By Larry Vollintine (U. Religion 231, Prof. Skousen, April 22, 1969)

Editor's note: some minor changes in spelling have been made from the original document.

The purpose of this paper is not to rehash old, worn-out Sunday School lessons. Nor is it to be an apologetic attempt to rationalize conflicting statements. It is a serious undertaking, on my part, to come to an understanding of the basic official Church position on war and military service in light of some scriptures and statements by General Authorities; and to point out some conflicts, inconsistencies, and problems (if any) as I view the source material. I will not say that I accept or reject the Church position, whatever it may be, at this time. This I will leave for the conclusion of the paper.

The organization of the paper will be as follows. I will first quote at length the source material on the various subtopics I wish to cover. After each quote I will attempt to interpret it as I understand it and to point out important items. This is done to give a common basis for the analysis later to come. The various subtopics I wish to cover are these:

1. General Church attitude toward war and conflict.
2. The desirability of Compulsory Military Training and militarism in general.
3. Church justification and the State.
1. D&C Section 98.
2. Commentary and guidelines by General Authorities.
3. Church-State relations.
4. Germany, the Church, and World War II.

After briefly interpreting each quote in this part, I will then proceed to analyze the quotes and point out problems if they exist. Naturally, this may be subjective; but all interpretation is subjective. Finally, I will conclude with my personal position as to the acceptance, rejection, or inconclusion to the preceding part­ - the official Church position. Obviously, the actual position I take will have to be that, and only that, at the time of the finishing of this paper.

* * *

The Church is categorically against war. It feels that war does not develop the good qualities of men. Instead, it destroys them. Church leaders have frequently stated this point and have specifically indicated that the causes of war lie in man’s evilness. “Lust has been the motivating force of the wars that have afflicted and desolated the world.”(1) “The seeds of war lie in man’s nature. These seeds germinate at the first natural urge for self-preser­vation, self-perpetuation or a desire for conquest.”(2) As to whether the seeds of war lie in man’s basic nature or not is another question. The important point here is that human motivation in the form of an “urge for self-preservation, self-perpetuation or a desire for conquest” does cause conflict.

War is un-Christian as shown by another statement by President McKay: “War impels you to hate your enemies… 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.”(3) We will later find that this needs to be qualified… But J. Reuben Clark went further when he said “nothing is more unrighteous, more unholy, more unGodly than man-declared mass slaughter of his fellow man for an unrighteous cause… There is not a righteous cause of war, and unrighteous war is unholy.”(4) McKay related the Spirit of Christ to international relations by saying “with the spirit of Christ in their hearts no nation will arrogate to itself superiority over others, but give to each nation, however small, the right of self-determination.”(5) Heber C. Kimball correlated the Word of Wisdom with killing:

If He is not well pleased with us when we shed the blood of beasts when we have no need of it, would it not be much more displeasing to him were we to shed the blood of man unnecessarily? It is not the Spirit of God that leads a man or woman to shed blood – to desire to kill and slay.(6)

Brigham Young indicated a degree of pacifism when he said “if I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood.”(7)

War is no insignificant offense. In connection with their strong denouncements of war, the First Presidency also forecast stern punishment for those who engaged in it for evil reasons. “We further declare that God is grieved by war and that He will hold subject to the eternal punishment of His will those who wage it unrighteously.”(8) This statement was made just as Germany invaded Poland. War is man’s fault and responsibility, not God’s. Being a free agent, man will be the object of punishment for unrighteousness. “The responsibility for war rests upon man, the free agent, not upon the Lord. Those who are the occasion of war may rightly be classed as murderers.”(9) F.L.W. Bennett said in 1917 that:

The truth is, war is degrading, the most demoralizing, hateful, wicked thing known to mankind. It not only destroys bodies, it destroys souls, which is infinitely worse… When the prophet said, “When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, be not troubled for such things must be,” he did not mean that they were right and proper, nor was he planning anything.(10)

This is an important statement. True, the Lord’s prophets revealed there would be many wars in the last days. But this would be because of wickedness, not righteousness. We should not make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In summary, the First Presidency in a message to the Church in 1942 stated: “Thus the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war, unless and until the Lord shall issue commands.”(11) Here is the essence of the Church attitude toward war. But what is extremely important are the two subjects mentioned, i.e., the Church and war. The Church, as an institution, does not wage war. It did not declare war on Germany, nor will it declare war on North Vietnam unless the Lord specifically commands. This statement limits the preceding ones to the Church as an organization in the world.

But why is the Church against war? Some reasons have already been given. Here are two more answers to that question within a psychological framework. These referred to soldiers returning home after the war.

In the field of war, they have been nurtured with poison of destruction. How to transplant them, to revive their full vigor, and ensure normal growth after the war, is perhaps the major problem among the many that will rise in the proposed reconstitution of the world.(12)

But some are coming back wounded in spirit and in mind by hate, by revenge, by a willingness to kill, and sometimes by a will to kill, wounded and corrupted under compulsion in thoughts and acts and concepts which have never entered our minds and hearts. They are coming back questioning sometimes even the existence of a God who, as they look at it, would not tolerate such things as they have gone through.(13)

Thus we see that the Church as an institution is against war in general because it is caused by evil desires of men, is destructive of bodies and souls, and is un-Christian.

If the Church is against war because it is unholy and evil, surely it would not want its members to participate if at all possible.

Conscription and volunteerism are the two methods countries use to equip themselves with an army. In the U.S. the armed forces have been manned by volunteers entirely, except for the Civil War, World Wars I and II, and from the Korean to the Vietnam Wars. Interestingly enough, after the Civil War and the First and Second World Wars the U.S. immediately reverted to a voluntary army. But after World War II there was a movement to keep Compulsory Military Training (Draft) during peacetime. This movement was successful. The present draft system has evolved directly from the original created in June 1948. It was against the institution of peacetime conscription that the Church took a stand. The following items appeared in the Improvement Era. Referring to the high authority of Germany, one article read: “But our military wants to inculcate the same sort of obedience in our youth. They want to take a young fellow when he is most impressionable, and make an obedient slave out of him for a year.”(14) Though this is [sic] reprint from another magazine, it seems only reasonable to assume that the editors of the Era felt similarly. These same editors in an article of their own cautioned:

… countless, far reaching, vicious, negative, and undesireable [sic] results would follow the regimentation of youth in their formative years – to break the pattern of their lives for indoctrination in the arts of war … But we know too, the dangers of regimentation and indoctrination of youth. We have watched with consternation the evils of such programs in other lands. Shall we, therefore, commit ourselves to the same evils?(15)

Both statements oppose the regimentation and unthinking obeisance fostered by military service that comes during an impressionable part of one's life.

