The Virtue of Captain Moroni

Captain Moroni - Title of LibertyPerhaps like me, you read the Book of Mormon as a youngster and wondered at the greatness of Captain Moroni, the indefatigable defender of Liberty and Christianity. How could we not wonder at such a man? The historian Mormon, a linguist, a scholar, a general, and a prophet himself once said of Moroni, “Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken FOREVER; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” (Alma 48:17) Mormon painstakingly engraved several versus to preserve forever the rational behind this statement. He even named his son after the great Nephite captain. Who wouldn’t want to be like unto Moroni?

What pains me most is that the gentile LDS culture at large is guilty of misinterpreting why this man was so great. I personally fell victim to the misunderstanding. But I have felt prompted to repent. I sincerely hope that you will prayerfully study Captain Moroni with an open mind in the true context that Mormon intended to place him. Moroni was a man of “perfect understanding.” Mormon included his story because we, the readers of the Book of Mormon, would need it in our day, not to justify war, but to preserve ourselves, body and spirit, from the blood and sins of our generation. Read on. [My comments are in brackets.]

There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated. (D&C 130:20–21)

And thus he [Captain Moroni] was preparing to support their liberty, their lands, their wives, and their children, and their peace, and that they might live unto the Lord their God, and that they might maintain that which was called by their enemies the cause of Christians. And Moroni was a strong and a mighty man; he was a man of a perfect understanding; yea, a man that did not delight in bloodshed; a man whose soul did joy in the liberty and the freedom of his country, and his brethren from bondage and slavery; Yea, a man whose heart did swell with thanksgiving to his God, for the many privileges and blessings which he bestowed upon his people; a man who did labor exceedingly for the welfare and safety of his people. Yea, and he was a man who was firm in the faith of Christ, and he had sworn with an oath to defend his people, his rights, and his country, and his religion, even to the loss of his blood.

[Verses 14-16 encapsulate his perfect understanding of the principle found in D&C 130:20–21]

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives. And this was their faith, that by so doing God would prosper them in the land, or in other words, if they were faithful in keeping the commandments of God that he would prosper them in the land; yea, warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves against their enemies, and by so doing, the Lord would deliver them; and this was the faith of Moroni, and his heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity.

[By following this law of non-aggression, Moroni and his brethren were worthy of the blessings the Lord promised to those who would follow. They gloried in this. The Lord would warn them to flee or to prepare for war and where to go to defend themselves. He would deliver them. What great faith they had in our Savior. The Nephites had ample rational to start a preemptive war at this point. But they knew that reasoning to be flawed. Amalickiah had just failed in his usurpation of the Nephite nation and was propagandizing the Lamanites to war. Moroni won the information war by raising the Title of Liberty. The truth prevailed. Peace ensued for four years.]

Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

[War is ultimately for dominion. The adversary seeks complete and total dominion over the souls of men. When we undertake…to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man… We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. Hence many are called, but few are chosen. (D&C 121:37–40)This warning applies to us individually and collectively. This was part of the perfect understanding of Moroni.]

Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

Now behold, Helaman and his brethren were no less serviceable unto the people than wasMoroni; for they did preach the word of God, and they did baptize unto repentance all men whosoever would hearken unto their words. And thus they went forth, and the people did humble themselves because of their words, insomuch that they were highly favored of the Lord, and thus they were free from wars and contentions among themselves, yea, even for the space of four years.

(Alma 48: 10-20)

The war chapters of the book of Alma cannot be used as rational support for offensive or preemptive war. They cannot be used as rational for unrighteous force. The Nephites acted in a purely defensive manner. They didn’t even pursue the prisoners that were carried off into the landof Nephi. Moroni compelled the king-men to fight because they had violated their covenants. He had been given authority over the “armies.” (Alma 46:34) Imagine a modern day court-martial. Had Amalickiah not attempted to leave with his “armies” there would have been no compulsion initially. (Alma 46:29-33) The Nephites voluntarily flocked to the title of Liberty. Those who covenanted for liberty were given great responsibility. Moroni’s compulsion was a just consequence of the covenant. In the end the king-men usurped the government by force, further justifying their punishment. (Alma 62:4-5,10)

We truly have been raised in “enemy territory” (Elder Packer Oct 2011). If we continue to trust in the arm of the flesh and abandon our principles in the face of the fear generated by the propaganda media, then we are no better off than the Lamanites under Amalickiah. He usurped their government by treachery, conspiracy and false flag tactics. He put men on the towers to induce a war weary population into another hateful war. He was a model of our modern scheming leaders.

