Latter-day Saints and national defense

Assignment 1985-04-11 for a religion class (Rel C 352) taught by Dr. Donald Q. Cannon

“Renounce war and proclaim peace,”1 said the Lord to the Church in an 1833 revelation. Yet faithful members have been exhorted frequently in the history of the Church to serve in their country’s wars. Is there an explanation for the apparent paradox these two statements create? This paper will explore statements of Church leaders on the subject in order to attempt to determine how a member of the Church might react when called into his country’s armed services.

First of all, there has never been any doubt as to the nature of war itself. The First Presidency issued a statement in 1939 stating “We condemn all war’s foul brood–avarice, greed, misery, want, disease, cruelty, hate, inhumanity, savagery, death”2 That war is not exempt from being classed as sin simply because of its broad nature has been apparent ever since Brigham Young’s day. He said of war in 1859 that

Our traditions have been such that we are not apt to look upon war between two nations as murder; but suppose that one family should rise up against another and begin to slay them, would they not be taken up and tried for murder? … Does it justify the slaying of men, women, and children that otherwise would have remained at home in peace, because a great army is doing the work? No: the guilty will be damned for it.3

Not only have Church leaders decried the evils of war, but they have also consistently preached that members of the Church should be actively engaged in bringing an end to the use of war to settle conflicts. In 1942, President Heber J. Grant and his counselors gave the following lengthy but important statement on war:

Nevertheless, we have not forgotten that on Sinai, God commanded “Thou shalt not kill;” nor that in this dispensation the Lord has repeatedly reiterated that command. He has said: “Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.” At another time the Lord commanded that murderers should “be delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land; for remember that he hath no forgiveness; and it shall be proved according to the laws of the land.” [v.79]. So also when land was to be obtained in Zion, the Lord said: (quotes D&C 63:29-31]. But all these commands, from Sinai down, run in very terms against individuals as members of society, as well as members of the Church, for one man must not kill another as Cain killed Abel; they also run against the Church as in the case of securing land in Zion, because Christ’s Church should not make war, for the Lord is a Lord of peace. He has said to us in this dispensation: “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace… .” Thus the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war, unless and until the Lord shall issue new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled–the nations agreeing–by peaceful negotiation and adjustment.4

Not long thereafter the Church further affirmed that:

… obedient to the direct command of the Lord given to us more than a hundred years ago (directing us to “renounce war and proclaim peace”–D&C 98:16) the Church is and must be against war, for war is of Satan and this Church is the Church of Christ, who taught peace and righteousness and brotherhod of man.5

President Hugh B. Brown also emphasized that members of the Church have a special duty to prevent war.6

Some of the Church leaders have given more specific advice on the LDS people as peacemakers. During the events leading up to the Spanish-American War, George Q. Cannon said in General Conference:

We should be a peaceful people, seeking peace, and endeavoring to escape all the horrors of war, and to avert them from the nations of the earth, particularly our own nation. [If Spain attacks,] the Lord says we should lift up a standard of peace unto that nation. That is the duty of this nation. That is the duty of the Latter-day Saints, when their enemies come against them to make war upon them. We must proclaim peace; do all in our power to appease the wrath of our enemies; make any sacrifice that honorable people can to avert war, with all its horrors, entailing as it does dreadful consequences so numerous that they cannot be mentioned, it is our duty, I say, as a nation… . I do not look for our nation to do this. It is scarcely to be expected, in the nature of things, that they would do it. But it is the true principle, and we as a people should use our influence for this purpose. Our prayers should ascend to God, our petitions should ascend to the government of our nation to do everything that honorable people can do to avert war.7

This spirit of working to eliminate war has continued throughout Church history. As Wilford Woodruff’s presidency put it when writing to the governor of Utah,

The people whom we represent are lovers of peace, and would do anything in their power, consistent with honor and the patriotic duty which every citizen owes to his country, to avert war and its dreadful train of consequences.8

That Latter-day Saints should be actively engaged in bringing peace to the world seems irrefutable.