One often hears the argument that military service is a good experience and that it “makes a man out of you.” Church organs seemed to take a different view.

The practices of the army encourage rather than discourage smoking and drinking, especially of beer… The military teach [sic] how to avoid social diseases, but not self-control and personal purity. Indulge if you will, but submit to treatment immediately afterwards is the military attitude… We hate war and all its evil. War is destructive of all our spiritual aspirations and ideals. Hence, why prepare our boys for war when no war  is in sight? We will cross the bridge if and when we get to it. In the meantime, let us do everything we can to train our boys to be clean, capable, lovable, and righteous. This can best be done by keeping them away from army environment when war no longer makes it necessary for the boys to be there.(16)

Does the army really build character? A.E. Bateman, former Utah Superintendent of Public Instruction, thought not. He claimed that the general trends of character are too deeply set by age eighteen to be altered significantly. He stated that character is shaped by the environment and the institutions of society: home, community, church, and school. To say that military training is necessary is actually an assertion that the institutions of society have failed. Bateman concluded by saying “army discipline may produce certain forms of courtesy, but the army would be the last to argue that it is a moral training institution.”(17) This last point was illustrated further by this author's conversation with Colonel Lyon, director of the BYU Army ROTC. Col. Lyon took the same position, that though the Army may cut their hair, hippies will stay hippies.

Universal Compulsory Military Training would also have an effect on the international policies of the U.S. In the same article as above, A.E. Bateman discussed this aspect.

For the United States and Great Britain to adopt compulsory military training at this time would have a bad psychological effect upon our attempts to secure an effective world organization. Our system of voluntary military service are as old as our modern democracies … Now to change our traditions and adopt the greatest program of military preparedness the world has ever seen, would be to impress upon the world a lack of faith in our efforts; in effect it would be an announcement that we had no hopes for international cooperation … One of the greatest weaknesses of a state of defenses based upon compulsory military training would be that of regimentation. Great military organizations tend to perpetuate traditional methods, to oppose innovations, and to make fundamental changes in tactics and the use of new weapons only after military disaster forces such change.(18)

Examples of this accusation might be the U.S. involvement in both Korea, where we first tried to fight a WWII type war, and in Vietnam, where we tried to fight a Korean type. Though this is a technical military question, the main thing to remember is who is directly affected – the common soldier.

In the article “Shall We Have Military Conscription?” which was previously cited, it was said that there was mass sentiment in favor of an organization to:

… eliminate the likelihood of another war during the lifetime of people now living. Then why go to the enormous expense of preparing for something that will not happen? But if in the distant future, it does happen, the methods and equipment then used would render obsolete those now employed. Hence the folly and the waste of continuing training in this generation.(19)

Admittedly, this argument seems a bit naive. Again, a reprint from the Argonaut warned:

… militarism will grow in America … when once the American mind has come to consider that universal military training in peacetime has become its paramount duty. If we adopt universal military training, we shall be adopting the very thing for which we have been condemning Germany and various European nations for a century … Instead of advocating universal military training in peacetime, we ought to be advocating universal military disarmament.(20)

Since war is usually evil and those countries that initiate are unrighteous, the Church opposes institutions which would foster an aggressive tendency. One such institution is a standing army, easily created and maintained by conscription.

Standing armies exist to carry on war, and as long as they exist, wars will be fought. If universal military training carries the day, and we get a large standing army, America will soon become as warlike as any nation of Europe has been, and will be ready to fight for any cause, or even no cause at all.(21)

The figure usually given as the necessary minimum for a peace-keeping, standing army for the United States is 2.7 million. Depending upon one's values and political ideology, the U.S. may, or may not, fit the above described picture.

Many sincerely believe there is an urgency to adopt a program of compulsory peacetime military training… Let us not forget to remember the fate of nations that have made war their business – nations that have been regimented generation after generation – with some of whom we now contend.(22)

History has shown that many immigrants came to America to escape a conscription in European countries.

Nations intent on war have proved historically to find themselves involved in war much more readily than those who are prepared to pursue the ways of peace… But to say to generations of children in time of peace, ever prepare for war and more war – that is the way to wars without end – that is the road to extermination.(23)

A political science professor at BYU has found that since 1789, the U.S. has engaged in direct military foreign intervention 169 different times. This averages out to almost once every year.

In place of this change to compulsory military service, arms race, and the expenses involved, articles in the Era called for expenditures of the money for alternative domestic items.(24) Even before World War I, J. Cuthers, a correspondent for the Era, pleaded for the establishment of an international organization for peace and alternative spending of the military funds. He counseled:

… let us earnestly entreat our rulers and lawmakers to enact such legislation as will provide for all future national and international questions and difficulties to be settled by mediation and discussion. Thus war will be entirely obliterated and armies and navies will have no pretext for existence. The money spent for increasing the army and navy, and weapons and means of warfare, could be used for the erection of sacred edifices wherein the Gospel of Peace would be taught.(25)

The explicit Church position on Universal Military Training can be found in a letter by the First Presidency to the members of the Utah Congressional Delegation on Dec. 14, 1945 (of which a photostat copy appears at the end of this paper). It contains seventeen specific arguments why they (George A. Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay) opposed the establishment of compulsory universal military training.

Now let us turn to specifics. As has been portrayed above, the Church is against war in general. But this indicates there may be some isolated instances where the Church can justify participation.

The scriptural reference to war and participation in war appears in Section 9 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It has been termed the Law of War by some.

