Warmongers!

[NoGreaterLove]

Does anyone know how to get a hold of the April 1942 conference report?

What do you need from it and I will see if I have it.

[HeirofNumenor]

Does anyone know how to get a hold of the April 1942 conference report?

What do you need from it and I will see if I have it.

President David O. McKay speaking on World War 2.

[GeeR]

Yea, it's kind hard to see because it's small but it's at the top of the page about an inch below the words--LDS Scripture Citation Index and it looks like this. Notice where it says General Conference. I found it here:

http://scriptures.byu.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



LDS Scripture Citation Index


Table of Contents: Journal of Discourses · General Conference · STPJS (html, pdf)

[GeeR]

Heck, I'll just paste it.

The Church and the Present War
President David O. McKay
Second Counselor in the First Presidency
David O. McKay, Conference Report, pp. 70-74

With a number of young men from each of many wards in the Church serving somewhere in the terrible conflict now raging, it is easily understood why our minds are turned toward the deprecation of war, and to the hope for peace. Thoughts of loved ones are pretty closely linked with their soldier boys in army encampments. There are many, too, who should like to know what the attitude of the Church is toward the present war. This is a fitting day and occasion on which to consider this subject.

Easter, as you know, is an ancient spring festival with which Christendom has long since associated the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Savior's resurrection is the most glorious event in the history of mankind. It proclaims the victory of the soul over death, and the existence and progression of the individual personality beyond the grave.

The resurrected Lord's first greeting to His disciples, in the evening of that memorable day, was "Peace be unto you" ( John 20:19).

And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you ( John 20:20-21).

That was His message, too, at the last meeting He had with them before his crucifixion. Said He: "These words I have spoken unto you that in me ye might have peace" ( John 16:33).

The peace of Christ abides in the heart. It is an individual blessing. But it is a condition to be enjoyed also by groups of individuals, and to that end His disciples were to declare peace to the world.

On this Easter Day, the Risen Christ beholds in the world not peace, but war.

In the face of the tragic condition among mankind, honest thinking men and women ask how is it possible to reconcile the teachings of Jesus with the participation of the Church in armed conflict.

War is basically selfish. Its roots feed in the soil of envy, hatred, desire for domination. Its fruit, therefore, is always bitter. They who cultivate and propagate it spread death and destruction, and are enemies of the human race.

War originates in the hearts of men who seek to despoil, to conquer, or to destroy other individuals or groups of individuals. Self exaltation is a motivating factor; force, the means of attainment. War is rebellious action against moral order.

The present war had its beginning in militarism, a false philosophy which believes that "war is a biological necessity for the purification and progress of nations." It proclaims that Might determines Right, and that only the strongest nations should survive and rule. It says, "the grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of nations, and it is simply foolish to desire the suppression of their rivalry."

War impels you to hate your enemies.

The Prince of Peace says, Love your enemies.

War says, Curse them that curse you.

The Prince of Peace says, Pray for them that curse you.

War says, Injure and kill them that hate you.

The Risen Lord says, Do good to them that hate you ( Matt. 5:44).

WAR INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE TEACHINGS OF THE SAVIOR

Thus 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.

In the face of all this, I shall seem inconsistent when I declare that I uphold our country in the gigantic task it has assumed in the present world conflict, and sustain the Church in its loyal support of the government in its fight against dictatorship.

In justification of this seeming inconsistence, I shall not attempt to prove that there are occasions when Jesus would approve of a nation's starting a war. That He used force to drive from the temple the money changers ( Matt. 21:12-13; John 2:14-17), and other desecrators of the House of God, is a fact; but only a misapplication of the text can make that incident a justification for one Christian nation's going to war against another. On that occasion, as on all occasions, Jesus opposed and denounced wrong. With the strength of fiery indignation and of his own moral force, and not merely with a whip of small cords, Jesus drove the self-convicted desecrators from the temple.

Neither shall I attempt to prove that He favored war when He said: "Think not that I come to send peace on earth; I came not to send peace but a sword" ( Matt. 10:34). They who would quote this saying as indicating that Jesus approves of war surely put a strained interpretation on its true meaning, which refers most clearly to the incompatibility between truth and error. It clearly refers to the necessity of a choice, which has been made by thousands, between accepting the gospel or continuing in ease and comfort with relatives. There is not in that quotation any justification for one Christian nation's declaring war upon another.

Nor, again, would I try to justify my seeming inconsistency by referring to what He said on another occasion as follows:

But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one ....

