Sunday, January 29, 2006

Do Mormons Overwhelming Support The Iraq War?

I don't know the answer to that question. Personally I hope the answer is a resounding NO. I do NOT support that war, and I never have; however an article from Today's Salt Lake Tribune is very troubling, at least to me. The gist of the article is that, at least in Utah, there is a religious divide (as there is about many things) along LDS v non LDS membership and support or nonsupport for the war. Reports the Tribune:

Unlike most other major U.S. religions, the LDS Church has taken no official stance on the war. Nonetheless, a recent poll commissioned by The Salt Lake Tribune showed overwhelming support among Utah's Mormons for President Bush's actions in Iraq.

While 73 percent of those identifying themselves as Mormons in the poll said they, like Dannehl, supported President Bush's conduct of the war, about 62 percent of non-Mormons said they disapproved.
It is fascinating to me how the Church takes no official position, yet almost in lockstep, at least in Utah (and probably the U.S.), 73 percent of identified LDS membership (according to this poll) support the war. And, more troubling to me, is the manifestation of this support in Church sponsored meetings:

'I support my president': Each month, Mormons gather to share their beliefs at "fast and testimony" meetings, speaking of how they have come to understand the LDS Church "is true."

But sometimes, the discussion moves to other convictions.

At a recent meeting in American Fork a man identifying himself as a former Green Beret stood to share his testimony. "If you're a Democrat, I want you to understand that I support my president," he said in comments recorded by the church for homebound members. "And if you have a problem with that, we can talk behind the church." The comment drew laughs from the congregation, but no challengers.
I see nothing funny about the abuse of a fast and testimony meeting to espouse one's own political views, whether that is for support of the war, or in opposition to the war. There are more appropriate forums and venues for such expression.

Ironically, as the Tribune points out, supporting the war in the numbers reflected in this poll places LDS members right along side the Southern Baptist Convention, a group of people which despises the LDS Church, teachings, and membership:

  • The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest single U.S. Protestant body, issued a resolution in June expressing "deepest gratitude and respect for our president," who "has been forced to make difficult decisions that place our servicemen and servicewomen in harm's way."
  • The resolution encouraged "all Southern Baptists to pray regularly for our president and to stand with him in opposing global terrorism."
  • Southern Baptist officials estimate support for Bush's war among their members stands at about 75 percent.
Though not all Utah Mormons support the SBC, or the war:

'A Mormon response': Not every Saint marches with a war drum.

"Pacifism is a Mormon response," said Dennis Clark, an LDS member from Orem who opposes the Iraq war on spiritual grounds. "I've always felt that it's really not possible for me to hold priesthood and believe in the use of force."

Clark, a poet and writer who spoke about his views at Sunstone Magazine's 2004 symposium on Mormon history and contemporary life, says he does his best "to sneak in my subversive ideas" when teaching younger men at his ward.

But at 60 years old, he does not expect to see the day when a majority of LDS members are opposed to the use of military force.

Clark often worries about the relationship his fellow Latter-day Saints have forged with Evangelicals.

"Mormons are not Christians in the eyes of these people," Clark said. "I think it's really a miscalculation for church members to feel comfortable in that company, because we'll be the next people they'll come after."
Mr. Clark makes a very astute observation, one with historical precedent. It was the early evangelical community that came after the Prophet Joseph with a vengeance. It is that same community that continues to ridicule LDS beliefs today.

Upon reading today's Tribune article I thought back to President Kimball's charge to the LDS community to be more pro-kingdom of God and less anti-enemy. To stop worshiping the false gods of our military and modern culture:

And so it often seems to be with people, having such a firm grasp on things of the world—that which is telestial—that no amount of urging and no degree of emergency can persuade them to let go in favor of that which is celestial. Satan gets them in his grip easily. If we insist on spending all our time and resources building up for ourselves a worldly kingdom, that is exactly what we will inherit.

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.

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.)

Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: “And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch.” (Moses 7:13.)

What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the “arm of flesh,” for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, “I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.” (D&C 64:24.)

What would be a more interesting poll, one I wish could be conducted is the opinion of LDS members world wide, not just within the confines of Utah, or even the United States. I suspect that LDS members at least in the United States likely mirror the opinions of their Utah counterparts. I know that at least on California's Central Coast that is true; however, I'd be curious to see how that opinion changes when the entire world wide Church membership is included. I suspect there would be some significant changes.

I say let's do support our troops. Let's get them out of this unholy and unrighteous war. Let's bring them home to their families so we can begin to build the kingdom of God, rather than wreak havoc in the kingdom of men.