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.

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;

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;

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

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

Behold, this is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

And again, verily I say unto you, if after thine enemy has come upon thee the first time, he repent and come unto thee praying forgiveness, thou shalt forgive him, and shalt hold it no more as a testimony against thine enemy –

And so on unto the second and third time; and as oft as thine enemy repenteth of the trespass wherewith he has trespassed against thee, thou shalt forgive him, until seventy times seven.

And if he trespass against thee and repent not the first time, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

And if he trespass against thee the second time, and repent not, nevertheless thou shalt forgive him.

And if he trespass against thee the third time, and repent not, thou shalt also forgive him.

But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.

And if he do this thou shalt forgive him with all thine heart; and if he do not this, I the Lord, will avenge thee of thine enemy an hundred-fold; (D&C 98:33-45)

Remember the first verse. The commandment calls for a specific procedure to be followed, that of three peace offerings, an appeal to the Lord, and a response by the Lord, before Church members are justified in fighting. We may ask, though, if this only applies to the Church as an institution. Keep in mind the above-quoted scripture and statement: “Thus the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war, unless and until the Lord shall issue new commands.”(26)

In 1966, Gordon B. Hinkley made a passing reference to military service when he said: “I would earnestly hope that your sons will not be called to serve in those hot, fearsome battle grounds in Vietnam; but in case orders take them there, I want to assure you… that they may find the Church operating under the direction of devoted and faithful men.”(27)

Unfortunately, he did not answer the question of whether they ought to go. But during the Korean war, William E. Berrett said “a member of the Church who is called to serve his nation in the cause of freedom may enter into battle with confidence so long as his desires are righteous.”(28) Though getting closer to the question, this is still vague. Who decides if one’s desires are righteous, or when one is fighting for freedom?

Returning to D&C 98, John A. Widtsoe had this to say:

Only under such conditions as are specified in this revelation [D&C 98:23-44] can Latter-day Saints justify a war. But it must be remembered that we are taught to be loyal to the land in which we live. Often as good citizens we must do things which we do not understand or which we do not fully accept. As far as war is concerned, Section 98 is the Lord’s word. If the nations would heed to it, bloody contentions among nations would cease.(29)

Widtsoe has introduced a new element, the State. But all he says is that we must be loyal (whatever that is) and that we may have to do some things we don’t want to do – something parents have constantly admonished their children. What is not clear is whether being loyal to one’s country is inclusive in D&C 98 or not. In other words, do we follow Section 98 only when loyalty to country is not a part of the question?

Widtsoe took a different approach ten years earlier when he listed the criteria for engaging in conflict. He stated:

… when human rights and freedom, the plan of salvation itself, are the issues, the raging battle becomes the battle of the Lord, and those who have truth, and fight for it, should then plead with the Lord for help, and in course of time will receive it, for it has been said: “The Lord shall fight for you.”(30)

Here, the idea of morality in war, rather than legality, is raised. The type that is justified is a righteous, “holy” war in which the Lord’s direct assistance is invoked.

There have been three lengthy dissertations on the specific instances that justify church members to participate in war. John A. Widtsoe handled it in this way:

A war can be called just, only when waged against sin and for the victory of truth; when it battles for the preservation of the principles which make up the plan of salvation, then warfare is righteous. If it is waged to defeat the attempt to enslave men under tyrannical rule, it becomes a war against sin. Such a war should be supported by all who love right above wrong; by all who adhere to the right of free agency, for which the heavenly battle was fought, long ago.

If it be desired to test the righteousness of war, compare the issues with those of the divinely formulated plan for human happiness. No other test is needed. The standards are all there.

In such a spirit, with such an understanding, the soldiers who go out from this Church must go into battle. They are fighting sin; they are fighting for truth; no quarter can be shown the opposing side. The soldiers of the enemy, whether willing or not, represent a sinful, destructive case. They must be defeated at any cost… the fate of the enemy as individuals must be set aside in the battle for principle. If right wins, as it must and will, the enemy and all humanity will be blessed...

Nevertheless, though sin can be given no quarter, nor those who seek to impose sin upon others, yet the soldier must recognize that the sinner, as an individual, remains a child of God, subject to repentance and the Lord’s eternal mercy. Since he represents a sinful cause, it may be necessary to use against him the only weapons he recognizes, even though to him it means his destruction.(31)

This construction parallels that of Widtsoe’s previous statement. Again the “holy war” idea of fighting sin in the form of aggressive tyranny. The cautionary reminder at the end is important to remember, especially since war tends to cause one to overlook it.

Joseph Fielding Smith dealt with the subject in this manner:

Our question, however, is there ever a time when war, or the taking up of arms is justified?

Yes, there are such times. There have been many instances when the Lord has justified the taking up of arms and has approved his people in their obedience to such action. When it becomes necessary for a righteous people to take up arms against their enemies who are their aggressors in the protection of their lives and in defense of their possessions, the Lord has approved…

The Lord has always upheld a people which righteously defends itself against wicked aggression…

We are under command to obey the laws of the countries in which we live, and many times on this account people are forced to take up arms against their wishes, but the Lord will justify them because they are subject to the laws of the law of the country where they live and of necessity have to obey.(32)

Smith returns to the element of the State. He claims Mormons are “under commandment” to follow the pronouncements of the State even though the members may oppose it. He further claims that the Lord justifies such action. Interesting is the fact that upon finishing with the above, Smith quotes D&C 98 and then Matt. 5:44 (“Love your enemies”).

Probably the most specific statement made on the subject of war was made by David O. McKay in 1942. He took the following position:

I still say there are conditions when entrance into war is justifiable...

Such a condition, however, is not a real or fancied insult given by one nation to another…

Neither is there justifiable cause found in a desire or even a need for territorial expansion…

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…

So fundament in man’s eternal progress is his inherent right to choose, that the Lord would defend it even at the price of war.(33)

In addition to the loyalty to country idea, McKay incorporates the idea of protection of free agency and gives it the importance it deserves.