If we desire to achieve the outcomes accomplished by Captain Moroni, we must exemplify his perfect understanding. If we desire that the Lord prosper us in the land, warn us to flee or tell us whither to go to defend ourselves and to ultimately deliver us from our enemies, then we must have the faith of captain Moroni. (Alma 48:14-16) We must exercise dominion righteously. We must renounce war and proclaim peace and liberty. We must not act precipitously and preemptively. We must root out evil conspirators in our own lands and fortify our defense. Above all, we must raise the Title of Liberty and win the war of ideas that grips our society at its core. If we do not all is lost. My brethren who hold the priesthood of God, I implore you to thoughtfully and prayerfully consider your support for wars, policies, laws, restrictions and activities that affect the rights, liberties, and lives of others in this land and abroad.

The Lord’s Perfect Law of Liberty: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:37–40)

In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children (The Title of Liberty)

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. (D&C 134:2)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. (The Declaration of Independence 1776)

For a more in-depth study of Captain Moroni please read “Captain Moroni – Fighting the Elite and False Flag Terror since 72 BC by this same author.

About Dan Campbell

Dan Campbell is a co-founder of medicalcostshare.com. He identifies himself as a "juris naturalist." Living in Highland, Utah, he has 4 goats and one cat. His other writings can be found on chronicleofnations.com
This entry was posted in Articles, Principles and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to The Virtue of Captain Moroni

  1. Brent Garner says:

    I understand the concept you are arguing but I think you are misapplying something in the current modern world. Yes, God does not authorize, as a rule, offensive war, although He did authorize the Children of Israel to exterminate the various tribal groups living in Canaan. That would have to be considered offensive war. Leaving that aside, though, how do you square your beliefs with the existence of nuclear weapons where a single weapon brought close enough to its target could exterminate hundreds of thousands of human beings without warning or pretext? How does this square? Can we afford to wait until we are actually attacked? Or does the planning to use such weapons and the beginning of the attack constitute sufficient offense to allow response?

    • Dan Campbell says:

      Well if you believe the news media and support preemptive attack then you’re going to have your garments stained by the blood and sins of this generation. Did we not just nine years ago fall prey to the deception that Iraq had WMD? Principle trumps fear. The laws of God trump the threats of men.

  2. Well if you believe the news media and support pre-emptive attack then you’re going to have your garments stained by the blood and sins of this generation. Did we not just about 10 years ago fall prey to the deception that Iraq had WMD? Principle trumps fear. The laws of God trump the threats of men… come what may.

    • Brent Garner says:

      The laws of God do not address nuclear weapons nor any of the other WMDs in existence today. In Moroni’s day, Moroni had the luxury of waiting and absorbing a Lamanite attack. But, using your doctrine, tiny Israel today should wait and absorb an Iranian nuclear attack before striking back. A single weapon unleashed against Tel Aviv would kill a very large percentage of the Israeli population let alone decimate their industrial base. Do you seriously think God expects us to wait until such an atrocity is committed before striking at the hands who did it?

      • steve says:

        Brent,
        Doesn’t the Book of Revelations make it clear that Israel exists as a country at the Battle of Armageddon? So the question is. Does God need the United States to make sure this is the case? I was reading about Hannibal from Carthage today. (the General who led his army with elephants over the Alps to surprise the Romans.) Hannibal hated the Romans because they killed his father, and plotted his whole life to end there empire. I think this is what the CIA terms “Blowback”. If we trusted more in God than the arm of the flesh we should take faith in the promise of God that if we are righteous we will prosper in the land, but if we are wicked. . . . when we are ripe we will be destroyed, no matter how many preemptive strikes we make.

