Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

LDS belief in self-defense and war

idkmuchboutLDS
 Share

Recommended Posts

idkmuchboutLDS

idkmuchboutLDS

Posted
Posted

I couldn't find this subject in this forum..

Hi, I'm currently doing a presentation on Mitt Romney and his view on the War. I would like to know what is LDS belief in self-defense and war? And could someone give me a link to a source for my bibliography?

Thanks.

THIRDpersonviewer

THIRDpersonviewer

Posted
Posted

This a scripture from the Book of Mormon which Mitt Romney believes in. Alma 51:13-36

Your bibliography would be Book of Mormon. Also Moroni is the good guy.(A Mormon guy and leader over the military) it talks about how he got the people to fight and the end extreme of the battle/war. We hold this view here to be pretty sound in professing the beliefs of Mormons.

13 And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.

14 And it came to pass that when Moroni saw this, and also saw that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them.

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

16 For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.

17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.

18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.

19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

20 And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.

21 And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men, that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men; and thus he put an end to the stubbornness and the pride of those people who professed the blood of nobility; but they were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight valiantly for their freedom from bondage.

22 Behold, it came to pass that while Moroni was thus breaking down the wars and contentions among his own people, and subjecting them to peace and civilization, and making regulations to prepare for war against the Lamanites, behold, the Lamanites had come into the land of Moroni, which was in the borders by the seashore.

23 And it came to pass that the Nephites were not sufficiently strong in the city of Moroni; therefore Amalickiah did drive them, slaying many. And it came to pass that Amalickiah took possession of the city, yea, possession of all their fortifications.

24 And those who fled out of the city of Moroni came to the city of Nephihah; and also the people of the city of Lehi gathered themselves together, and made preparations and were ready to receive the Lamanites to battle.

25 But it came to pass that Amalickiah would not suffer the Lamanites to go against the city of Nephihah to battle, but kept them down by the seashore, leaving men in every city to maintain and defend it.

26 And thus he went on, taking possession of many cities, the city of Nephihah, and the city of Lehi, and the city of Morianton, and the city of Omner, and the city of Gid, and the city of Mulek, all of which were on the east borders by the seashore.

27 And thus had the Lamanites obtained, by the cunning of Amalickiah, so many cities, by their numberless hosts, all of which were strongly fortified after the manner of the fortifications of Moroni; all of which afforded strongholds for the Lamanites.

28 And it came to pass that they marched to the borders of the land Bountiful, driving the Nephites before them and slaying many.

29 But it came to pass that they were met by Teancum, who had slain Morianton and had headed his people in his flight.

30 And it came to pass that he headed Amalickiah also, as he was marching forth with his numerous army that he might take possession of the land Bountiful, and also the land northward.

31 But behold he met with a disappointment by being repulsed by Teancum and his men, for they were great warriors; for every man of Teancum did exceed the Lamanites in their strength and in their skill of war, insomuch that they did gain advantage over the Lamanites.

32 And it came to pass that they did harass them, insomuch that they did slay them even until it was dark. And it came to pass that Teancum and his men did pitch their tents in the borders of the land Bountiful; and Amalickiah did pitch his tents in the borders on the beach by the seashore, and after this manner were they driven.

33 And it came to pass that when the night had come, Teancum and his servant stole forth and went out by night, and went into the camp of Amalickiah; and behold, sleep had overpowered them because of their much fatigue, which was caused by the labors and heat of the day.

34 And it came to pass that Teancum stole privily into the tent of the king, and put a javelin to his heart; and he did cause the death of the king immediately that he did not awake his servants.

35 And he returned again privily to his own camp, and behold, his men were asleep, and he awoke them and told them all the things that he had done.

36 And he caused that his armies should stand in readiness, lest the Lamanites had awakened and should come upon them.

Also, certain measures such as the killing those who would not fight, I don't think is held by too many Mormons(like none). But yes we believe we are given freedom and thus must defend that gift and right. "Wherever there is injustice we'll be there. Whenever there is... line please?"- Three Amigos

MissouriBoiler

MissouriBoiler

Posted
Posted

Just to add something, This is from our last prophet who recently passed away, Gordon B Hinckley.

LDS.org - Liahona Article - War and Peace

I also think from a historical standpoint you might find the Mormon Battalion story interesting. Here are just a few simple links. YOu can find plenty more about them on the web.

U.S. Mormon Battalion, Inc. - Brief History of the U.S. Mormon Battalion

Mormon Battalion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can also find where there are many well known leaders of the the US Military Past and Present that are Members of the LDS faith all over the internet.

a-train

a-train

Posted
Posted

If you are looking to discover an official Church position on the situation in Iraq, you will not find one. Church leadership has purposefully made no declarations.

It is scriptural and doctrinal that we must protect ourselves, our families, our property and liberty from aggression.

The question is whether the Iraq war is in pursuit of such protection.

Mitt Romney seems to think so. I STRONGLY disagree and am very happy he has dropped out of the race for U.S. President.

I think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the protection of liberty or life, but it is the western plunder of the vulnerable middle east.

-a-train

idkmuchboutLDS

idkmuchboutLDS

Posted
  • Author
Posted

If you are looking to discover an official Church position on the situation in Iraq, you will not find one. Church leadership has purposefully made no declarations.