The Church intentionally bases its position on duty to country and obedience to laws. It therefore supports the membership if responding to a nation’s call to arms. This view is explained by the following excerpt from a statement by the First Presidency:

But 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.” When, therefore, constitutional law, obedient to these principles [D&C 134:1-6,8] calls the manhood of the Church into the armed service of any country to which we owe allegiance, their highest civic duty requires that they meet that call. If, harkening [sic] 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 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.(34)

The significant item introduced here is that of “innocent instrumentalities” – those forced against their will into fighting for a country. It is only reasonable that if God told someone to do something, He could not very well condemn him for doing it. A summary appeared in this same message. “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.”(35)

Discussion of loyalty to country brings up the question of Church-State relations. This question has extreme relevance to the overall subject of war and military service. Briefly, the Government of the United States is founded upon a Constitution. Church doctrine tells us that the writers of the Constitution were inspired and that this country was specifically established so as to allow the Church to be restored. But a question remains as to the extent of righteousness of the Constitution, the laws of the land, and America in general. Brigham Young spoke on this in his discourses:

The signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution were inspired from on high to do that work. But was that which was given to them perfect, not admitting of any addition whatsoever? No; for if men know anything, they must know that the Almighty has never yet found a man in mortality that was capable, at first intimation, at the first impulse, to recall anything in a state of entire perfection. They laid the foundation… It is a pressive – a gradual work.(36)

We can assume, then, that the Constitution was not perfect. It means that it will change and that change need not necessarily be equated with righteousness or unrighteousness.

Obedience to this document is a fundamental commandment of the Church. The Doctrine and Covenants contains the following crucial sections:

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

Wherefore, be subject to the power that be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues all enemies under his feet.

Behold, the laws which ye have received from my hand are the laws of the church, and in this light ye shall hold them forth. Behold, here is wisdom. (D&C 58:21-23)

This scripture claims there is no conflict between the laws of the land and the laws of God. This is difficult to understand in light of the polygamy situations.

And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

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;

And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. (D&C 98:4-7)

Mark E. Peterson interpreted verse seven by saying “that laws which are not in harmony with the principle of free agency and therefore not in harmony with the spirit of the Constitution, ‘cometh of evil.’”(37) Here the term “constitution” is defined as “supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges.” It says that constitutional (small “c”) law (as thus defined) is justifiable to God and should be obeyed by the Church. And as Peterson said, any law which goes beyond the constitutional law is evil. Can we assume, then, that it should not be followed?

And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you –

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgement.

Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood. (D&C 101:76-80).

The above passage gives the reasons why the Constitution was established and also mentions the principles of “moral agency” and individual responsibility of action.

A hypothetical corollary to the commandment of obedience is that of conflict of laws. Assuming that D&C 58:21 is inaccurate, the problem emerges as whether religion or the State should dominate. There is no question as to which is dominant. The State has the power to destroy the Church and its members whenever it pleases. But, as it relates to the individual, the question becomes, “if God commands me to do one thing and the State to do the opposite, which do I follow?” The essence of conscience is enmeshed in this dilemma. A Mormon’s duty to his government is spelled out extensively in D&C 134. In this section, the proper role of government is given. Selected verses include the following:

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 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…

… but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgements are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

… and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interest as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker. (D&C 134:1,2,4,5,6)

Government in general is created to help man. The section prescribes no best form of government. All it says is that government should allow “free exercise of conscience” and private property, protect life and property, and administer justice with equity. A general admonition for support is given. But throughout the entire section, “free exercise of conscience” is propounded. No doubt it is very important. The allowance of free conscience as it relates to the State was also mentioned by J. Reuben Clark in 1939.

Thus we can stand for no cause and can support no state fostering a cause that would seek to compel the conscience of men, that would set up the state as deity… that would make men slaves of the state to the destruction of all safety, due protection of life, and limb, and all individual liberty, that would blot out the Christian home.(38)

He answers the question of Church-State dominance and indirectly by refusing to support a country which establishes itself in the place of religion or God, possibly as the Communist totalitarian ones have in our day. Brigham Young also answered the question, only very directly. He preached:

To serve God and keep his commandments are first and foremost with me. If this be higher law, so be it… It is a pretty bold stand for this people to take, to say that they will not be controlled by the corrupt administrators of our general Government. We will be controlled by them, if they will be controlled by the Constitution and laws; but they will not.(39)

The appeal to Higher Law is the first premise in the argument for Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience, as opposed to the catch-all term “civil disobedience,” calls for movement through legal channels as long as they are open and functional. But upon their breakdown, it calls for individual non-violent action of conscience.

As to the final answer to the question of dominance, generally, in a conflict, religious law should take precedence. But to the application in individual cases, it remains inconclusive at best.

World War II provided a situation for application of the question of conflicts to particular events in history and to Church reaction. This is in reference to Church member participation in war on both sides. We should not forget, while analyzing the facts, the words of David O. McKay. “The seeds of war lie in man’s nature. These seeds germinate at the first natural urge for self-preservation, self-perpetuation, or a desire for conquest.”(40)

All nations possess at least the first two. Germany also possessed the third. Germany desired conquest. In its actions, it violated all the afore-stated criteria for holy war.41 But that does not automatically put the rest of the world in the righteous column. As World War II began in 1939, J. Reuben Clark said:

… we can look with no degree of allowance upon the sin of unholy war, and a war to make conquest or to keep conquest already made in such a war.

At almost every opportunity since I was called to a place in the First Presidency I have expressed grave apprehensions as to the course which the whole world, including our own nation, was following.(42)

Widtsoe developed this further. He felt that “even the nation that fights for divine principle, the nation on the Lord’s side, may have forgotten the Lord in its material prosperity and thereby have lost wisdom and strength.”(43)

The problem is degree. Which was worse, Germany or the rest of the world? Obviously, Germany was. “With the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, no nation will arrogate to itself superiority over others, but give to each nation, however small, the right of self-determination.”(44) Germany did not have the Spirit of Christ.

