Just War

There are several approaches to belief about war. Personally, I am a pacifist. To me this means there is no justification for war at all. The way I would put it is, no one has the right to kill me just because of who I am. After all, that is what war is, is it not.

Consider, of the people who attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. The United States "justified" response was to attack Tokyo a few months later. Yet I would venture to guess that none of the people killed or injured were in any way responsible for or active in the attack against Pearl Harbor. They were killed because of who they were (Japanese) not because of what they had done. One could go through all the history of war and find case after case where that is true, particularly since the American Civil war (which introduced a new kind of war, total war.)

Yet, the scriptures say, "Vengeance is mine sayth the Lord." Even if I am attacked, my response can only be limited to preventing further danger to myself, or others. I have lived this throughout my life, and will continue to do so.

The idea of preventative war ranks up there with "Blood Atonement." For the uninitiated, Blood Atonement is the idea that if I see a person is about to commit what I think is a sin, then I am doing them a favor by killing them. There have been recorded cases of this happening, some not that long ago.

The resolution G9 is talking about the second possibility. That is, the idea of Just War. That is, some wars are justified, and some are not. The resolution calls for the First Presidency to make a set of conditions under which a war is justified.

Since I believe no war is justified, this does not affect me directly. However, I think it a bad idea. The reason should be obvious. To specify officially the conditions under which war is justified gives some support for that point of view. I mean, if the church decided to give the proper method of stoning prostitutes, then people would assume there was some conditions under which the church would find some use for this, that is, stoning would be "legal" under some conditions, which it is not.

Even so, I had at first thought to abstain from voting on this issue. However, there are two reasons I had to oppose this. First, as I said, support for this kind of a statement would indicate some support in the church for the concept of Just War. When I was eighteen I applied for a Conscientious Objector draft status. I was turned down, probably because at that time the church did not support Conscientious Objector applications. They started supporting them about four years later. If the church were to put out a statement on Just War, then this would undermine any attempt by anyone to get a Conscientious Objector draft status. I could very easily such a statement as being used to reject any CO application.

The second reason is why? The mover suggested that people of the church were confused about what Just War meant. He pointed out that the Christian churches have a long history of supporting the concept of Just War. They have also supported the Crusades (the truth of which should cause any Christian to blush). And opposed the idea of modern day revelation.

Yet, I, as a Pacifist, have not attempted to get a resolution on the table trying to force everyone else to be pacifists. Part of the reason is, suppose such a resolution were passed. Do you think it would make any difference about what people believed? I think not. All it would do would be alienate some people from the church. I would much rather have people back my position because I can persuade them to believe it.

This applies directly to the concept of Just War. Suppose the church put out a statement on Just War. In that case besides the legal problems mentioned above, there would be some people who would disagree with that statement (and it makes no difference what that statement is) and these people would be alienated from the church. I really doubt it would change many peoples minds. Far better would be a course of action on the part of church leaders to persuade people about the advisability of taking a Just War stance, and the possibilities. And if they do, why not include an attempt to persuade people to be pacifist.

This resolution was eventually referred to the First Presidency, to report back to the 2008 World Conference.

I must admit the handling of this affair made me angry. The reason is that people kept talking about trivia, really, such as attempting to convert the entire conference to pacifism, which would be a lost cause. That is neither the forum, nor the time to attempt this. On the other side were many people who just assumed that we had to accept the concept of Just War, as if there were no alternative. This frustrated me, and the fact I could not get the floor to make the points I've made here made me angry.

I considered turning in my delegate status, not in an attempt to punish the conference, or indicate disapproval of the conference. Rather, if this issue could make me that upset, then I probably should not try to be a delegate, and if there were alternates available that person should be allowed to take my place therefore. However, I contacted someone from the Chaplain's office, and after we discussed the issue, and prayed over it, I decided to take the evening off. After a good nights rest I felt much better, and the crisis was over.