As a people, the Saints have been given the promise that the Lord would fight their battles. Several of the early General Authorities mentioned proudly in their messages that the Saints had been spared from a great deal of fighting that the rest of the country had been farced to endure. For instance, President George Q. Cannon noted in Conference that the Saints had been preserved from the ravages of the Civil War.

But God, in His Providence, did not place us in a position to imbrue our hands in the blood of our fellow-men (sic)–I mean as a people. There are many among us who have been soldiers in the war, but I am speaking now as an organization, and we stand in that position to-day (sic), in the United States.9

But this raises an intriguing question. What is the situation of those who were “soldiers in the war”? Will the murders that Brigham Young spoke of be laid to their account? What is their position as citizens and not as members?

First of all, many of the leaders of the Church express pride in them and in their willingness to protect their nation by military service. “We have been willing,” said Joseph F. Smith, “to fight our country’s battles, to defend her honor, to uphold and sustain her good name, and we propose to continue in this loyalty to our nation and to our people unto the end.”10 A few years later, his counselors in the First Presidency joined with him in pointing out that “if patriotism and loyalty are qualities manifested [in peacetime by good citizenship] and in time of war, by willingness to fight the battle of the nation,–then, unquestionably, are the “Mormon” people patriotic and loyal.” This statement was adopted on April 5, 1907, by the general body of the Church in conrerence.11 More recently, during the Second World War, Heber J. Grant and his counselors reminded the Church of the Latter-day Saints who had participated in the military since the days of the Nauvoo Legion and continued:

Likewise in the present war, righteous men of the Church in both camps have died, some with great heroism, for their own country’s sake. In all this our people have but served loyally the country of which they were citizens or subects under the principles we have already stated. [D&C 134] We have felt honored that our brethren have died nobly for their country; the Church has been benefited by their service and sacrifice.12

It seems almost that Latter-day Saints are serving the Church when they serve their country.

As if this were indeed true, the leaders of the Church have often seemed to place civil military duty ahead of ecclesiastical callings. In 1942, for example, the First Presidency stated that men who had not yet received their notice of induction could be recommended for missions, but emphasized that “no young man should be recommended for a mission for the purpose of evading military service.”13 A few months later this was extended to “… they should choose [as missionaries] those only who have not received their notice of induction, who are not likely to receive it within a short time, and who have a real desire to do missionary work.”14 In fact, during the same period, the Church agreed not to call bishops of certain ages, so that they could be eligible for the draft.15

More than simply being discouraged to avoid the draft, however, the Saints have often actually been exhorted to register for military service. These recommendations may find ideological roots in a sentiment, often expressed by Mormon leaders, of defending national pride. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants give a background of a land and Constitution fostered by the direct care of God. Even during the intense conflict with the U.S. government over the polygamy question, the apostle Moses Thatcher prophesied that

the very acts of persecution and unfairness that will be directed against us, will bring out and develop the elements of excellency that will make our young men statesmen, and that will make them lovers and defenders of right and liberty, until, in the due time of the Lord, there will grow up in these mountains a race of people that will not only defend the Constitution, but defend the flag of the nation, and at the same time be willing to extend the principles of freedom to all who desire to receive them.16

President Joseph F. Smith taught that “our nation’s … reputation should be defended by every citizen, and our children should be taught to defend their country’s honor under all circumstances,”17 and, “We most sincerely hope that our young men will prove themselves worthy in every respect as defenders of those principles for which our government was born and for which it still exists.”18

More direct statements came during wartime. In 1898, Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith wrote Governor Heber M. Wells of Utah to reassure him of the Saints’ willingness to participate in national defense. They said,

We trust that the citizens of Utah who are Latter-day Saints will be found ready to respond with alacrity to this call which is made upon our State… . [They cite the Mormon Battalion.] There should be no hesitation now; and we sincerely trust that your recruiting officers will find our co-religionists (sic) as ready now to enlist and march to the defense of their country as their fathers were in the days to which we refer.8