And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords, And he said unto them, it is enough ( Luke 22:36,38).

Without reading into the text something which is not intended or even implied, the most that one can get from this admonition is that henceforth the disciples going forth into an antagonistic world might supply themselves with necessary support and the usual means of defense.

None of these sayings of the Savior's can be taken to prove that He justifies war.

Tolstoy, in his Christianity and Patriotism, says:

A Christian state, to be consistent, ought, on entering upon a war, not merely to remove the crosses from the churches, to turn the churches themselves into buildings for other purposes, to give the clergy other duties, and above all, to prohibit the gospel — but ought to renounce every precept of morality which follows from the Christian law.

Notwithstanding all this, I still say that there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable, and when a Christian nation may, without violation of principles, take up arms against an opposing force.

Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another. When this occurs proper reparation may be made by mutual understanding, apology, or by arbitration.

Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion. The taking of territory implies the subjugation of the weak by the strong — the application of the jungle law.

Nor is war justified in an attempt to enforce a new order of government, or even to impel others to a particular form of worship, however better the government or eternally true the principles of the enforced religion may be.

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.

MAN'S FREE AGENCY FUNDAMENTAL TO PROGRESS

Paramount among these reasons, of course, is the defense of man's freedom. An attempt to rob man of his free agency caused dissension even in heaven. Scriptures tell us:

Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him ( Rev. 12:7-9).

In that rebellion Lucifer said in substance: "By the law of force I will compel the human family to subscribe to the eternal plan, but give me thine honor and power" ( D&C 29:36; Moses 4:1).

To deprive an intelligent human being of his free agency is to commit the crime of the ages.

Impelling motives of this archenemy to liberty were pride, ambition, a sense of superiority, a will to dominate his fellows, and to be exalted above them, and a determination to deprive human beings of their freedom to speak and to act as their reason and judgment would dictate. Applicable to him are the words of Isaiah:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! . . .

For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north:

I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit ( Isa. 14:12-15).

Thus in the beginning was designed the great crime against manhood, to thwart

The wish, which ages have not yet subdued. In man, to have no master save his food.

So fundamental in man's eternal progress is his inherent right to choose, that the Lord would defend it even at the price of war. Without freedom of thought, freedom of choice, freedom of action within lawful bounds, man cannot progress. The Lord recognized this, and also the fact that it would take man thousands of years to make the earth habitable for self-governing individuals. Throughout the ages advanced souls have yearned for a society in which liberty and justice prevail. Men have sought for it, fought for it, have died for it. Ancient freemen prized it, slaves longed for it, the Magna Charta demanded it, the Constitution of the United States declared it.

"This love of liberty which God has planted in us," said Abraham Lincoln, "constitutes the bulwark of our liberty and independence. It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling seacoasts, our army, and our navy. Our defense is in the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, everywhere. Destroy this spirit, and we have planted the seeds of despotism at our very doors."

OUR OBLIGATION TO THE STATE

A second obligation that impels us to become participants in this world war is loyalty to government.

We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that He holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life ( D&C 134:1-2).

The greatest responsibility of the state is to guard the lives, and to protect the property and rights of its citizens; and if the state is obligated to protect its citizens from lawlessness within its boundaries, it is equally obligated to protect them from lawless encroachments from without — whether the attacking criminals be individuals or nations.

We are informed by competent authority that twenty years ago the government of the United States entered into an agreement with Japan to maintain peace in the Pacific Ocean, and "keep honorable hands off China." "Before the year was over," writes Mark J. Gayn, in an article Prelude to Treachery, "the ablest men on the Japanese naval general staff went to work blueprinting war on the United States and Britain."

From such treachery the state is in duty bound to protect itself, and its only effective means of doing so under present world conditions is by armed force. As a Church:

We believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to laws, and relief afforded ( D&C 134:11).

Even though we sense the hellish origin of war, even though we feel confident that war will never end war, yet under existing conditions we find ourselves as a body committed to combat this evil thing. With other loyal citizens we serve our country as bearers of arms, rather than to stand aloof to enjoy a freedom for which others have fought and died.

One purpose of emphasizing this theme is to give encouragement to young men now engaged in armed conflict and to reassure them that they are fighting for an eternal principle fundamental to the peace and progress of mankind.

