The safety and protection of the Latter-day Saints lie in their preparing for peace. In other words, it is to make peace with their God, and with one another, and to proclaim peace unto all mankind, and so live and deport themselves, that they will encourage, extend and maintain peace to the utmost of their ability. (Journal of Discourses, volume 25, 2/24/1884)

1. Nazi Germany had specific expansionist goals that were widely known. These asperations could be seen not only in Mein Kampf but also in a steady chain of recriminations directed against the Versailles Treaty dating back to 1919. The Germans intended to get the land they had lost to Poland back, and achieve an Anschluss with Austria no matter what. Furthermore, Hitler’s invocation of his desire to gain “Lebensraum” (living space for those who don’t sprechen the Deutsch) had been popular even before the rise of the Nazis, so it was clear to all parties involved that the Third Reich intended an aggressive campaign of territorial expansion.

2. Nazi Germany had arguably the largest military machine in Europe, outside of the Soviet Union by 1938. As such, it was more than capable of fulfilling its territorial aspirations by force if necessary.

3. The “Hitler Element” Adolf Hitler was willing to gamble on aggression in order to get his way, even to the point of recklessness. (for example, one may consider Hitler’s willingness to attack the USSR while the war with England was yet unconcluded, or his declaration of war against the United States, after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, had he not done so, Congress may have limited American participation in the Second World War to a war in the Pacific against Japan.

When Chamberlain and Daladier met with Hitler in Munich in 1938, Hitler was determined to go to war. They could not comprehend this mindset because unlike Germany, Britain and France had taken far different lessons from the massive losses which they had incurred during the First World War, and were willing to find any compromise that would avoid its repetition. Hitler, on the other hand was willing to do anything in order to get the war he wanted.

In the years since 1945 the United States has never faced a foe who had the combination of expansionist goals, military capability and reckless aggression that Britain and France faced in 1938. Our continuing attempts to argue that each foreign policy crisis is a repeat of Munich merely cheapens the unique nature of that particular historical moment, while pushing us toward policy decisions and conclusions based on an inaccurate reading of events.

As I said in an earlier comment, I draw a distinction between legitimate and imminent defense, and retaliation. The section of Doctrine and Covenants makes mention of “go out unto battle”, seemingly indicating venturing beyond one’s own borders to put down a threat, whether before or after an attack has already been made. Additionally, one of the qualifiers in the quote by Pres. McKay that I linked to allows for defense. Finally, there are several quotes from church leaders, especially early ones, supporting a strong defense when attacked.

This is, as I have said, different than an official declaratory act of war. The section of scripture also talks about lifting up the standard of peace when war has been proclaimed against you. This perhaps refers to an intermediary moment of time when a group of people have given advance warning of their intentions, but have not yet striked. Were they to strike, you could defend yourself. But after they have simply declared war, these scriptures seem to indicate that our preference should be to first seek peaceful resolution of the conflict, trust in God, and not rely upon our own war machine to ameliorate the issue at hand.

So with respect to Hitler, I think that the countries he invaded were justified in defending themselves through military action, since the ball of war had already been brought to their court. Pres. McKay’s quote offers a third possibility for just war, namely coming to the defense of a weak nation being crushed by another. This principle, if correctly applied, might even justify portions of American military action in WWII. But history shows that our own political leaders were anxious for war and looking for ways to enter the conflict. Using a just cause as an excuse for one’s own nefarious desires is immoral in my book, even though the popularized reason for entering the war might be written off by the masses as an okay thing to do.

As far as celebrating peace-loving figures vs. those who fought and died in wars: Name some. Outside of religious leaders (including Gandhi, and Mother Teresa) I can only think of a few.

Need they be in the national spotlight to be celebrated? What about EMTs who work long hours to provide a crucial service? Underpaid and overworked schoolteachers looking to inspire the rising generation? Scientists researching the cure for cancer? Humanitarian organizations making a difference in individual lives around the world? Musicians, artists, and athletes showing what the human body can accomplish? Stay at home moms who reject cultural pressures to enter the workforce and instead spend their days personally raising their children? Scholars and historians who challenge the status quo and make a case for true change from the status quo? Family history researchers providing a connection to the past and enriching our lives? Diplomats who favor dialogue and discourse at all times? Basically, any individual that works to enrich and assist the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others qualifies in my mind.

As far as celebrating peace-loving figures vs. those who fought and died in wars: Name some.

Here are a few. The sons of Mosiah.