The Church was caught in a serious predicament. There were Church members on both sides, and surely both would be forced to enter the conflict. Church leaders devoted much Conference time during the war years in an attempt to justify, or rationalize, Church membership in involvement in both armies. In 1939, Clark made this statement:

There are in the Church tens of thousands of faithful members and in the nation millions of loyal citizens, whose choice would be, because of their German ancestry, that Germany should become the dominant power of Europe, perhaps of the world.(45)

In the 1942 Conference, the First Presidency had this to say:

… in the present war, righteous men of the Church in both camps have died, some with great heroism, for their country’s sake. In all this our people have but served loyally the country of which they were citizens or subjects under the principle we have already stated [D&C 134:1-6,8]. We have felt honored that our brethren [sic] have died nobly for their countries; the Church has been benefited by their service and sacrifice…

This Church is a world wide Church. Its devoted members are in both camps. They are the innocent instrumentalities of their warring sovereignties. On each side they believe they are fighting for home, and country, and freedom. On each side, our brethren [sic] pray to the same God, in the same name, for victory. Both sides cannot be wholly right; perhaps neither is without wrong… He will not hold the innocent instrumentalities of the war, our brethern [sic] in arms, responsible for the conflict.(46)

Once again the “innocent instrumentalities” appear. It is true, that the Church members in Germany may not have been directly responsible for the initiation of the war, not for some of the atrocities committed. But they did support it, though possibly against their will. We really don’t know.

In any event, Church members were involved in direct support of evilness. David O. McKay related one of Hitler’s goals in this manner:

… the world’s chief gangster trained his youth to be brutal. In anticipation, indeed, in glorification of armed conflict, this man declared that he would train youth to be brutal. “In my greatest educative work,” he said, “I am beginning with the young… weaknesses have to be knocked out of them… A violently active, dominating, intrepid, brutal youth – that is what I am after. There must be no weakness or tenderness in it. I want to see once more in its eyes the gleam of pride and independence of the beast of prey.”(47)

Indeed, these are harsh words, but perhaps they are fitting. If the Church members who participated in the “brutalizing” were innocent, then the scripture “I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (D&C 1:31) must not apply.

The knowledge of the exact number of Church members who fought for the other side might be of some aid. In 1943, Harold B. Lee approximated their number by saying:

… if there be thirty-two thousand Latter-day Saints in the war torn countries of Europe as have been stated in this con­ference, approximately fifty percent of these live in the nations we now call the Axis Powers. If the same percentage of boys have been called from among the Saints there as have been called here, there are probably no fewer than seven or eight hundred of our Latter-day Saint boys who hold the Priesthood bearing the arms in those nations we call our enemies… I pray God that he will save our boys in those countries who perhaps are no more guilty of wrong doing [sic] than our own loved boys in this country.(48)

One might wonder by his last phrase whether or not he was really sure. Some specific figures were published by the Church in 1942 as to the extent of Church participation in the war effort on both sides.

Figures Showing The Church’s Part in Defense.(49)

• Total membership – 531,626
• Inducted – 3,847
• Volunteered – 5,335
• Foreign armies – 395
• National Guard – 2,161
• Reserve [officers] – 488
• Empl. def. plnts [reader’s note: possibly ‘employed in defense plants’?] – 13,578

The category of foreign armies is not broken down. No doubt there were British and French Church members who fought. It is unlikely that any more than a third of the 395 figure actually fought for Germany. On the other hand, the high number of volunteers and inductees might be indicative of the general Church attitude of loyalty to government.

The case of World War II found Church members fighting on both sides. The Church Authorities attempted to justify participation in the two armies by appeals to loyalty to government. The questionable part only affected a very few individuals.

There can be little disagreement on the fact that the Church, as an institution, opposes war. The problem arises with the individual – both a member of the Church, subject to God’s laws, and a citizen of a nation-state, subject to the sanctions of the government. Taking the previous quotes into consideration, it appears that the Church is pro-government. They proclaim the doctrine that one has a duty to fight for his country when his country calls. And by doing this, he will either not be violating God’s laws or be innocent if he is. It would seem that Church members should give one hundred percent allegiance to their governments no matter the form, nor degree of totalitarian present. This may, of course, be qualified depending upon the credence and interpretations given [in] Section 134. If we are to support only governments which allow “free exercise of conscience,” does that mean we should refuse to support those which do not? And who interprets “free exercise of conscience?” Does the Draft, as presently functioning, allow “free exercise of conscience?” Obviously not. Depending upon the form of government, laws may allow free exercise of varying segments of the population from dictator to majority. The question of “free exercise of conscience” and its proper limits are entirely normative judgments and are areas on which the Church has not spoken specifically. We are left with only personal interpretation and the resultant, inevitable disagreement.

Even so, we all have a general notion that “free exercise of conscience” is generally desirable. If this, then, is the criteria for good government (deserving our obedience) over bad, then we should question whether Germany qualified. We may also question whether America qualifies in certain areas (Draft, Civil Rights, free speech and press, loyalty oaths, rights to work) to the extent one feels necessary. If Germany didn’t qualify as a righteous government, would obedience to its laws still render justifiable innocence? Naturally, by using a government’s own definition of the critical terms “freedom,” “right,” “conscience,” “equality,” “democracy,” duty to every government on the face of the earth is justifiable. We would, therefore, be required to give our undying allegiance to such “righteous” governments as the Chinese People’s Republic, or the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. We would have to support the “democratic” elections in Czechoslovakia in 1948. And we would be forced to believe the U.S. Government’s claim of fighting for “freedom” in South Vietnam. Whether or not any of the above are true is of no consequence. The point is, reliance upon definition by the nation to which we are considering loyalty is dangerous. It justifies anything and everything. It justifies every war that has ever taken place. What remains if not individual interpretation and decision? But this author has seen no indication that the Church supports such a stand. Therefore, problems are evident in President McKay’s second admonition of “loyalty to country” as it justifies participation in war. If Germany did not qualify for the “loyalty to country” criteria, why were Church members justified in fighting?