CONCLUSION

God bless them and others now registered awaiting the call to duty, and those serving in defense! To each of you we send a message of confidence and trust. Many of you before entering upon your military duties were authorized messengers of peace. Others of you also hold the Priesthood. To all we say, in your personal habits let the same ideals guide you as soldiers in the army as guided you as missionaries. What the Lord said to you then is applicable to you now—

Wherefore, gird up your loins, and take upon you my whole armor, that ye may be able to withstand the evil day, having done all, that ye may be able to stand.

Stand, therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace ( D&C 27:15-16).

Keep yourselves morally clean. Being soldiers or sailors is not justification for indulgence in vulgarity, intemperance, or immorality. Others may be impelled to do these things because of the beastliness of war, but you who hold the Priesthood cannot so indulge with impunity. For your own sweet lives, and for others who trust you, keep yourselves unpolluted. Your loved ones believe in you, your comrades will respect you your officers will admire you.

Today as we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Savior, there is a cloud of spiritual heaviness hanging over the world, as there was darkness at the time of the crucifixion. Let us hope that when this mad orgy shall have ended, that the honest in heart will experience a spiritual resurrection and will associate with one another in a newness of life. As seeds of future wars are often sown around the peace table, may the spirit of the gospel of Jesus Christ and not the spirit of retaliation and revenge actuate those who meet to determine peace terms. When that blessed occasion comes, may the representatives of the nations recognize the inalienable rights of peoples everywhere to govern themselves. It would be appropriate if there were emblazoned in golden letters on the walls in which they meet, and especially cherished as motives in the hearts of those who determine the conditions of peace, the words of Christ our Lord; "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" ( Matt. 5:44-45).

O Brother Man
Follow with reverent steps the great example
Of Him whose holy work was "doing good" ( Acts 10:38);
So shall the wide earth seem our Father's temple,
Each loving life a psalm of gratitude.

Then shall all shackles fall; the stormy clangor
Of wild music o'er the earth shall cease;
Love shall tread out the baleful fire of anger,
And in its ashes plant the tree of peace!

[Squally]

I'll be honest, I havn't completely read the entire thread. However, from what I have read I agree with most opinions.

I'd like to pose I question I haven't typically seen addressed. What are appropriate ways of helping the oppressed in other nations, such as Libya? Just pray for them? Volunteer militias to train, arm, and fun the locals?

I personally believe standing up against oppression in my own country is a virtuous cause. What would be the appropriate ways to help other nations?

fpss, I think the first thing that has to be done is to thoroughly understand the situation regarding the "oppressed in other nations". Just how accurate is the information are we getting through the 'normal' or usual channels? Do we REALLY understand all of the ins-and-outs of a given 'oppressed' situation?


Taking Libya as an example, how many know that Libya consists of 3 disparate provinces that have been quite separate historically even to the point of antagonism; and that it was Italians who cobbled the 'country' called Libya together out of these provinces. Apparently, a lot of what is happening there is driven in part by fault lines between these three groups. See an article on the subject by Justin Raimondo, title: Libya Does Not Exist, at:

http://www.etherzone.com/2011/raim031511.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; .

I personally have learned through the years to be very leery about what I see or hear in the corporate media about such things, especially when they start beating the drums of war and come up with stories why war is justified or desirable.

In the case of Libya, Obama hasn't even waited for the media to pave the way or catch up; nor has he waited for Congressional approval. Apparently, a UN sanction/mandate is now enough for the Executive Branch (read, Obama) to wage war on countries that are not attacking us.

Taking my cue from the concept of a just war outlined in the Book of Mormon, it has occurred to me that a good test of whether I as an individual should support whatever war is offered, should be: AM I WILLING TO LAY MY LIFE ON THE LINE in this or that war? If I come to the conclusion that I am not willing to do this, then it seems hypocritical for me to expect others to do so (i.e., fight the war for me), unless they are actually defending their homes, families and their country from direct attack. It also follows that unless I'm willing to do this, I have no real business supporting the war in question.

But when are most people willing to LAY THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE? Exactly, when their families, their communities, on up to their country, come under direct attack. This dovetails nicely with what the Book of Mormon defines as a just war. When you hew to this tack, so, so, so much blood and horror and the spilling of innocent blood is avoided. AND, you are certain to make very few mistakes in your initial reason for taking up arms.

Back to your original question. I think countries by and large (you can maybe think of exceptions where you might want to violate the principle, e.g., Hungarian uprising), have no business taking up arms against other countries, no matter how oppressive they may be to their own people. Think of how Alma and his group were able to bear up under their oppression and eventually get away from Amulon, or how King Limhi bore up under similar burdens to eventually escaped the direct oppression of the Lamanites.