Alma 26:
23 Now do ye remember, my brethren, that we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn?
25 And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.
26 But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls.

Then there was Nephi and Lehi of Helaman chapter 5. These guys stopped a huge war by their preaching. Of course, there’s also Alma and Amulek who knew that the preaching of the word had a greater effect on the hearts of people than the sword did.

I’m sure you were expecting this from SOMEONE. So, why not me? Hitler’s early expansion in Europe was a great example of what “Peace at all costs” looks like.

Your thoughts?

I need to comment on your statement that those who cry for peace are often dismissed as partisan hacks. I believe that in most cases it is true.

So few who are not motivated by the leadership of such and so party actually cry out for peace based on fundamental principles alone. I hear both sides in several wars in my lifetime who were just crying for peace because the party in power was not their own.

You’ll see what I mean if this thing with North Korea gets much worse.

As far as celebrating peace-loving figures vs. those who fought and died in wars: Name some. Outside of religious leaders (including Gandhi, and Mother Teresa) I can only think of a few.

The fact is that peace doesn’t stick in people’s minds. It doesn’t motivate to action. The initial meeting between Luke and Yoda comes to mind:

“I’m looking for a great warrior.”

“Wars to not make one great.”

But this came from a movie about a WAR.

The paradox of strong warriors who favor peace has always been a difficult objective. I’d like to strive for it. But I’m never surprised when it is not achieved.

Even with the Nephite army, only the stripling warriors truly achieved this. Most of the rank and filers weren’t so keen on publishing peace while they saw their friends dying beside them.

“There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.”

A lone man inspired several hundred million people to protest against the tyrannical British Empire through complete non-violence to win independence. It is a remarkable story that for more reasons than one, is not fully told in the United States educational system.

As for me personally, I’ll have to consider your comparisons to Moroni’s responses further, but — speaking of ‘comprehension of the whole situation’ — we know far, far, (far!) less about the complexities of any situations in ancient scripture than we do about our own. So trying to be too specific in such analogies may not be very wise or helpful.

As to our own day, Presidents Kimball, McKay, Benson, Hinckley and others all lay out strikingly consistent qualifiers for war responses that — I would agree — lay bare the fact US foreign policy towards the mideast is (to say the least!) “problematic, especially from a Christian viewpoint.”

As for ‘unprovoked’ attacks it is difficult to identify enmity between the USA and any other country that is not deeply based in our actions and interferences in their own sovereign affairs. This silly idea that some nations simply “hate us for our freedom” has never once been tied to any action I’ve actually seen occur in my 36 years (or read about occurring before that). It is a supremely morally-enervating red-herring since it allows the casual US citizen an excuse to avoid asking what has really been done ‘in our name’ by our OSS, CIA, and earlier forces for over a century in every corner of the planet.

America came late to the colonial game in the Middle East but we picked up just like old pros. Consider this nugget from a recent Smithsonian article:

In August 1953, the CIA sent one of its most intrepid agents, Kermit Roosevelt Jr., grandson of president Theodore Roosevelt, to Tehran with orders to overthrow Mossadegh. Employing tactics that ranged from bribing newspaper editors to organizing riots, Roosevelt immediately set to work. From a command center in the basement of the U.S. Embassy, he managed to create the impression that Iran was collapsing into chaos. On the night of August 19, an angry crowd, led by Roosevelt’s Iranian agents—and supported by police and military units whose leaders he had suborned—converged on Mossadegh’s home. After a two-hour siege, Mossadegh fled over a back wall. His house was looted and set afire. The handful of American agents who organized the coup were, as Roosevelt later wrote, “full of jubilation, celebration and occasional and totally unpredictable whacks on the back as one or the other was suddenly overcome with enthusiasm.” Mossadegh was arrested, tried for high treason, imprisoned for three years, then sentenced to house arrest for life. He died in 1967.

Often-times we don’t get adequate light on these things for decades [when documents get de-classified, etc.] but going back to only “1968″ doesn’t even come close to approaching “comprehension of the whole situation”. As far as US foreign policy goes, we have shown bursts of enlightenment (such as many of the pamphlets laying out the philosophical justifications for American Revolution or the many principles enshrined in our original Declaration of Independence and Constitution) but more often than not the USA has participated in schemes and machinations of exactly the sort that garner God’s ire (and not His blessing) — not to mention the deep hatred of the common people in countries in which we operate.