      • Brent:

        You said: “The laws of God do not address nuclear weapons… …Do you seriously think God expects us to wait until such an atrocity is committed before striking at the hands who did it?”

        I don’t know where to begin. First off you’re acting like God doesn’t understand the last days; He didn’t foresee nukes. ??? Mormon didn’t put the account of Captain Moroni in there for anyone other than US did he? I mean we’re the church of the latter days.

        Secondly, of course God expects us to wait to be attacked. That’s the whole point. If we are not attacked, then there’s no reason to counter-attack. No offense has been given to respond to. Look at your language… “striking the hands of who ‘did’ it.” Did what? The atrocity that wasn’t committed?

        • Brent Garner says:

          You still have not addressed the moral and ethical dilemma you propose. That dilemma is if you as the leader of the country have proof that an enemy will attack you using weapons that will decimate your country, kill vast portions of your population, and destroy your existence, what do you do? I firmly believe God requires us to do all we can and then rely on Him. They way you paint it, Noah didn’t need to build an ark. Faith alone should have saved him. That God is capable of such interventions is true. The overnight death of thousands of Assyrian troops outside Jerusalem would attest to that. But, the scripture is also replete with the requirement that we do all we can do before God intervenes. Do remember, faith, without works, is dead, being alone!

          • Oh please! Moroni built defensive fortifications. We instead built a missile defense shield with missiles that DO NOT have explosive warheads. Get the facts.

            You need to understand that America (and all the countries of the world) are led by Amalickiah types and that they are LYING about why we should go to war. You CANNOT ever know with certainty really what the Iranians or other despots are up to.

            Add to that the fact that we have nukes too and WE are the only country that has ever demonstrated the will to use them. The other countries of the world have a better rational for attacking us than we do for attacking them based on that demonstrable fact and not just conjecture.

            Where are the WMD from Iraq? (The ones that we didn’t give them in the first place.) ??

          • MuchoBrento says:

            Brent

            You said “if you as the leader of the country have proof that an enemy will attack you using weapons that will decimate your country, kill vast portions of your population, and destroy your existence, what do you do? ”

            As Daniel pointed out, the U.S. is the only country in the world that has proven that it will initiate a nuclear attack against it’s enemies. So, if you are an enemy to the U.S., and according to your logic, what do they do?

            According to your logic, was 9/11 a justified attack?

          • Brent Garner says:

            It is true that the US is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons. That was 1945 and the US was contemplating an invasion of Japan. For your information, the estimated US casualties from that invasion were put at 1 million. That does not include Japanese casualties which would have been higher. So, which was worse? Killing 200,000 people or 2 million? Tell me oh ye who claim moral superiority? Which was worse? After WW2 the US basically curtailed nuclear weapons research until the Soviets detonated a bomb in 1949. Then the US offered to surrender all nuclear weapons to an international agency if the Russians would do the same. They refused.

          • Brent Garner says:

            Further, in World War 2 nuclear weapons were poorly understood. They were seen as simply a stronger form of explosive. They radioactive effects and other effects were not well known nor understood. Now you may find this incredulous looking backward down the path of time with our present knowledge, but you would do wrong to judge them by knowledge that we have now which they did not have.

          • Brent Garner says:

            Now I apologize for the forgoing and ongoing history lesson but obviously your education was not as complete as you had hoped. After WW2 the US all but ended nuclear weapons research and development. It wasn’t until after the Soviet nuclear detonation in 1949 that the US began further development and this was done to offset and deter the Soviets. Further, in the 1950s the Eisenhower administration offered to surrender all nuclear weapons to an international agency if the Russians would do the same. The Russians refused and an “arms race” began.