In 1942, the First Presidency conference message previously cited included a statement that “the members of the Church have always felt under obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms was made.”19 But most direct of all was Elder Boyd K. Packer’s statement in 1968. Speaking in conference of Mormon soldiers, he uses the words “duty,” “obligation,” and “responsibilities” to describe military service, and characterizes conscientious objectors as “groups composed mostly of restless, unchallenged young people.” He then propounds several reasons (to be examined below) to support his eventual conclusion that in spite of the horrors of war, which he had personally experienced, “with the issues as they are, were I called again to military service, I could not conscientiously object!”20

However, there was precedent in the Church for conscientious objection. D. Michael Quinn’s recent article on the subject provides a very thorough historical treatment; some quotes from the article are especially pertinent here. He mentions Brigham Young’s description of those who did not wish to fight in the Civil War: “I think they are probably as good a class of men as has ever passed through this country; … I have no fault to find with them.”21 Elder Richard L. Evans observed in April of 1941 that perhaps the Church should reserve the right to declare its members conscientious objectors.22 Furthermore, President Joseph Fielding Smith had used the Book of Mormon to teach a similar idea. He had written:

One of the best illustrations of this spirit of enduring wrong rather than retaliating is found in the story of the people of Ammon in the Book of Mormon. Because they refused to take up arms to defend themselves, but would rather lay down their lives than shed blood in their own defense, they brought many of their enemies to repentance and to the kingdom of God. [Alma 24:17-25; 27:3] This is the doctrine of Jesus Christ as taught in his Sermon on the Mount. (MT 5:21-22; 43-44) If all peoples would accept this doctrine there could be no war and all difficulties could be adjusted in righteousness.23

And during the Vietnam War, the secretary to the First Presidency answered requests on the subject as follows:

I am directed to tell you that membership in the Church does not make one a conscientious objector. As you are aware, there are thousands of young men of the Church assigned to the various services in the military. As the brethren understand, the existing law provides that men who have conscientious objection may be excused from combat service. There would seem to be no objection, therefore, to a man availing himself on a personal basis of the exemption provided by law.24

Thus there was precedent for members of the Church to declare themselves conscientious objectors.

However, in this same period of time, the First Presidency repeated its previous stand that “our young men should hold themselves in readiness to respond to the call of their government to serve in the armed forces when called upon.”25 And the latest (and only) direct Church statement on the subject came in 1981, when spokesman Don LeFevre stated, “There is no place in Mormon philosophy for the conscientious objector.”26 The tone of Quinn’s article suggests an explanation of this willingness-to-serve attitude in terms of political convenience for the Church. However, I would like to examine other beliefs invoked in support of this policy. These can be loosely classified as (1) patriotism, (2) superseding principles, and (3) self-defense.

Joseph F. Smith had implicitly referred to military service as a part of civic duty when he wrote, “National patriotism is, therefore, something more than mere expression of willingness to fight, if need be.”27 His statement reflects a pervasive attitude that participation in the military is necessary for the true patriot. Perhaps the most important statement on the subject is the 1942 conference message quoted several times above. It speaks of the duty of members to accept the draft, and consequently lifts the blame for acts of war from the soldiers and places it on their leaders.

… the Church membership are citizens or subjects of sovereignties over which the Church has no control. The Lord Himself has told us to “befriend that law which is the constitutional law of the land”: “… And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land.” [D&C 98:4-7] While by its terms this revealed word related more especially to this land of America, nevertheless the principles announced are worldwide in their application, and they are specifically addressed to “you” (Joseph Smith) “and your brethren of my church.” When, therefore, constitutional law, obedient to these principles, calls the manhood of the Church into the armed service of any country to which they owe allegiance, their highest civic duty requires that they meet that call. If, after hearkening to that call and obeying those in command over them, they shall take the lives of those who fight against them, that will not make of them murderers, nor subject them to the penalty that God has prescribed for those who kill… . For it would be a cruel God that would punish His children as moral sinners for acts done by them as the innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign whom He had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist… . God … will not hold the innocent instrumentalities of the war, our brethren in arms, responsible for the conflict.28

This corresponds perfectly to a statement from the previous war that “… should they [servicemen] be required, in the defense of the principles for which they go, to shed the blood of any among the contending forces, it shall not be a sin, and the blood of their enemies shall not be required at their hands.”29 George Q. Cannon’s message quoted above contains the question, “one may say, ‘Is it not our duty to defend our country and our flag? Is it not our duty to maintain the institutions which the Lord has given to us?’ Certainly it is.”30 However, Quinn points out that the government does not consider conscientious objectors to be shirking their responsibilities as citizens. To require military service of members must require another motivation.