That simplified history of Iran in the Smithsonian — where British and American companies would manage to gain absolute control over all the resources of an enslaved people again and again — and called in secret ops and sometimes full military to enforce their plunderings — is an excellent microcosm of the history of most colonies throughout the MidEast, Africa, Central America, the Asian islands, and much of the world. These are things we don’t discuss in our history books because they are ‘problematic’, but until we do they will keep occurring. There has been no slowdown in the last millenia.

Finally, I think most here would strongly agree with you in honoring those that have given their service (and even their life) for their nation. I also agree that doing this does not “necessarily denot[e] approval of war or approval of warmongering policies” but I hope that in doing so that we expand our perspective a bit — as President Hinckley did in his Conference talk on ‘War and Peace’ — to remember that those serving on the ‘other side’ of conflicts tend to feel that same ‘honor’ in serving their own leaders.

Too many of our conflicts escalate to the point of armed conflict simply because neither side (that would include our own!) is willing or able to discuss the complexities and true histories. I truly believe that if we were to put 1/100th of the time, treasure, and manpower we put into militarizing our conflicts in the expanding ‘war on terror’ instead into:
- developing domestic energy independence
- reviewing our roles and goals in de-stabilizing some foreign governments while [seemingly] arbitrarily propping up other dictators
that most of our conflict — both armed and philosophical — with most of the factions of the world would cease.

It would be then and only then that we could fulfill the likes of J. Reuben Clark’s observations about our nation (which I quoted yesterday at Connor’s Guantanamo post) and truly be a free and happy people.

Connor has presented some prophetic pronouncements that are carefully selected to bolster his point. But when we look at the entire compendium of modern prophetic teachings on the subject of force and war, it presents a picture that is far less cut and dried than seems to be suggested. How, for example, are we to be prepared to deal with an attack unless we … actually prepare for such?

Ike hated war, but he knew what to do when it was necessary. It ought to be abundantly clear that recent US foreign policy is extremely problematic, especially from a Christian viewpoint. But let’s not suggest that all action has been unprovoked. Middle Eastern terrorist attacks against the US have been occurring at least since Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in 1968. It is all well and good to say that US response has been overboard, erratic, and ineffective, but it has not been wholly unprovoked.

I have no problem honoring those that have given their lives in military service for their country. I do not think that doing this necessarily denotes approval of war or approval of warmongering policies.

I also agree with Connor, many of our military actions are questionable. The most important thing, however, is using this lens to attempt to influence the future actions of our government.

As Hugh Nibley said, we should cry for peace as often as possible.

First, the fact that there are extended periods of peace in the Book of Mormon is not an example of “peace at any cost.” They are simply examples of times of peace. We’ve had a few of those in the course of our country’s history. The very fact that they went back to war (even with Mormon and Moroni leading them in the very end) is evidence that “peace at any cost” isn’t always possible unless that “any cost” includes war.

Now, I agree with the premise of repelling an attack in progress as being in line with Mormonism. I have to admit that this is the first time I have been presented with the dilemma on preemptive attacks. The changing face of war, from frontal assaults and trench warfare to guerrilla and covert attacks that never intend to leave a force to be repelled leaves me wondering how this applies to us. It is something I need to consider.

If your assertion is that all military conflict the USA has been engaged in has been in the defense of our rights and freedoms, then I’ll have to strongly and respectfully disagree.

Far from. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the time to honor those who did fight in such wars, even back to the Revolutionary War.

This is the gospel, and what sacrament meeting is all about.

That’s part of the problem, a commitment to military action is the responsibility of Congress, not the President.

Yes, my thoughts on this talk are here.

Oh, and I’m sure you’ve discussed Pres. Hinckley’s statement in conference shortly after the Iraq War started. Some argue that he wasn’t expressing approval of the war, but he certainly wasn’t expressing disapproval of it, in my opinion. If anything, he was saying it was a necessary thing to do.

This is a very challenging issue.

You know, this IS a hard thing. I’ve wondered a lot about it over the last few years. But it is becoming clearer and clearer to me. How many of us take D&C 98 literally? How many of us are willing to allow our enemies to smite us (not just threaten us) three times and be forgiving before we take it up with the Lord and consider going to battle?

We are commanded to lift a standard of peace multiple times before war is considered. What does that actually mean? Does it mean we ignore their stated concerns or grievances with us and simply stand our ground defensively? I think it would involve serious examination of the entire situation to see if we are possibly at fault in any way and doing what we can do to make reparations/restitutions if needed or called for. A standard of peace would not involve hostility or threats but a sincere desire to be on good terms. This method ensures that our actions are truly in defense and that we have the blessings of God in our endeavors.