The reason why countries as a group should not attack other countries, even to free oppressed people, falls back on the unjustness of expecting and maybe even forcing people of your country to put their lives on the line for people outside of their group or country, probably well removed from them geographically, ethnically and religiously. This would be especially true if the oppressed people were not being directly attacked and killed en mass by the oppressor.

Doing so violates the concept that the only time a people are justified in going to war is when they themselves are being directly attacked in their persons, families, municipalities, states and even country.

Now for you as an individual, I believe if you feel strongly enough about helping oppressed people (i.e., you are willing to lay your life on the line for them) in a foreign country, you should be perfectly free to go join them and potentially shed your blood with them. But you better be darn sure you thoroughly understand what is going on, that what you are doing is really helping truly oppressed people, and not relying on just a single source of information or the MSM in general. And you should be aware of what might be legal consequences for doing so. I could even see you helping their effort in some other way: contributing money, boycotting, providing direct support and refuge, etc., etc. But that would be your individual choice.

For me, coming to this understanding seems very right and very logical; and I'm a Vietnam vet. The one piece missing from this stance, however,is the additional requirement that you should put your trust in the Lord for your protection. When you do this, it is easier to hold in check what might be your natural, war-like tendencies. AND, it becomes easier to see through the lies of the media and even your own government.

Outstanding explanation! :ymapplause: Thank you for putting this so clearly.

[HeirofNumenor]

Thank you, GeeR! That was a BIG help... :ymapplause:

[HeirofNumenor]

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.

This is the Just War...stated by a member of the First Presidency...note the possible 3rd option

Possibly there is a third, viz., Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one.

This would have fit defending Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg in 1914 and 1940 against the Germans (by the British and French), and why they did declare war in 1939 after Hitler invaded Poland.
I am NOT applying this to Libya specifically; far as the USA goes the EU should do most of any intervention, as they are the primary beneficiaries and should take the load. 1982 - after Argentina invaded the Falklands, (Great Britain territory) all the USA did was provide satellite intelligence to the Brits. That is roughly what we should do with Libya. At any rate, Obama has certainly not made his case to Congress of the American people. X(

As much as I hate to say it, this is the same rational that Russia and China may take if the nuke the USA because we attack Iran "protecting a smaller, weaker nation (5th? largest army) against a larger, stronger predatory nation" (USA?). And if they do attack and state that, would it not be deserved? (Assuming we continue ourselves to attack additional nations).

[mes5464]

Now lets take Libya as an example. We know Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. We know that he is murdering his own people who stand against his repressive regime. Is it right that we stand in defense of those who are losing their liberties and lives? Where and when do you apply Pres. Hinckleys counsel? I have yet to hear someone explain any form of justification for what Pres. Hinckley mentioned. When is defending innocents who are terrorized by tyrants defensive?Mark
captain of 1,000

Mark
I do not think this counsel applies to the Lybia situation for the following reason. I believe we have been manipulated by our government media machine to believe the Libya is a good verses evil conflict when in reality it is an evil versus evil one. Both sides have evil intentions, so no matter who wins, they all lose.

I agree with NGL on this one. I don't know if you noted my post on this thread from President Kimball.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)

What I get from this is if they people of Libya were righteous then their enemies wouldn't come against them, etc. The Lord uses the wicked to destroy the wicked. I am afraid that we (USA) are the wicked destroying another wicked. I am sad to conclude.

[larsenb]

For those declaring that the Prophet & Book of Mormon say to fight ONLY if you yourself are attacked - and those of you who therefore automatically reject the Just war theory aspect of protecting smaller nations, Please reconcile that position with the following:

Alma 35 8:14
8 Now the people of the Zoramites were angry with the people of Ammon who were in Jershon, and the chief ruler of the Zoramites, being a very wicked man, sent over unto the people of Ammon desiring them that they should cast out of their land all those who came over from them into their land.

9 And he breathed out many threatenings against them. And now the people of Ammon did not fear their words; therefore they did not cast them out, but they did receive all the poor of the Zoramites that came over unto them; and they did nourish them, and did clothe them, and did give unto them lands for their inheritance; and they did administer unto them according to their wants.

10 Now this did stir up the Zoramites to anger against the people of Ammon, and they began to mix with the Lamanites and to stir them up also to anger against them.

11 And thus the Zoramites and the Lamanites began to make preparations for war against the people of Ammon, and also against the Nephites.

12 And thus ended the seventeenth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi.

13 And the people of Ammon departed out of the land of Jershon, and came over into the land of Melek, and gave place in the land of Jershon for the armies of the Nephites, that they might contend with the armies of the Lamanites and the armies of the Zoramites; and thus commenced a war betwixt the Lamanites and the Nephites, in the eighteenth year of the reign of the judges; and an account shall be given of their wars hereafter.

14 And Alma, and Ammon, and their brethren, and also the two sons of Alma returned to the land of Zarahemla, after having been instruments in the hands of God of bringing many of the Zoramites to repentance; and as many as were brought to repentance were driven out of their land; but they have lands for their inheritance in the land of Jershon, and they have taken up arms to defend themselves, and their wives, and children, and their lands.

Alma 43:11-13
11 Yea, and they also knew the extreme hatred of the Lamanites towards their brethren, who were the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi, who were called the people of Ammon—and they would not take up arms, yea, they had entered into a covenant and they would not break it—therefore, if they should fall into the hands of the Lamanites they would be destroyed.

12 And the Nephites would not suffer that they should be destroyed; therefore they gave them lands for their inheritance.

13 And the people of Ammon did give unto the Nephites a large portion of their substance to support their armies; and thus the Nephites were compelled, alone, to withstand against the Lamanites, who were a compound of Laman and Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, and all those who had dissented from the Nephites, who were Amalekites and Zoramites, and the descendants of the priests of Noah.

The Ammonites were not Nephites, and there is not indication that they were under the Nephite political system - yet they were ready to fight and die to defend hem unto their own deaths.

But the Ammonites had been driven out of Lamanite lands and the Nephites allowed them to settle in Nephite territory; land they controlled and called Jershon. In effect the people of Ammon came over into Nephite land and basically adopted their religious outlook and practices. They found shelter within the Nephite hegemony. Alma 27:27 says: And they [the people of Ammon] were among the people of Nephi, and also numbered among the people who were of the church of God." In effect: "they are one of us (the Nephites)".

Nephite political institutions at that time seemed very loose. Nothing like we are familiar with, so I'm not sure what it would mean to say the people of Ammon were or were not "under the Nephite political system". Ask yourself, how meaningful was it for the Zoramites to be part of the Nephite polity? Look at what the Zoramites were doing. You don't get the sense of a highly organized and pervasive political structure.

Now for the people of Ammon to move out of Jershon to give place to Nephite armies makes complete sense when you regard the fact they had taken an oath to never shed blood again. The Nephites weren't "going up" into the land of the Lamanites; nor were they even going out against the Zoramites in their lands. In fact, the Lamanites were coming in to the lands of the Nephites and making alliance with a rebellious faction of the Zoramites to attack people in the land of Jershon. This is completely in line with fighting a defensive war agains incoming attackers. The Nephites were simply defending their own territory, when it comes down to it; and incidentally protecting the people of Ammon living within that territory.

Notice that I said: " . . . . people are justified in going to war [ ] when they themselves are being directly attacked in their persons, families, municipalities, states and even country."

I identify with people in my country. If foreign troops attack points along the East Coast, it is still an attack against my country, against my people. It puts my country directly at risk; and hense puts me, my family, etc., at risk. Under the concept of a just war, I am completely justified in joining in to defend my fellow countrymen. And by doing so I am NOT attacking a people in a foreign country.

This situation is also in keeping with my personal criteria where I would be willing to put my life on the line; which I would be willing to do if foreign troops invaded the East Coast.

I think the real key here is avoiding being the agressor, and certainly avoiding being the aggressor in foreign lands and countries, for whatever reason and whoever you think you're helping. With my current view, I deplore the military alliances we get into. I mean, NATO was formed as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, so why on earth are we using it now to attack multiple countries in the Muslim world?

Does this help??

[HeirofNumenor]

Yep...all three times

[creator]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but it's also a good read and relevant to the discussion:

A Letter to the Treasury from the LDS First Presidency in 1941

"The Church as a Church does not believe in war and yet since its organization whenever war has come we have done our part … we do thoroughly believe in building up our home defenses to the maximum extent necessary, but we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put … We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without, and it comes from the underlying spirit common to Naziism, Fascism, and Communism, namely, the spirit which would array class against class, which would set up a socialistic state of some sort, which would rob the people of the liberties which we possess under the Constitution, and would set up such a reign of terror as exists now in many parts of Europe …"

Thanks to Connor Boyack the entire letter is now available for all to read

[Teancum]

I thought this thread was very relevant for today's situation so I decided to bump it. I loathe the thought of even the veiled threat of military action, and will not support such gangster turf wars. Why must war always be the first plan to be made, and peace the last to be offered? What show of humanity does a knee-jerk responce like this show? Only that no-one has bothered to stop and think, much less pray over their decisions, words, or actions. I suppose I am equally at fault for not doing everything I can to make my voice heard.
As such, here I am! I now declare my voice and heart to be on the side of UNITY. (unity of heart in love towards all men not hatred). forgivness, not revenge, or retribution.

