Something I am tired of hearing is people trying to justify our presense in Iraq with the use of the Book of Mormon. This was especially prevalent at BYU right at the beginning of the war, but you still hear it now from a few people. Actually, in many ways, I don't blame people for trying to justify this with the Book of Mormon. Every justification has been summarily flushed down the proverbial toilet, so they need to grasp onto something, anything that gives them a leg to stand on. As this current administration has shown us, blaming God is a great recourse when all other options have been spent.
To show why the Book of Mormon does not support the war in Iraq, let's first address why we went to Iraq. We've been told all kinds of things. Saddam had WMDs. Saddam and Osama were good buddies. Saddam was planning on releasing a dirty bomb in the second season of "24". Saddam was in violation of U.N. resolutions. Although a lot of these reasons have been shown to be false, let's assume that they are true. Ultimately, it all comes down to the doctrine of doctrine of preemptiveness. The idea of preemptiveness is that we attack first. We hit them before they have the chance to hit us or anyone else, for that matter. Realize as well that preemptiveness is Bush's word not mine. This is coming right from the horse's mouth.
Let's see if the doctrine of preemptiveness fits with the Book of Mormon. Everyone who has ever read the Book of Mormon should know the answer to this one. There is nowhere in the Book of Mormon where preemptiveness is ever endorsed. Not a single scripture. There are a number of scriptures which expressly forbid it. The Nephites are commanded to only attack once they are invaded. It's even interesting to note that the Nephites never (until their days of wickedness near the end) invaded Lamanite land. Once the Lamanites were defeated, the Nephites never went into the Lamanite land to make sure that they never attacked again. Instead, they were content in freeing their land and allowing the Lamanites to plot their next attack in peace. Now, I'm not arguing the wisdom in this strategy. I simply wish to show that the Nephites never followed the doctrine of preemptiveness. They followed the very opposite. When Moroni caught word of a Lamanite invasion, did he preemptively attack the Lamanites? No. He fortified this own land.
There is another set of scriptures that are occasionally quoted in an effort to legitimize the illegitimate. Some like to cite the way the Gadiantons were dealt with. Well, let's think about it. How did the Nephites handle them? The Ammonites did the best, they rooted out all of the robbers within their cities and killed them. They did not take the fight to their caves and hide-outs though. At another time, the Nephites brought everyone inside of a big wall and layed reverse seige warfare to the Gadiantons. I don't know how any of this seems to endorse the doctrine of preemptiveness.
I think rather that the opposite doctrine, that of containment, is the more likely lesson one would extract from the Book of Mormon. Even if one does find one example of preemptiveness that I have missed (let me know if I have), it will not out-weigh all the examples of containment. That said, I do not wish to validate my view of containment with the Book of Mormon. I do not believe that that is what the Book of Mormon is trying to teach us. I do not believe that is the lesson for us to extract. The purpose of the Book of Mormon is to bring us to full understanding of Christ's atonement. I believe it is a personal guide, not a macro guide on international relations. So let's stop using it in order to acquire a divine seal of approval for our particular political view.
Back to life, back to reality
23 hours ago