Blogger ed said...

It's interesting to examine what church leaders Hinckley and Bateman have said publicly on the subject.

President Hinckley, General Conference, May 2003:

"And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.....

The question arises, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?”

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith.....

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”

But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace”

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed”....

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.....

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

Elder Bateman in his KUER interveiw, Aug. 2005 (about 3/4 of the way through):

"Obviously there are moral issues there. President Hinckley made a statement on the Iraqi war, about the time it was beginning. And our position as a church, from very early, has been that we support the government under which we serve, in which we live. And consequently each individual in the end needs to make up their own mind in terms of the goods and the bads about the war, but we are supportive of the government of the United States, we do try to do our duty when that comes.

But also, we need to make sure that we're fighting, we hope we're fighting for the right causes. Normally you fight to defend your home and your family and the things that you believe in. There are principles here that we do believe in, and that's freedom for people. We believe that there is a cause of freedom that's at question here, and if we can in the end leave these people with a stable government, it will be to their benefit."

Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

ed: Thanks for posting President Hinckley's remarks as well as those of Elder Bateman.

I think President Hinckley has confirmed that the Church has no stand in the current conflict, which is probably appropriate.

He suggested (back in May, 2003) that America's leaders had access to greater intelligence than others generally. We found out, that in fact Mr. Bush, and others cooked the books on the intelligence that he used to support his war effort. It was non existent, or, at the very least was so far removed from reality to be useless. I support my political leaders when I feel, based on my ability to evaluate the evidence, my support is merited.

I supported Mr. Bush's incursion into Afghanistan, because I felt it morally and legally justified. America had been attacked, and there was a direct link to Afghanistan as the location that harbored the attackers.

I agree with President Hinckley's analysis that military members are duty bound to support their respective worldly leaders. I also support the young American men and women serving everywhere in the world. I do not, and will not support America's leaders everytime they recklessly put Americans into harms way, just because they occupy the Oval office or Capitol Hill.

I see nothing in your comments which persuades me the Church of Jesus Christ as a matter of divine revelation, which is directly related to the salvation of my eternal soul has in any way suggested I must support this war, as a matter of religious doctrine.

I see nothing in President Hinckley's comments that has vitiated in anyway President Kimball's First Presidency Message in the Ensign given in June 1976.

But, I do appreciate your point of view, and for taking the time to express it.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 4:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Do Mormons Overwhelming Support The Iraq War?"

This Mormon doesn't!!!

Why would I support something (anything) put forth by a gadianton?

Would those who support Mr. Bush be willing to trade eternal salvations with him?

Sunday, January 29, 2006 5:23:00 PM  
Blogger ed said...

Guy: "I think President Hinckley has confirmed that the Church has no stand in the current conflict, which is probably appropriate."

I agree with you. On the other hand, he has shown by his example that expressing personal support for the war from the pulpit might be acceptable. One could also infer from his remarks that expressing opposition to the war from the pulpit would be unacceptable. Bateman's statement actually surprised me more...I thought he came close to saying that the church supports the war.

Guy: "But, I do appreciate your point of view, and for taking the time to express it."

Umm, I wasn't expressing my own point of view at all. For what it's worth, I have long thought the that Iraq war is a big mistake, and that Bush is in many ways deluded and near incompetent. (Even though I voted for him in 2000....d'oh!) I also think that church leaders can be wrong about things.

BTW, thanks for posting on this topic. I'm somewhat surprised there is so little discussion of it in the bloggernacle.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 6:04:00 PM  
Blogger Eric Russell said...

“Bush, and others cooked the books on the intelligence that he used to support his war effort.”

For the record, this is not true. It was UN intelligence that suggested that there was a strong possibility of WMD’s. But whether or not there was, the essential fact in the equation is that Saddam Hussein was refusing to cooperate with Hans Blix and refusing to comply with UN resolutions.

“I see nothing in your comments which persuades me the Church of Jesus Christ as a matter of divine revelation, which is directly related to the salvation of my eternal soul has in any way suggested I must support this war, as a matter of religious doctrine.”

This may be true, but it’s also true for the contrary. There’s nothing in LDS doctrine that states that, as a matter of religious principle, we are obligated to sit and watch as Saddam and his men rape, pillage, torture and murder their citizens.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 7:05:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

ed: I think my revulsion was (if it were true) the Tribune's report about the former Green Beret who stated in a testimony meeting he supported his president and that if you were of an opposing political belief he would "discuss" it behind the church. In my opinion that crosses the line of appropriate discussion in a Sacrament meeting where I go to renew covenants with the Savior.