It is scriptural and doctrinal that we must protect ourselves, our families, our property and liberty from aggression.

The question is whether the Iraq war is in pursuit of such protection.

Mitt Romney seems to think so. I STRONGLY disagree and am very happy he has dropped out of the race for U.S. President.

I think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the protection of liberty or life, but it is the western plunder of the vulnerable middle east.

-a-train

I wasn't really looking for the official LDS Church's position on the issue, but something to back up Mitt Romney's support of the war. As for my own position on the war, I'm grateful for the sacrifices US soldiers and other nations' soldiers are doing.

When ever this war will end, there will another war. There will always be people who are full of hate. Wars will never end.

manxman

manxman

Posted
Posted

I think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the protection of liberty or life, but it is the western plunder of the vulnerable middle east.

-a-train

As you say,it's your opinion. It's my opinion that there has been so much deceit and politics that an ordinary bystander cannot now know what truth there may every have been. As to the motives of the decision makers, even if they told you the truth, there would be few willing to believe them.

It's degenerated into a mess, but the quickest sure way for it to end is for the insurgents to let peace reign, so we can pull out quickly, then they can do what they really want. trouble is, they don't believe that will happen, or they thirst after blood and revenge, neither of which is productive or conducive to peace. The latter seems to be a prevalent attitude of Arabs and Jews, causing generational bloodsheds.

Hemidakota

Hemidakota

Posted
Posted

The political issue right now, my opinion, I don't believe in voting for party or someone based on religious belief, or being of the same faith. Looking at our bleak candidates prospective for president, Cain would be better serve in selecting Mitt for VP, noting his vast business ethics and required skills to bail this nation out of soon-to-be financial bomb.

A-Train is correct, the church has no official position with both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Vanessa2

Vanessa2

Posted
Posted

Everyone has already given great sources, but I think to sum it up: generally (and this seems to apply to Mitt Romney), members of the church are peace-loving, but are also willing and able to stand up and fight when they deem necessary or when called upon because of duty. As you can see, there are many different political opinions as to when it would be necessary, but I think most of us are proud of our soldiers.

I don't know how appropriate my following analyses would be for your purposes, but an interesting comparison occurred to me: the Savior of the world was a meek and lowly person. However, meek certainly does not mean weak and there are countless examples of this in the scriptures (standing up to local religious authorities, turning over the vendors' tables in the temple, etc). I would like to think, that as a people, that is example we follow. We are meek and humble, but we know what is right and wrong, we are not afraid to fight, and there are examples of that throughout history. Certainly Mitt Romney is aware of all of that.

NeuroTypical

NeuroTypical

Posted
Posted

the Savior of the world was a meek and lowly person. However, meek certainly does not mean weak and there are countless examples of this in the scriptures (standing up to local religious authorities, turning over the vendors' tables in the temple, etc).

Not to mention the wars and massacres He commanded as Jehovah in the Old Testament. For example:

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying, "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, ... ye shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, and destroy all their pictures, and destroy all their molten images, and quite pluck down all their high places: And ye shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land, and dwell therein: for I have given you the land to possess it.

...

But if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you; then it shall come to pass, that those which ye let remain of them shall be pricks in your eyes, and thorns in your sides, and shall vex you in the land wherein ye dwell. Moreover it shall come to pass, that I shall do unto you, as I thought to do unto them.

LM

NeuroTypical

NeuroTypical

Posted
Posted

NeoCons are an abomination to God....

Hold on there a moment. I gotta ask you to define your terms here, because I get called a NeoCon all the time. I'm not sure if the shoe fits or not, so please spell it out a bit.

MyDogSkip, please share with us the definition of a NeoCon.

LM

Guest User-Removed

Guest User-Removed

Posted
Posted

Well...I'll leave the "Classic" definition up to whatever you can find in Dictionary.com.

The Bush Administration has been infested by the Neo Cons, hence the morass we find ourselves in throughout the world.

As a former operative in the RNC and a lifetime Reagan Revolutionary...I wouldn't be thrilled if someone called me a Neo Con.

I don't feel the need to be the police man of the world. I am far more of a "Jeffersonian Democrat" than a Neo Con.

If you like wars and rumors of wars...then you're a Neo Con. If the thought of mushroom clouds rising over Teheran excite you...as much as your team in the Final Four...then you're a Neo Con.

If you believe in "bomb now...let our grandkids pay later"...then you're a Neo Con.

Having never met you LM...I'm gonna speculate here a moment.

I suspect you believe in less government and more individual responsibility?

I suspect you believe that Washington DC can't solve all of our problems?

I suspect you're for a balanced budget?

I suspect your views are closer to Ronald Reagan...than W's

If I suspect correctly...then you're more of a Constitutionalist than a Neo Con?

pam

pam

Posted
Posted

If you are looking to discover an official Church position on the situation in Iraq, you will not find one. Church leadership has purposefully made no declarations.

It is scriptural and doctrinal that we must protect ourselves, our families, our property and liberty from aggression.

The question is whether the Iraq war is in pursuit of such protection.

Mitt Romney seems to think so. I STRONGLY disagree and am very happy he has dropped out of the race for U.S. President.

I think the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the protection of liberty or life, but it is the western plunder of the vulnerable middle east.

-a-train

You have your opinion and I have mine.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing