world is either Dār-al-Islām or Dār-al-Ḥarb, the latter being any spot in the world that has refused to pay tribute and thereby made itself guilty of rebellion, because everything in the world without exception is the legitimate property of the Moslems.7 We have already noted the claim of the khans that whoever resisted them were guilty of crime against God. To Attila, those who resisted his yoke were runaway slaves,8 and the Assyrian kings constantly declare that whoever will not take and keep an oath to them must needs be exterminated as “wicked people” and “rebels.” In a word, “the world without the ‘Kingdom’ remains in its state of primordial rebellion,” and all who do not recognize the divine king are truly “children of destruction.”

    In other words, truly evil things have happened again and again when people convince themselves that their political ideas are more than political ideas. Yeah, yeah, Benson was conservative, Faust was appointed to committees on civil rights, Brigham Young tried establishing the United Order, what is your point?

    Here is mine, put eloquently again by Nibley.
    “How could anything as trivial as human politics subvert our minds from the gospel? The danger lies in the fact that nothing is easier than to identify one’s own political, economic, dietary, cosmological, aesthetic, etc., ideas with the gospel, both to please one’s own vanity and to flatten the opposition. Therefore, our prophet was truly inspired when he told the priesthood at the last General Conference to avoid “even the implication” associating the Church with any political party, policy, or name.”

  29. doc
    August 10, 2007 at 7:02 pm #

    I should add, Brother Nibley is quoting A Prophet of God, I believe “gasp” Ezra Taft Benson, stating that you should never do exactly what you have done with the example of President Benson.

  30. Connor
    August 11, 2007 at 12:33 am #

    Yeah, yeah, Benson was conservative, Faust was appointed to committees on civil rights, Brigham Young tried establishing the United Order, what is your point?

    Wow, putting words in my mouth without even putting words in my mouth. Nice job! ;)

    The quote you share from Nibley is an excellent one that shows the danger of reading into the scriptures an interpretation that suits our own political agenda. But the “agenda” or “platform” of Constitutionally guaranteed liberty is in perfect harmony with the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Indeed, there are a plethora of GA quotes supporting the notion that the fight for liberty against tyranny is the same fight that has been going on since the War in Heaven.

    And so, we have been counseled, both in scripture by the Lord and in conferences by the brethren to uphold and defend the Constitution. I promote principles, not partisan platforms. I promote truth as it is found in the words of our founding fathers and modern day prophets, not a jaded political viewpoint that relies on a single verse, broadly interpreted to create its justification.

    The issue of liberty, of agency, of self sufficiency is fully supported by the gospel and transcends trivial “human politics”. Just as a statesman is superior to the politician, so are eternal principles superior to human politicking.

    …stating that you should never do exactly what you have done with the example of President Benson.

    Um, what example of President Benson?

  31. Connor
    August 14, 2007 at 11:12 am #

    Gichin Marsden of Lehi wrote a response to my letter in the BYU Daily Universe (see the fourth letter down, “Political activists”).

    What Ms. Marsden fails to realize in her narrow definition of the “Just War Theory” is that Moroni was fighting a war against those who were attacking his people. War is legitimately condoned in self defense, as David O. McKay explained:

    We see that war is incompatible with Christ’s teachings. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel of peace. War is its antithesis and produces hate. It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true Christianity. There are, however, two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter, mind you, I say enter, not begin, a war: (1) an attempt to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency, and (2) loyalty to his country. Possibly there is a third, viz., defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong ruthless one.

    The desire of some to apply scriptural war precedent in a twisted fashion to condone the actions of the current administration seems weak and desperate.

    I do agree with Ms. Marsden that the prophet should be the one to speak of the true interpretation. After declaring that the Book of Mormon was “as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems,” our current prophet said:

    The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

    Seems like a good synopsis of events in our day.

    Ms. Marsden then goes on to opine that I was too busy attacking another candidate to promote my own. What Ms. Marsden did not know (and what was made more difficult to understand since the paper changed the title of my letter) is that the point of my letter was to point out that Governor Romney’s political stance is not what represents the values (or what should be the values) of Latter-day Saints. The mention of Ron Paul near the conclusion of my letter was only a secondary element.

    Indeed, the letter could have made the same point if there were no mention of Rep. Paul. However, it is unwise in my opinion to criticize without offering a solution. It would be weak to simply say that Romney wasn’t a good representative of LDS views without offering an alternative that the readers could look into.

  32. woodenmike
    August 16, 2007 at 2:52 pm #

    Romney is a CFR Globalist, supporting the drive for a one world government, which could also could include a one world religion. The censorship is sickening, screw the Deseret News, print letters in their original form, or get out of the newspaper business. Great letter, Connor!

  33. Lani
    August 17, 2007 at 10:27 am #

    Thanks for writing your letters to the editor, Connor. I hope they were widely read.

    I’m an LDS Ron Paul supporter. And I just wanted to encourage those who aren’t yet Ron Paul supporters to look at the bigger picture. People get caught up in the details. Maybe you disagree with Ron Paul about border security, maybe you disagree with him about the war in Iraq, or maybe there is some other issue you disagree about. But the fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is absolutely devoted and dedicated to what he HIMSELF calls our “divinely inspired constitution.” Just google “Ron Paul statement of faith” and you can read it yourself.

    It’s easy to get hung up on one issue and attack a candidate because of that one issue. Put aside your pet issues for a moment and think of the Constitution. The Constitution is our divinely inspired and unbiased standard of proper government. I encourage you to take each candidate as a whole package and see which package is most consistently in-line with the Constitution and the ideals of the Founders. If you do, you’ll see what I see… that Ron Paul wins by far.

  34. Lani
    August 17, 2007 at 10:42 am #

    I also wanted to say one more thing… concerning illegal immigration. Here’s what Ron Paul’s site says, (one of the points Connor made above), “Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.” With an estimated 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country, that is a LOT of taxpayer dollars.

    And we need to remember that border security is a SECURITY issue. If we’re so concerned about keeping terrorists out of our country, then it makes sense to be CERTAIN that they can’t come in an open back door. Obviously it doesn’t keep them from entering the country legally, but it is only common sense that you’d be wise to reinforce security on all possible means of entrance.

  35. Jared
    October 1, 2007 at 11:28 pm #

    2 Plainly laid out scriptural references for the Just War principle is laid out in 3 Nephi 3:20, 21—also referencing footnote of Alma 48:14. In Alma 48:14 the Nephites were instructed to never give an “offense.” In 3 Nephi the people asked their leader to pray to the Lord to ask Him if they could “…go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.” Their leader Gidgiddoni said, “The Lord FORBID: fot if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will PREPARE ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will NOT go against them, but we will WAIT TILL THEY SHALL COME AGAINST US; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.” which is precisely what happened with the attack on Iraq.
    I can’t even number the amount of times I’ve heard, “we gotta get them over there before them come over here.” The Iraq war has been an offensive attack, which we have been warned against. I strongly suggest that we follow the example of this scripture 3 Nephi 20, 21.
    We need to bring our entire forces home to protect our borders, our country…on the ground and in the air. History does repeat itself many times over. Moroni desperately tried to convey this message for us to learn from their mistakes and successes.

Leave a Reply

Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.