I guess I'm uneasy about having pro or anti war discussions in Sacrament meeting. There are plenty of forums in which to have those discussions (such as the bloggernacle). It's one thing for the Prophet to discuss the topic in General Conference. It's another to have it crop up in testimony meetings, particularly when the Church has no stand.

I think General Authorities and Prophets are entitled to personal opinions about secular issues. And, like you I believe at times they can be wrong (though I'm not suggesting anyone is or is not wrong about this war--only that there are differing opinions). I don't think President Hinckley's statement or Elder Bateman's for that matter closes the discussion on the issue of the Iraq War among Church members. I think there is room for members to have their own opinons, even if the opinions conflict with those of the Brethren.

By the way. I happen to agree with you personally about George Bush, i.e. incompetent and deluded. Prophet's are inspired, President's much less so. And this one (Bush) in particular (in my opinion) not at all.

I recall after reading Hugh Nibley's biography how much of an anti-war activist he was, particularly after his first hand experiences with war during WWII. That tells me that there is room in the Church for a wide disparity of opinions on these types of subjects. I suppose I don't want the world to think just because I'm LDS I must necessarily support this war, or that the Church supports it--even though many members do. They have a first amendment right to do so, as do those of us who have a differing view.

I wonder if President Hinckley, knowing what we know now about the pre-war intelligence would make the same statements he made in May 2003. I don't know--probably we'll never know.

Thanks again for your thoughts.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:01:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

eric russell: You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the pre-war intelligence; however, I think the case can be made that Mr. Bush or others cooked the books on the intelligence or that it was so far removed from reality that it was unreliable. See this Boston Globe story here:

Or, Colin Powell's regrets about making the case for war based on that intelligence here:

I'm pretty certain I won't convince you of my political beliefs about Iraq, and likewise for you; however, I think my point is that there is room in the Church for an opposing point of view on the war, different from the vast majority of U.S. members. And, as I pondered in my post, what about the worldwide membership? I'd be very interested to see the results of that type of poll. I'm not sure the Tribune, however, will undertake such an endeavor.

The problem I have with the second point in your comment is: As a matter of religious principle are we obligated to sit and watch as any number of worldwide tyrants rape, pillage, torture and murder their citizens? Iran, North Korea, China, some of Africa, much of the middle east, all come to mind. (I'm certain there are many other countries I should have but did not include).

Should we as a matter of religious principle, based on current LDS teachings and doctrine encourage U.S. leadership to invade all offending countries using U.S. Military resources?

Assuming Saddam Hussein was refusing to cooperate with Hans Blix and refusing to comply with UN resolutions, how does this justify from a doctrinal standpoint the resulting war and loss of life?

Thanks, for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:41:00 PM  
Blogger Jettboy said...

"Mr. Clark makes a very astute observation, one with historical precedent. It was the early evangelical community that came after the Prophet Joseph with a vengeance. It is that same community that continues to ridicule LDS beliefs today."

Actually, that is not true. It was the mainline christian churches, with early evangelicals taking up "the cause" in later years. Not only that, but a sizable number of secularists were equally hostile. There is no difference between then and now other than a lack of violence behind the words. Compare "Banner of Heaven" and "Leaving the Saints" to any evangelical drivel.

I no more trust a secularist than an evangelical. I just happen to agree morally with evangelicals more than secularists at this time in history. I find secularists more of an actual threat and Iraq a Holy War with or without WMD!

Muslims are the new Communists (not like they weren't a threat before as the 80s proved, but the U.S. is the last remaining old gaurd that is willing to keep them in check). Saddam showed he was willing to invade his neighbors and continued to proclaim hostility to the United States. In my opinion the Second Gulf War was simply getting done with what should have happened in the First Gulf War. I remember my dumbfoundedness watching what happened when we pulled out the first time with simply a "suggestion" to rise up against Saddam. I know the political reasons for getting out, but I sensed our work was not finished.
Critics of the Iraq War only seem to see "WMD and Oil" as the reason for going in. But, deep down I don't think this war for those who continue to support the cause ever was about WMD. It continues to be about freedom for everyone, and protection from gadianton murderers, terrorists, and dictators. That a sizable portion of those who disagree with the Iraq War happen to hold opinions contrary to other conservative LDS teachings doesn't make the number of Mormons who support the war surprising.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 8:42:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

jettboy: My reference to the "early evangelical" community coming after the Prophet Joseph with a vengeance has its roots Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling. Quoting Bushman:

"Joseph did tell a Methodist preacher about he First Vision. Newly reborn people customarily talked over their experiences with a clergyman to test the validity of the conversion. The preacher's contempt shocked Joseph. Standing on the margins of the evangelical churches, Joseph must not have recognized the ill repute of visionaries."