Who can join with me in supplication to Almighty God for the spirit of compassion and love to be poured out upon otherwise hardened hearts (mine included)?

[Benjamin_LK]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

Something that I have noticed that often makes a difference to a member of the church is whether or not they have children in the military whom they have had to bury or take care of due to their being crippled or killed as a result of being in the armed forces fighting a war. When a person, including a member of the church, is faced with seeing the severe trauma of their own child, or faced with the reality that their own spouse probably could be killed out there, it sets a very different tone for him/her. What's sad to me is that it appears that plenty do not have that kind of situation, and also likely don't have that kind of empathy. My extended family has a cousin who served in the marines and has now one less limb. Sets a very different tone when you realize that this conflict can do some harsh things to those you know and care about.

[Benjamin_LK]

I am asking a sincere question here Bro. I am not interested in a spitting contest. I want someone here to give me an example of a proper defensive action as specified by Pres. Hinckley outside of an unprovoked attack on our country. Pres. Hinckley seemingly approved of defending the liberties of innocents against forces of evil or repression around the world. Do you believe that can be justified in the case of tyranny against the defenseless.

A contrast to your interpretation of President Hinckleys quote is that of Alma and Amulek. They allowed evil tyrants to murder innocent people. They could have stopped it but they did not. For whatever reason, it was not their stewardship to do so. Nor was it the stewardship of the Nephites to ever preemptively attack the Lamanites. The Nephites never attacked the Lamanites when the Lamanites were killing and oppressing themselves. Likewise, it does not fall under our stewardship to do so with any other nation. President Hinckley is entitled to his opinions just as any man is. Perhaps the quote is misunderstood or misrepresented, or it is just his opinion. President Hinckleys statement only applies to defending the liberties of innocents subject to our own gov't. The true principle is that the sole stewardship and responsibility of the U.S. gov't is to protect the lives, liberties and properties of all people under it and nothing more. It is not the jurisdiction of the U.S. gov't to police other nations or rescue them from tyrants. This is made very clear in the Book of Mormon and several general authorities have said so.

I don't know, but Hinckley's address post 9/11 in October of 2001 is worth watching, that was among the times I remembered seeing Hinckley at his saddest when speaking, probably a close second to his last Conference before he died. I remember the shock in his ears when he picked up the note announcing war in Afghanistan. I think the big problem with members of the church is the fact that they are highly selective as to what they want to take away from Conference as a message, and plenty of them ignore even the recent mentions by General Authorities regarding the current military situation. Yes, Al Qaeda are a bunch of Muslim Gadiantons, but war, and certain means of executing it, aren't neccessarily the best way to carry out justice or beat them. Perhaps the most interesting account you can find is the defeat of the Gadiantons lead by Gidianhi and Zemnarihah. The Nephites' initial attempts failed, i.e. trying to go and hunt out the Gadiantons in their own lands. When I see the whole invasion of Afghanistan, it sometimes seems very similar to how the Nephites first tried, and failed to take out the Gadiantons by force. If someone wants to think that Al Qaeda aren't like Gadiantons, then why do they have to exist as Secret Combinations in the Middle East? Why do they have to seek the overthrow of numerous regimes to replace it with a super-exclusive Muslim only state when people like Hussein and Assad had some degree of tolerance for non-Muslims? I just feel regarding Syria, that the whole thing is a bad idea for the process of Syria becoming more modern and more liberal.

[Teancum]

Just a thought and feeling about general WAR attitudes. I have been troubled by the trends I have witnessed, of the cyclical push for war with any percieved enemy (foriegn or domestic). I recall reading the account in the Book of Mormon, that details the cyclical nature of the Lamanites to be stirred up to anger so that they would go to war. I look upon society in general, how it is shortening the times between the calls for war. I feel the need to call for Love, patience, and tolerance. Those who stir up agitation for war are impatient, and want to ride the wave of angry mob rule mentality, not the deliberate slow logical processes necessary to promote peace and general well being of society. I know that I am whispering into the hurricane, and not much will come of it, but my heart yearns to say it anyway. Perhaps if a few united in prayer for the Lord Jesus to come and Rule and Reign, to fight the battles He has promised He would fight, would affect some small degree of change for the good. Oh how I long for those of one heart and mind who refuse the manipulation, the lies, the hatred, to come and make the Zion of our God. How I wish my soul were good enough to participate with them in the Peace of the Lord. The discouragement seems rather heavy that people will NOT have a change of heart without being compelled to do so.
I fear the Love of men, has already ceased striving with nations not a few. It truly is an era of "live and let die".

Well, I have put the thoughts of my heart out here, and in some small way let my voice be heard once again. And now turn my face into the hurricane once again.

[Teancum]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

[brianj]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

[Ezra]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

Are you willing to go and fight North Korea yourself? Or send your own family to do so? Just curious.

I have no problem with war as long as it's justified by god. If it is not justified by god then I have a problem with war.

The scriptures are full of wars. Those story's and examples as well as scriptures that give specific guidance on war are wonderful guidelines.

The lamienites won the war against the nephites in the end to the nephites destruction. But many wars were won by the nephites when they were righteous. Or the other way around.

So winning doesn't mean that it's justified. But I can if god is involved.

The Book of Mormon paints a really clear picture of what is justified.

Self defense on their own soil while being a righteous people who pray to the lord for guidance, assistance and understanding their own faults and side in the war.

D&c 98 gives really great details and instructions.

The gives us a commandment.

11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

Which then he gives us his words pertaining to war.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;


20 For they do not forsake their sins, and their wicked ways, the pride of their hearts, and their covetousness, and all their detestable things, and observe the words of wisdom and eternal life which I have given unto them.

21 Verily I say unto you, that I, the Lord, will chasten them and will do whatsoever I list, if they do not repent and observe all things whatsoever I have said unto them.

So if we do not repent forsake our sins the lord will chasten us.

Like with North Korea and nuclear war. Isis and so on.

But!!!!!!!

22 And again I say unto you, if ye observe to do whatsoever I command you, I, the Lord, will turn away all wrath and indignation from you, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.

He will fight our battles and keep the bad dudes from harming us.

But!!!!!!

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

If we don't bear it it's a just measure.

If we keep picking fights and getting in other county's businesses telling them what they can and can't do. Of coarse they will rebel and retaliate. Our current troubles are from the backlash of our meddling. And anything that happens due to that is a just measure.

More instructions

33 And again, this is the law that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.

34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue;

35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;

36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

37 And I, the Lord, would fight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.


Obviously I skipped some verses. You should read and study and ponder the entire chapter.


This is the deal for me. We have gods chosen mouthpiece as the head of our church. Our prophet. We would be the first to know if god commanded us to go to war and if it was justified and his will.

Tell such commandment is given the war is not just and you should not support it. You should proclaim peace.

We as a nation need to repent. We need to follow gods laws and guidance. And tell we do all the bad things will continue to happen and they are just measure unto us according to god.

So if you want all theses wars to end. Proclaim peace and repentance not war which will only perpetuate our current circumstances.

[Silver]

This morning I started reading this thread for the very first time. It has quickly and easily become my favorite among many good ones.

mes5464 started this thread six years ago and conditions around the world have only worsened since then so I am left to conclude that America, in general, and Latter Day Saints, in particular, will have to pass through a period of suffering for ignoring the words of God. We are a warlike people and will not seek peace. Therefore, war will seek after us. Some of us might hear lamentations similar to this:

3 Nephi 8:
23 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them.

24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla.

25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

It is very hard for me to keep from crying as I sit at my desk at work. I feel I can no longer sing the words, "America, America, God shed His grace on thee."

[Mark]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

Another part of this threat that does not get the attention it deserves is the EMP potential. Interesting article about that in the American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... he_us.html

[Silver]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

Another part of this threat that does not get the attention it deserves is the EMP potential. Interesting article about that in the American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... he_us.html

The article has some good info, scary but presumably accurate. What concerns me is the focus on North Korea which is merely America's enemy du jour. Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, probably Japan could also whack us with an EMP.

brianj is concerned about the US abandoning South Korea, but their economy is many multiples larger than the North's and their population is double the size.