Hugh Nibley’s speech on pre-emptive war has been enlightening for me:

[Captain Moroni's] military preparations are strictly defensive, and he is careful to do nothing that will seem to threaten the Lamanites; all of his battles are fought on Nephite soil… Any thought of preemptive strike is out of the question… Resisting iniquity where? In the only place it can be resisted, in their own hearts. Not only is a preemptive strike out of the question but Moroni’s people have to let the enemy attack at least twice before responding, to guarantee that their own action is purely defensive

Contrast a few of his quotes with those of our former president:

new threats also require new thinking… If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long… the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge… our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary

Notice the reliance on the Lord and strict adherence to moral principles of defense in the first quote. In the latter, we are told that those methods are no longer good enough to keep us safe; that we must change our tactics to preemptive rather than defensive or there’s no way we can win.

There was never much of a debate on the subject before our nation quickly adopted the changes in stratagem. I, myself, didn’t think much of it at the time but passively accepted the President’s eloquent conclusion- not fully understanding the Lord’s way. The contrast between these methods, however, is quite stark when you take the time to examine each closely. They cannot co-exist. It must be one way or the other. The counsel in D&C has not changed. Should we abandon it for a more “modern”, “practical” approach?

The Book of Mormon repeatedly mentions times of peace as the absence of war. As just one example:

And it came to pass in the eleventh year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, on the fifth day of the second month, there having been much peace in the land of Zarahemla, there having been no wars nor contentions for a certain number of years, even until the fifth day of the second month in the eleventh year, there was a cry of war heard throughout the land. (Alma 16:1)

So, I take these types of verses to mean that the easiest way to establish peace is to resist war. I believe, however, that there are plenty of efforts that can be made to maintain and augment peace. Education is one, and for a modern example of how this can quell conflict, I suggest this book.

Must we bury our swords and prostrate ourselves on the ground, ready to be killed by our enemies in order to sufficiently “proclaim peace” or “pursue peace at all costs” as you put it? Or do we stand our ground and slay our enemies as Ammon did (or more accurately, fight back until they are either dead or no longer able to cause us harm)? Even Joseph Smith organized a state malitia, drilled them, and shot back in an attempt to fight off those who martyred him. Did he not “pursue peace at all costs?”

I think that we need to draw a distinction between defense and retaliation. I believe that the Lord justifies us in repelling an immediate threat, as I argue here. This is true defense—preventing and terminating an imminent attack. A retaliatory strike on the home country of your aggressor is, in my opinion, quite different.

Both the stories and Memorial Day are about men and women who have fought and died in valiant service while defending “our [right to practice our] religion, and freedom, and our peace, our [spouses], and our children.”

If your assertion is that all military conflict the USA has been engaged in has been in the defense of our rights and freedoms, then I’ll have to strongly and respectfully disagree.

While not necessarily contradictory, we are faced with stories and instructions that can be difficult to reconcile. Christ’s admonition to turn the other cheek contrasted with Capt. Moroni’s Title of Liberty. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis and the 2000 strippling warriors. Must we bury our swords and prostrate ourselves on the ground, ready to be killed by our enemies in order to sufficiently “proclaim peace” or “pursue peace at all costs” as you put it? Or do we stand our ground and slay our enemies as Ammon did (or more accurately, fight back until they are either dead or no longer able to cause us harm)? Even Joseph Smith organized a state malitia, drilled them, and shot back in an attempt to fight off those who martyred him. Did he not “pursue peace at all costs?”

You comment that we need to honor those who proclaim peace as much as those who lost their lives in war. For Latter-day Saints and practicing Christians, I think we do already. Christ is after all the Prince of Peace. Further, I don’t believe Memorial Day is about war any more than we tell the story of Teancum, Captain Moroni, the 2000 stripling Warriors, or any other Book of Mormon war story (not to mention the Old Testament) to glorify war. Both the stories and Memorial Day are about men and women who have fought and died in valiant service while defending “our [right to practice our] religion, and freedom, and our peace, our [spouses], and our children.” And in that context, I don’t believe that Memorial Day is anymore out of place in a Christian’s or Latter-day Saint’s life than is the verse about Joseph Smith “Praise to his mem’ry, he died as a martyr; Honored and blest be his ever great name! Long shall his blood, which was shed by assasins, Plead unto heav’n while the earth lauds his fame.”