Bushman then continues a paragraph later:

"The clergy of the mainline churches automatically suspected any visionary report, whatever its content. 'No person is warranted from the word of God,' a writer in the Connecticut Evangelical Magazine said in 1805, 'to publish to the world the discoveries of heaven or hell which he supposes he has had in a dream, or trance, or vision. . . . '"

See Rough Stone Rolling pgs. 40-41.

I read into Bushman's use of the term evangelical to encompass what you describe as the "mainline Christian churches" in Joseph's day. I think the hallmark of evangelicals both in Joseph's day as well as in our day is their complete rejection of modern or continuing revelation, as well as the concept of an open cannon.

We clearly disagree on the Iraq war; however, as I've already stated, I don't seek to convert or be converted by others on the war. My only hope in this post is to underscore that there are good LDS members who may not support the war effort, and that there is no official Church stand.

I think your statement that "Muslims are the new Communists" is a bit of an over generalization, with which I also disagree. I believe there are many faith based, believing Muslim people who have nothing to do with the radical political wings of that belief system, that murder, and wage war in God's name. In short, there are good Muslim people, and an entire religious belief system should not be tainted by a few extremists. Communist states on the other hand are completely secular, in that the state is atheistic in format.

Furthermore, your comment ignores the fact that Saddam's Iraq was a secular state, not a religious Muslim state. While there were elements of Muslim belief, it was repressed, as was much of everything else during his time.

Finally, I also disagree with your comment that "a sizable portion of those who disagree with the Iraq War happen to hold opinions contrary to other conservative LDS teachings." This again I believe is an over generalization, and probably unfair to those who do disagree with the war.

Thanks for your thoughts though.

Sunday, January 29, 2006 10:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did the Nephites ever go up to war to free the innocent Lamanites from their evil rulers?

Do we any example from the scriptures that commands us (as a society, not individuals) to invade other countries for the sole purpose of disposing foreign leaders?

Do we not have the D&C instruct us that what is more or less than the U.S. Constitution is evil? Where in the Constitution do we have the authority or responsibility to invade other countries for the sole purpose of overthrowing evil leaders?

Monday, January 30, 2006 5:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...


MY FEELINGS EXACTLY. If we follow the teachings of the Book of Mormon, NEVER do you read of the Nephites taking "pro-active" aggression against the Lamanites. NEVER do you have the Nephites invading Lamanite lands to "free the poor souls subjected to an evil ruler".

The only time the Nephites invaded other lands was when they were directly attacked. That is what makes Afganistan morally justified and Iraq an immoral aggression.

There is a large disconnect between the LDS Cultural/Political viewpoint of the war and what the Lord tells us in the Book of Mormon and D&C. President Hinckley had to modify his comments on the war as the Utah Saints get in a tizzy when someone suggests war is immoral for any purpose other than true self-defense.

But that is not surprising. The Mountain West Saints also have disconnects about hunting and the plight of the poor (even though President Kimball and President Hinckley have spoken plainly about those items also).

I am one of those in the wonderful State of Florida whose vote was thrown out by our US Supreme Court in 2000 in the name of national unity.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006 9:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm LDS and I do not support the war. Sometimes wars are a necessary
but nonetheless as a last alternative.
I will not try to convince people one way or the other on how they should feel about the War in Iraq. That is their choice. Perhaps the church feels the same way. Why should a religion take a stand on an issue that is political in nature. Even when we are asked to vote, we are counseled to prayfully
study the issues and vote our conscience. The church does not tell us which candidate to choose, nor should it. As to the use of fast and testimony meeting to voice political opinions...I wish the members of the Church would follow the counsel by the bretheren that I have heard since I first joined the Church in 1975 and probably have counseled long before that... and that is to keep your testimony to that of your knowledge to the divinity of Jesus Christ and his Church. Time and time again I have gone to fast and testimony meetings only to hear statements from the pulpit that were entirely off the wall and had nothing to do with the purpose of the meeting. In fact it would not hurt my feelings or my testiomony one bit to abolish that meeting and just have Sunday as usual. Would I have met that gentleman outside of the chapel because of a difference of opinion?? Perhaps...
but not for the reason he was challenging...that is for a fight...but rather to try and remind him that I also am entitled to my own views of political events and I will be accountable for my decisions that I make from my own free will.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:34:00 AM  
Anonymous War Weary said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:32:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

War Weary:

I deleted your comment because it violated Messenger and Advocate comment policies. You are welcome to return to our site, and leave other comments consistent with our comment policies; however, your most recent comment was rude and offensive.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 1:59:00 PM  
Blogger Matt Evans said...