North-Korea-v-South-Korea-001.jpg (466.42 KiB) Viewed 1255 times

[Mark]

I must speak out, for I do not want to be restrained any longer. Though I am too slow to do any good, and far too small of a voice to be heard, I will speak anyway.

We DONT need to meddle in the affairs of other countries! We dont need to destabilize anyone! Not for "peace", "stability", change of governance, or revenge, or any other percieved threat! NO! No personal thought of missionary work after the bombs stop, to justify it. NO! No strong messages do not need to be sent by tomahawk or sniper rifle. Not even were we to be attacked and the agressor claims responsibility, NO! God is clear on the matter, NO! He gives the conditions, and forgiveness is always first.

May I shout my rejection of WAR or police type actions. My my voice be recorded in Heaven against supporting this evil!

Let those who renounce God's plan of peace, pick up the gun and march to each others destruction, but those who profess to beleive in God, renounce war and proclaim peace!

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

Another part of this threat that does not get the attention it deserves is the EMP potential. Interesting article about that in the American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... he_us.html

The article has some good info, scary but presumably accurate. What concerns me is the focus on North Korea which is merely America's enemy du jour. Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, probably Japan could also whack us with an EMP.

brianj is concerned about the US abandoning South Korea, but their economy is many multiples larger than the North's and their population is double the size.
North-Korea-v-South-Korea-001.jpg

I think the main concern i have is that this North Korean leader appears certifiable. He and his kinship do not seem anywhere near rational in their behavior. He has become good buddies with Dennis Rodman. Need I say more? :-ss

[LdsMarco]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

I wholeheartedly agree with you 100%

[Ezra]

I'm really curious about this.
Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il believed that war with the United States is inevitable. Kim Jong-un shares this belief. Under all three Supreme Leaders missile and nuclear programs have been pursued. The Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center was established in 1962 and started refining yellow cake uranium in the early 1980s. Since the first successful test eleven years ago North Korean engineers have been working to make warheads small and light enough to be delivered by missile. Simultaneously, other engineers have been working to develop reliable long range ballistic missiles. The Taepodong-2 is believed to be able to reach the Continental US, with the Taepodong-3 able to deliver a warhead to almost any point in the continental US.

Do you believe we should abandon South Korea, knowing that the North is very likely to attempt to invade and annex South Korea without the deterrence of US troops then wait for the North to successfully nuke the US before doing anything?

Feel free to accuse me of renouncing God's plan, even though I don't. I believe that we have a duty to protect others and ourselves. We should not withdraw forces from South Korea and we should do more to protect groups like the Yazidi Christians.

Another part of this threat that does not get the attention it deserves is the EMP potential. Interesting article about that in the American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... he_us.html

The article has some good info, scary but presumably accurate. What concerns me is the focus on North Korea which is merely America's enemy du jour. Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, probably Japan could also whack us with an EMP.

brianj is concerned about the US abandoning South Korea, but their economy is many multiples larger than the North's and their population is double the size.
North-Korea-v-South-Korea-001.jpg

I think the main concern i have is that this North Korean leader appears certifiable. He and his kinship do not seem anywhere near rational in their behavior. He has become good buddies with Dennis Rodman. Need I say more? :-ss

Ya Dennis rodman is weird. But does that mean we should disregard the guidance from God?

[DesertWonderer]

This morning I started reading this thread for the very first time. It has quickly and easily become my favorite among many good ones.

mes5464 started this thread six years ago and conditions around the world have only worsened since then so I am left to conclude that America, in general, and Latter Day Saints, in particular, will have to pass through a period of suffering for ignoring the words of God. We are a warlike people and will not seek peace. Therefore, war will seek after us. Some of us might hear lamentations similar to this:

3 Nephi 8:
23 And it came to pass that it did last for the space of three days that there was no light seen; and there was great mourning and howling and weeping among all the people continually; yea, great were the groanings of the people, because of the darkness and the great destruction which had come upon them.

24 And in one place they were heard to cry, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and then would our brethren have been spared, and they would not have been burned in that great city Zarahemla.

25 And in another place they were heard to cry and mourn, saying: O that we had repented before this great and terrible day, and had not killed and stoned the prophets, and cast them out; then would our mothers and our fair daughters, and our children have been spared, and not have been buried up in that great city Moronihah. And thus were the howlings of the people great and terrible.

It is very hard for me to keep from crying as I sit at my desk at work. I feel I can no longer sing the words, "America, America, God shed His grace on thee."

I'm really curious to know if you really mean this or are you just being dramatic for effect?