We might consider why duty to country is given so much importance. If the State protects the rights and privileges of its citizens, it is due, in return, protection from outside aggression. This is basic to any discussion of government (see John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, pp. 109-110). The Book of Mormon portrays many examples of citizens supporting their governments in fighting a defensive war while protecting lives, liberty, and property. But the argument can be reversed to say if the government protects no rights, citizens are obligated to give no support. This is a logical assumption only. There is no substantial evidence to suggest the Church supports the reversal. In fact, the episode of the Mormon Battalion depicts Church members volunteering to support a government, which had not protected their rights and privileges, to fight an immoral war with Mexico.

Related to the appeal to national loyalty, the world is in transition. The State has replaced religion, and God is displaced by the Lion, the Bear, and the Eagle. Does the State command our ultimate allegiance? If so, then dying for one's country because of mere loyalty seems little different than human sacrifice to the Sun God.

The Book of Mormon introduced a further concept – that of defensive war. It should be remembered that whenever the Nephites were righteous and fought a defensive war on their own soil, they won. Whenever they turned aggressive or wicked, they lost. Could the determining factor be the withdrawal of the Spirit of God in the latter cases? If it is, here is another criteria for justification. But again, we cannot use a nation’s own definition of “defensive” and “aggressive.” It may seem that the U.S. fighting a “preventative-containment” war 10,000 miles away in South Vietnam does not fit the Nephite conception of a defensive war on their own soil. Militarily, the Nephites were isolationists. Yet the Church supports the present war effort by its uncriticizing acceptance that Church members will have to fight and encourages them to go if drafted. Today, the Church is allowing its young men to be drafted by a system it feels is wrong, to fight in a war that cannot be rectified with the Book of Mormon teachings on war morality.

This whole analysis stems around the idea of conflict of laws. Some claim there are no conflicts between the laws of God and of the State, any State (D&C 58:21).

Note from Professor Skousen: May I take advantage of the space to suggest that when this revelation was given the laws of the U.S. had not been corrupted to the extent which came later. Since then we have followed the route of the apostate Nephites who corrupted the divinely inspired constitution of Mosiah II (creating a government of elected bodies) until by the time of Nephi II not even a righteous man could administer it (Helaman 5:2). Just a thought.

They claim that one’s military service duty falls on the one commandment of duty to country. This should be followed until God directly intervenes. Hopefully, He would if there were a conflict. But have we ever stopped to consider that maybe He would not, at least all the time? Perhaps He wants us to “work it out” for ourselves – to see how we reset, how we decide situations and values – to test us. And again, maybe He doesn’t. That there are conflicts between laws, even two God given laws, still remains. In one, God tells us to “obey the law of the land”; in the other, He gives specific commandments that have conflicted with the laws of the land.

We have decided that, generally, if there ever were a conflict of laws, we should follow God over the State. “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). This is the essence of Higher Law. We cannot forget responsibility though. Church doctrine stresses individual responsibility extensively. Perhaps a conspicuous indication of this is the over-reaction for criminal imprisonment and punishment. I have trouble rectifying this with the First Presidency’s view that Church members who supported Hitler were merely “innocent instrumentalities.”

First, let me clarify my attitude. I do not want to judge the personal morality of another individual. He may do something I consider either wrong or right. But I have no way of knowing the situation he faced at a particular time. Nor do I know how I would have reacted given the same circumstances. I think I know what I would like to do, but I honestly do not know.

Next, no one can deny the fact that citizens, and especially soldiers, are instrumentalities of the State to varying degrees. No doubt in Germany they bordered on machines. But as to their innocence (I prefer responsibility), I am in doubt. They were still free agents, able to act and suffer consequences. One person on this campus said to me “If you follow the prophet to Hell, you won’t be responsible.” I reject this notion completely. If the prophet and I end up in Hell, I will be just as responsible as he. This is not to say that I will be punished as severely as the prophet. Judgment is not my field. I will rely upon God to administer justice with equity.

In reference to Germany, the assertion that they had no means to resist seems odd. Undoubtedly some could have if they so desired. We know that many left the country before things got extreme. And one can always be a martyr if he wishes. This is not an unheard of doctrine, even in Mormonism. “He that loseth his life for my sake, shall find it” (Matt. 10:39). I am not saying that they should have been martyrs. But it was a possibility the Church seemed to neglect. I like to think I would have been a martyr in this case. Admittedly, it would have been difficult for a church to say to its members: “Die, rather than participate.” Some would probably have fought because of German nationalism even if the Church said not to.

Furthermore, is treason never justifiable? I remember hearing a certain Hungarian Priest (non-member) boast of his deceitfulness in publishing a religious book containing a Communist cover, title, and first fifty pages, despite a ban on religious material. Oddly, his exploits were vigorously applauded by righteous BYU Mormon youth. But D&C 134:5 says “that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly.” Maybe the words “thus protected” refer to the “free exercise of conscience” previously mentioned. If it did, then possibly the Reverend’s actions can be justified if we use his interpretation of “freedom.”

The entire essence of conflict can be presented in the following brief examples, some of which are hypothetical. The polygamy cases serve ideally for this discussion. Here was a law given by God to the Church to be practiced by certain specific members. On the other hand, the Congress of the United States passed a law in 1862 (Merrill Act) outlawing polygamy in the territories under the jurisdiction of the United States. The law was held constitutional by the Supreme Court in 1878 in the case of Reynolds vs. U.S. (98 U.S. 145). Yet the Manifesto did not come until 1890. That means for twenty-eight years, the polygamist Church members knowingly violated the law of the land in order to obey God’s law. They committed Civil Disobedience and justified it because to them, God’s law was above the State law. Federal Marshals were sent to apprehend the disobedients. Many polygamist Church Authorities went into hiding or fled to Mexico or Canada to escape imprisonment (does draft evasion sound so different?). Some even served jail sentences for their illegal acts. But in any event, here was a direct conflict between two commandments: “loyalty to country” and obedience to God. Which took precedence? Obedience to God did until God changed His law. But there was quite a time lapse in the process.