I think it's wrong to suggest that Mormons shouldn't work with evangelicals, or that Mormons should be leary of supporting the war or President Bush because of his support among evangelicals, yet fail to mention the reception the church receives from members of International ANSWER and other opponents of the war. Guilt by association cuts both ways.

Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:19:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Murray said...

Matt: Thanks for stopping by. I don't think I'm suggesting that Mormons should not work with Evangelicals, or not support the war because evangelicals do. Rather I mean only to underscore the point that evangelicals generally do not have a favorable view of Mormons. I agreed with Mr. Clark's observation that evangelicals do not even view us as Christian, and that we should not necessarily feel welcome or comfortable in their company.

It is a matter of historical fact that the Prophet Joseph's most early and at times most violent opposition was from the evangelical community. That active opposition and ridicule (which I belive is unconscionable) continues today. I think it is fair to call the evangelicals on this. Furthermore, the evangelicals are supposed to be our Christian brothers in the Gospel. I'm not sure we can make the same claim about groups like International Answer.

That said, you do have a good point that the guilt by association sword is two edged. Thanks for your thoughts

Thursday, February 02, 2006 6:59:00 PM  
Anonymous War Weary said...

Guy Murray: I deleted your comment because it violated Messenger and Advocate comment policies. You are welcome to return to our site, and leave other comments consistent with our comment policies; however, your most recent comment was rude and offensive.

There are about 10 comment policies listed at the Times and Seasons blog which your site links to, did I violate all of them?

If you think I've violated Policy #1, can you give me an instance where I attacked or insulted someone's person instead of his arguments or the things he did/said (or did not do/say).

Friday, February 03, 2006 7:42:00 AM  
Anonymous War Weary said...

In April 2003, an al-Qaeda suspect of the USS Cole bombing, Jamal al-Badawi escaped from his prison in Yemen. This was reported by FoxNews:

Main Suspects in USS Cole Bombing Escape From Yemeni Prison,2933,83890,00.html

Just a couple of days ago, the same convict escaped from the same prison, again as reported by FoxNews:

USS Cole Bombing Mastermind Escapes Prison,2933,183911,00.html

What is never clear from these accounts is if the great escape happened twice or if the mainstream media is merely reporting what happened some 3 years ago.

I guess we'll never know.

What's important to know is that Bush says we are winning the war on terror, that we are winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the many Bush-believing Mormons in Utah (as opposed to the more numerous non-Bush-believing Mormons elsewhere), that alone is what really matters.

That's the "truth" for now.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006 8:48:00 AM  
Anonymous BKM reader said...

Mormons (like me) seem to forget that the Gadianton Robbers in the Book of Mormon sought after and took control of the Nephite (good guys) Government before they ever went to the Lamanites (bad guys). To compare the terrorists in Iraq & now Iran to Gadianton Robbers is not accurate and very misleading... Why would Gadianton Robbers want to infiltrate poor countries who have little power beyond those countries when they can have what we have in Great USA.

If I was a Gadianton robber leader, I would be infiltrating the powerful US congress, judges (to protect my own), executive branch, media and any other powerful organization that influences the masses... By the way, when was the last time you or your neighbor took the time to research who you voted for last year? Last year in my neighborhood, less than 10% of us voted for our local leaders. Who is watching the back door of your hen house anyway... have we relied on the arm of flesh to do that for us (the media, our current leaders in office)?

Will we be like the people of the Great City of Zarahemla who in their GREAT PRIDE "supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of the lands to attack that great city Zarahemla." Yet Coriantumr and the Lamanites did. And there may be a lesson there as well. Remember, where was the strength of the people of Zarahemla that they lost the city? "because of so much contention and so much difficulty in the government; that they had not kept sufficient guards in the land of Zarahemla; for they had supposed that the Lamanites durst not come into the heart of the lands to attack that great city Zarahemla." Where are our soldiers today?... thats another topic.

Friday, August 29, 2008 1:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home