One possible such motivation might be found in the idea that certain rights are so important that even the horrors of war are justified in securing them. Elder F. D. Richards apparently interpreted it so. Speaking of some wars in Old Testament and Book of Mormon times, he said that “in those days there was more contention or mortal combat permitted and required, in order to maintain the rights of God’s people and establish righteousness before his face.”31 A few years later, in the Spanish-American War, the First Presidency ended their letter to Governor Wells “praying that the Almighty will protect our nation in the hour of trial and assist us in our battles for humanity and right.”32 Similar sentiments were expressed in other wars. Although President David O. McKay echoed other Church leaders in teaching that “nations must seek some other means than war if they would save themselves from want and destruction,”33 he also gave the following message. “We love peace,” he said, “but not peace at any price. There is a peace more destructive of the manhood of living man than war is destructive of the body. ‘Chains are worse than bayonets.’”34 This gives a very strong message that there can be justification for war if one’s basic liberties are at stake and no other resolution to the jeopardy is possible. Joseph F. Smith gave the same message in 1914 when he stated:

While I think it is wrong, wickedly wrong, to force war upon any nation, or people, I believe it is righteous and just for every people to defend their own lives and their own liberties, and their own homes, with the last drop of their blood. I believe it is right, and I believe that the Lord will sustain any people in defending their own liberty to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience, any people trying to preserve their wives and their children from the ravages of the war. But we do not want to be brought into the necessity of having to defend ourselves.35

Here protection of life itself is also used as sufficient justification for war.

This theme of self-defense is a common one among the reasons given for entering war. Although the people of Ammon were cited as an example of favoring peace over war, Joseph F. Smith used the example of the Ammonites’ sons to support war in self-defense. He spoke of their mission as one of defense of the defenseless, not of destruction of the destroyers:

Remember the passage of scripture that was quoted here by President Lund, as related in the book of Mormon, concerning the pure young men that abjured war and the shedding of blood, lived pure and innocent, free from the contaminating thought of strife, of anger, or wickedness in their hearts; but when necessity required, and they were called to go out to defend their lives, and the lives of their fathers and mothers, and their homes, they went–not to destroy but to defend, not to shed blood but rather to save the blood of the innocent and of the unoffending, and the peace-lovers of mankind.36

A few months before, Charles W. Penrose had given a more specific explanation in General Conference. He explained that the intent of a nation which entered a war was of extreme importance:

Now if a nation essays to go forth against another nation for the purpose of conquest, to gain territory, to grasp something that does not belong to that nation, then the nation thus assailed has the right to resist even to the shedding of blood, as it was in this land in the war for independence. [Sec. 101:80] But we have to be careful as to what spirit we are guided by. If we want to go out to battle, to encroach upon other people’s liberties and rights, to gain their lands, to destroy their property without any right or reason, that is one thing; but if somebody comes against us to destroy us and our property and our homes and our rights and our privileges, either on land or sea, then we have the right under the divine law to rise for our protection and take such other steps as are necessary… . There is a very great difference between arising to go forth for conquest, for blood, for plunder, to gain territory and power in the earth, and in fighting to defend our own possessions in the spirit of justice and righteousness and equity, and standing up like men for those things that we have a right to contend for.37

At least in the minds of these men, self-defense was quite a sufficient motive for entering a war.