Let me take a not so impossible hypothetical case: Congress passes a law making it illegal to discriminate because of race in Church membership and participation. The Supreme Court easily declares the law constitutional. A member of the Black Panther Party walks up to a Bishop and asks to join the Church. He is permitted to be baptized and, it appears, follows all the commandments. Then he asks to be given the Priesthood. Upon the Bishop’s hesitation, the Negro adds that he will sue the Church if he is denied. What is the Bishop to do? Is he to follow the specific commandment of God on this matter, or should he follow the general admonition to be loyal to one’s government. One may say that the prophet will hurriedly come forth with the proper revelation to change the restriction. Does God really have the immediate concern of the popularity of the Church in mind? Is God so apprehensive over the possible Church persecution and prosecution that He will acquiesce to a country which passes an “unconstitutional” law? Could it be He wants to “work it out” as has been mentioned? I am surely in no position to make up God’s mind, to decipher His thought processes, or to even recommend suggested reactions. I would merely caution those people who do not believe conflict exists that the dissolution of the conflict may not be as readily forthcoming as they would like. It might force them to act on their own decisions, hopefully based upon what they have been taught is Higher Law.

Numerous other hypothetical cases could be named. For example, Church members in Czechoslovakia are told not to meet any more. A Church member in England, heeding Church counsel given on the evils of socialism, refuses to pay taxes. And one perhaps a bit extreme but serves to illustrate the point is this: A German Church member in World War II who is fighting for Hitler as the German armies sweep across America in the final leg of their drive for world conquest, is told to bomb the Temple. He won’t have to kill anybody because all the righteous Mormons are in the mountains carrying out guerilla warfare. All he would be doing is blowing up a bunch of granite blocks, while under orders. So he does it. Is he an “innocent instrumentality?” Was he forced without alternative to do it? Could he not run away and hide? Could he not join the underground Mormons? Could he not just refuse to destroy the Temple and be shot on the spot? Could he not even turn his canon the other way and blow up the Commander’s headquarters? These are all possibilities that should be considered if one were in such a predicament. As has been said, I do not wish to judge him, nor make his decision for him. I like to think what I would do. But we are two distinct individuals, from different environments, with different motivations and values. We very likely would make different decisions.

In applying my present personal values to this question, I find that I cannot accept “loyalty to country” and “obeying the law of the land” as moral justification of participation in war. I do accept the idea of moral and immoral war. Most likely, I would voluntarily participate in a war where the overwhelming question was aggression against me, or an innocent neighbor, or in defense against attempts to restrict free agency. Nevertheless, my own definitions of these crucial terms must be used, and I must decide also the “if” and “when.” Naturally, I must take the consequences of my action or inaction. But I cannot accept “loyalty to country” as a further criteria.

In analyzing specifics, I presently feel that I would have participated in World War II in defense of the non-Axis nations. I would not have participated if a German. Korea presents a more difficult question. Surely I object most strenuously to the external aggression by the North Koreans. But I also wonder at the questionable actions of the U.S. in pursuant of its foreign policy goals through the U.N.

In the present war, the appeal to “loyalty” disgusts me. Hopefully, I would not go if drafted. But if I really felt strongly about it, I probably should be in jail or Canada by now. What am I doing? I’m nervously sitting out the dilemma on my II-S student deferment while others are dying and still others are in jail.

And if this country were attacked directly, I still would refuse to defend it if I felt it so wicked as not worth defending. I would defend those things worth dying for: my family, my freedom, my Church, and my property in certain cases. I am not a Conscientious Objector.

I seriously wonder why the General Authorities made such attempts to rationalize away Mormon support for Hitler. There may have been some psychological reasons for it. But their statements in application to that situation affect me today. That is, if I believe in the Church. Questioning this doctrine forces me to question the entire nature of the Church. Since I have yet to reach a definite decision on war, I also have none on the Church.

I am troubled when I see righteous members of the Church so wrapped up in self-pride, chauvinism, and super-patriotism that they miss what I consider to be the more important: government, man, society, and God. What is patriotism, anyway? I asked my returned missionary roommate that question once. He replied, “Well, I guess it’s pledging allegiance to the flag and singing America the Beautiful.” I pressed him further. “Isn’t there something more important than that? Isn’t there a priority of values where you consider some things more patriotic than others?” He said yes, “That dying for your country was probably the highest.” I asked him if there weren’t any other things inclusive in patriotism that perhaps weren’t so symbolic. He couldn’t think of any.

This is truly unfortunate. Why can’t everyone see that patriotism includes a civil rights worker in Mississippi registering Blacks to vote; Aerojet General going into burned-out Watts to build a factory to give jobs to the unemployed; Eugene McCarthy daring to take on the machine politics of Lyndon Johnson in his protest Presidential campaign and using thousands of previously alienated youth as campaign workers; a little old lady in tennis shoes who decides to run for party delegate to a convention; a foster-grandparent helping underprivileged children to “make it”; a wealthy foundation providing massive grants and scholarships for research and education; everyone obeying law because it is good, not just because it is law. And it also includes not obeying law when one feels it would be best for his country.

Note from Professor Skousen: Larry – I am sure you wanted my reaction to your paper. It is obvious that these questions have deeply troubled you and have been given a lot of thought. I am giving you an A because of your frankness and the hard work this paper represents. However, there are many weak links in your chain of reasoning which are symptomatic of some far deeper problems which are disturbing you. I would be happy to meet with you sometime if you wish.

NOTES

1. Howard W. Hunter, “Where is Peace?” Improvement Era, vol. 69, (1966), p. 1104.
2. David O. McKay, “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” Improvement Era, vol. 47, (1944), p. 657.
3. David O. McKay, “The Church and the Present War,” Improvement Era, vol. 45, (1942), p. 276.
4. J. Reuben Clark, “In Time of War,” Improvement Era, vol. 42, (1939), p. 657.
5. David O. McKay, “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” Improvement Era, op. cit., p. 658.
6. Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 50.
7. Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, ed. by John A. Widtsoe, (Deseret Book Co. 1941), p. 366.
8. The First Presidency, “Comments on War,” Improvement Era, vol. 42, (1939), p. 672.
9. John A. Widtsoe, “Why Does the Lord Permit War?” Improvement Era, vol. 45, (1942), p. 97.
10. F.L.W. Bennett, “The Ethics of War,” Improvement Era, vol. 20, (1917), p. 423.
11. The First Presidency, “The Message of the First Presidency to the Church,” Improvement Era, vol. 45, (1942), p. 348.
12. John A. Widtsoe, “The Returning Soldier,” Improvement Era, vol. 47, (1944), p. 666.
13. J. Reuben Clark, “War Planning in the Home,” Improvement Era, vol. 47, (1944), p. 656.
14. “Universal Military Training and War,” (reprint from the Argonaut), Improvement Era, vol. 49, (1946), p. 138.
15. “Swords into Plowshares,” Improvement Era, vol. 48, (1948), p. 84.
16. “Shall We Have Military Conscription?” Improvement Era, vol. 48, (1945), p. 31.
17. A.E. Bateman, “Is Universal Military Training Desireable?" Improvement Era, vol. 48, (1945), p. 782.
18. Ibid., p. 753, 782.
19. “Shall We Have Military Conscription?” op. cit.
20. “Universal Military Training in Peacetime,” (reprint from the Argonaut), Improvement Era, vol. 48, (1945), pp. 379, 430.
21. Universal Training and War,” op. cit.
22. “Swords Into Plowshares,” op. cit.
23. Ibid.
24. “Relative Values,” (reprint from the National Education Association), Improvement Era, vol. 19, (1916), p. 517.
25. J. Cuthers, “The Book of Mormon Aspect of Preparedness,” Improvement Era, vol. 19, (1916), p. 517.
26. “The Message of the First Presidency to the Church,” op. cit.
27. Gordon B. Hinkley, “An Appreciation For Our Men in Military Service,” Improvement Era, vol. 69, (1966), pp. 1121-1122.
28. William E Berrett, “Spirituality and Armed Conflict,” Improvement Era, vol. 55, (1952), p. 273.
29. John A. Widtsoe, “Is War Ever Justified?” Improvement Era, vol. 55, (1952), p. 503.
30. Widtsoe, “Why Does the Lord Permit War?” op. cit.
31. John A. Widtsoe, “Should A Soldier Love His Enemy?” Improvement Era, vol. 53, (1950), p. 615.
32. Joseph Fielding Smith, “War and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” Improvement Era, vol. 63, (1960), p. 17.
33. McKay, “The Church and the Present War,” op. cit., pp. 340-341.
34. “The Message of the First Presidency to the Church,” op. cit., pp. 348-349.
35. Ibid., p. 346.
36. Discourses of Brigham Young, op. cit., p. 359.
37. Mark E. Peterson, “In Defense of Liberty,” Improvement Era, vol. 49, (1946), p. 342.
38. Clark, “In Time of War,” op. cit., p 657.
39. Discourses of Brigham Young, op. cit., pp. 360, 362.
40. McKay, “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” op. cit.
41. Some historians claim the retaliatory acts of other countries on Germany after World War I caused World War II. If this is true, then these other nations bear some of the responsibility for starting another unrighteous war.
42. Clark, “In Time of War,” op. cit., p. 657.
43. Widtsoe, “Why Does the Lord Permit War?” op. cit.
44. McKay, “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” op. cit., p. 658.
45. Clark, “In Time of War,” op. cit.
46. “The Message of the First Presidency to the Church,” op. cit., pp. 346, 349.
47. McKay, “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” op. cit., p. 657.
48. Harold B. Lee, “Wells of Living Water,” Improvement Era, vol. 46, (1943), p. 721.
49. “The Church’s Part in Defense - Message from the First Presidency,” Improvement Era, vol. 45, (1942), p. 274.

REFERENCES CONSULTED

Kimball, Heber C. Journal of Discourses. vol. 6, p. 50.

Young, Brigham. Discourses of Brigham Young. ed. by John A. Widtsoe. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1941.

The following are articles that appeared in certain issues of the Improvement Era marked accordingly:

Volume 19 (1916)

Cuthers, J. “The Book of Mormon Aspect of Preparedness.” p. 517.

Volume 20 (1917)

Bennett, F.L.W. “The Ethics of War.” p. 423.

Volume 42 (1939)

Clark, J. Reuben. “In Time of War.” p. 857.

The First Presidency. “Comments on War.” p. 672.

Widtsoe, John A. “Why Does the Lord Permit War?” p. 97.

Volume 45 (1942)

“The Church’s Part in Defense - Message From the First Presidency.” p. 274.

The First Presidency. “The Message of the First Presidency to the Church.” p. 348.

McKay, David O. “The Church and the Present War.” p. 276.

Volume 46 (1943)

Lee, Harold B. “Wells of Living Water.” p. 721.

Volume 47 (1944)

Clark, J. Reuben, “War Planning in the Home.” p. 656.

McKay, David O. “Will Nations Avert a World War III?” p. 657.

Widtsoe, John A. “The Returning Soldier.” p. 666.

Volume 48 (1945)

Bateman, A.E. “Is Universal Military Training Desireable?” p. 782.

“Shall We Have Military Conscription?” p. 31.

“Swords Into Plowshares.” p. 84.

“Universal Military Training in Peacetime.” (reprint from the Argonaut). p. 379.

Volume 49 (1946)

Peterson, Mark E. “In Defense of Liberty.” p. 342.

“Relative Values.” (reprint from the National Education Association). p. 136.

“Universal Military Training and War.” (reprint from the Argonaut). p. 138.

Volume 53 (1950)

Widtsoe, John A. “Should a Soldier Love His Enemy?” p. 615.

Volume 55 (1952)

Berrett, William E. “Spirituality and Armed Conflict.” p. 273.

Widtsoe, John A. “Is War Ever Justified?” p. 503.

Volume 63 (1960)

Smith, Joseph Fielding. “War and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” p. 17.

Volume 69 (1996)

Hinckley, Gordon B. “An Appreciation for Our Men in Military Service.” p. 1121.

Hunter, Howard W. “Where Is Peace?” p. 1104.