What can one conclude from all this? There are bases in Mormon theology both for avoiding all war, no matter what the result, and for accepting war under some conditions. Both the confirmed recruit and the convinced objector can justify themselves by choosing from the statements presented above. One reason it was difficult to find information on this topic is because, as I see it, the issues I have been treating have not been those with which the Church itself must be concerned. In its mission to save souls, the Church as an institution has simply exhorted its members to do what they could to improve the conditions of the world around them, while it marches ahead making the best of whatever conditions prevail in continuing a work which is destined to eventually succeed. In all my research, I noticed that Church leaders continually concerned themselves most of all with the spiritual condition of the soldiers.38 Elder Gordon B. Hinckley saw a “silver thread” of missionary hope even in the tenebrous tapestry of Vietnam.39 And a similar thought came through in a previous First Presidency statement:

Let them [the soldiers] go in the spirit of truth and righteousness: the spirit which will direct them to save rather than destroy; which leads to do good rather than to commit evil; with love in their hearts for their fellow men, prepared to teach all mankind the saving principles of the gospel.18

This was necessarily the primary concern of the leaders of the Church. The overriding message of Church leaders on participation in war, then, does not even address the subject per se. The most important thing to them is that the work will go on regardless. In any situation, in peacetime or in war, members of the Church may take comfort in the assurance that “God is at the helm.”40

---

Since this chapter was written, several important sermons41 42 and reviews43 44 have appeared. Please consult them. – KJB, 2021-08-18.

---

1

Doctrine and Covenants 98:16.

2

Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr.. and David O. McKay, 6 October 1939. in James R. Clark. comp., Messages or the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1833-1964 [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-1971] (hereafter MFP), 6:91.

3

Brigham Young, 18 December 1859, in G.D. Watts, et al., comps., Journal of Discourses [Liverpool: R. D. and S. W. Richards, 1854-1886 (hereafter JD), 7:137.

4

Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay, 6 April 1942, in MFP, 6:158.

5

MFP, 6:182.

6

In Roy W. Doxey, comp., The Latter-day Prophets and the Doctrine and Covenants [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1964] (hereafter Prophets), 353.

7

Prophets, 360-362.

8(1,2)

Office of the First Presidency (Wilford Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith) to Governor Heber M. Wells of Utah, Salt Lake City, 28 April 1898, in MFP, 3:298.

9

9 October 1881, in JD, 22:328.

10

April 1905, in Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1977], 408.

11

“Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, in behalf of the Church, 26 March 1907,” in MFP, 4:150.

12

MFP, 6:157.

13

MFP, 6:144.

14

MFP, 6:155.

15

MFP, 6:207.

16

General Conference, 4 April 1884, in JD 25: 115-116.

17

Gospel Doctrine, 411.

18(1,2)

MFP, 4:426.

19

In Conference Report of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints] (hereafter CR), April 1968, 35.

20

CR, April 1968, 33-36.

21

JD, 10:248, in D. Michael Quinn, “Conscientious Objectors or Christian Soldiers?” [Sunstone, March 1985, 14-23 (hereafter Quinn)], 17.

22

Quinn, 19.

23

Prophets, 358.

24

Dialogue, Spring 1968, 8, in Quinn, 21.

25

Deseret News Church Section, 24 May 1969, 12, in Quinn, 21.

26

Deseret News, 7 May 1981, in Quinn, 23.

27

Gospel Doctrine, 412.

28

MFP, 6:158-159.

29

MFP, 4:426-427.

30

Prophets, 362.

31

Genera1 Conference, 8 April 1882, in JD, 23:107-108. (Emphasis added.)

32

MFP, 3:298. (Emphasis added.)

33

The Improvement Era, February 1946, 78.

34

The Improvement Era, June 1955, 395, in CR, April 1968, 33-36.

35

Gospel Doctrine, 419.

36

Gospel Doctrine, 423.

37

Prophets, 363-364.

38

For example, MFP, 5:72-74 (10 June 1917).

39

CR, April 1968, 21-24.

40

MFP, 6:159.

41

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live.” General conference, October, 2001. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/the-times-in-which-we-live

42

Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” General conference, April, 2003. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace

43

Patrick Q. Mason, “The Possibilities of Mormon Peacebuilding.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 12-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45227039

44

Robert S. Wood, “War and Peace.” Encyclopedia of Mormonism. New York: Macmillan, 1992. Revised 2011. https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/War_and_Peace