          • Brent Garner says:

            Now, despite Soviet public propaganda, Soviet military doctrine called for the use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons if the “correlation of forces” was advantageous to the Soviets. This doctrine was also adhered to by the PRC. Thus, the western powers, mainly the US, was left with no choice but to deploy nuclear weapons in order to deter the Soviets/PRC from ever using theirs. Deterrence only works when you are facing someone who has something they value and which you can credibly hold at risk. The Soviets/PRC were quite rational about this and thus deterrence worked and there was no direct fighting between them and us during the Cold War.

          • Brent Garner says:

            Today we are confronted by a philosophy/religion that believes that dying to bring about their objectives is highly desired. In other words, they do not have anything they value high enough that we can threaten which will deter them. What then do you do? You cannot allow them to acquire the means of conducting a WMD style attack because they most certainly will conduct one because to do so is to die a martyr and gain special treatment in their version of heaven. So, you would cower in the face of such tyranny, what would you do? President Hinckly, while he was alive and following both 9/11 and the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq spoke openly of the need to oppose tyranny. How would you answer him?

          • MuchoBrento says:

            Brent-

            I’m sorry to answer your long history lesson with an abrupt answer, but everything you said is neither relevant, nor based in the gospel (unless of course you follow to the gospel of St. Hannity).

            I was making 2 points:

            1) That the U.S. is not an innocent party. We have been the “aggressors” to a good deal of the population of the world over the last century. And as such…

            2) If we apply the very same rationale that we use to attack our “enemies” overseas, it is arrogant and hypocritical for the U.S. to not expect some sort of retaliation by the “enemy” after all of the meddling, manipulation, and chaos that we create in their home countries.

            Our cause is NOT a righteous one. We have great need to repent as a nation, and as individuals.

      • Men working in darkness have set the stage for conflict and WE the people of the world fall prey to their lies. Right now the story is Nukes or WMD. This is the Pavlovian prompt; the hypnotist’s pocket-watch. We must not fear. Fear is in actual fact the mind-killer. We must let it pass over us. Are we so bereft of faith that we cannot fathom a God who would protect us from nuclear weapons if we simply repent, confess His name and put our trust in Him?

        You may or may not like (probably the latter) this article I wrote about Amalickiah. It might help you re-evaluate your sources of information.

        • Brandon says:

          What do I have to fear if I am living righteously? Nothing. If a nuke falls on my head, then I (hopefully) will get to rest and work in the Spirit World. Our time here on the earth is better spent following the two great commandments as our testimonies will stand against the Amalickiah types at the end. And regardless of what great and terrible things the Lord has in store for our country, in the end He will prevail as will the righteous people on this land. We are better served learning the truth of our (nation’s)situation today and exposing darkness than looking to find all the “bad guys” in the rest of the world who want to harm us. Making war first does not serve righteousness.

        • Brandon says:

          Thanks for this article by the way Daniel.

  3. Kevin JK says:

    I think your take was excellent. The Gospel is not Democrat or Republican oriented. It is overwhelmingly LIBERTARIAN. It eschews the initiation of force, even if that force is designed to elicit righteous behavior. Satan tried to use force the elicit righteous behavior. We are to let people do as they wish and let them reap the consequences of their choices. So many LDS want to outlaw things that objectively harm no one else. They conflate crime with sin.

  4. John Piper says:

    Inspiring message indeed, as a people we have fallen asleep and have fallen prey to the forces of evil which are destroying the very foundation that made this nation great. It must begin in our communities, with our local governments, where we have the greatest influence. The Constitution provides that we can elect local officials, to whom we have ready access. We can prevent encroachment of federal entities by electing and supporting our county sheriff’s. By becoming involved in local elections and seeing that wise and honest men are selected as Mayor’s and Councilmen, who will defend and uphold our constitution. Then making sure that Sheriff’s and county commissioners also understand the oath of office they have taken.

  5. Spencer W Kimball says:

    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 align ourselves against the enemy instead of aligning ourselves with the 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.)

  6. Brent Garner says:

    Steve, And so we should not worry about anything and take no thought as to what those who would destroy us, our religion, our freedom, and our families are doing? We should ignore all their threats, preparations, and promises to annihilate us, as well as ignore their efforts to obtain the very means of carrying out those threats? You sound like someone who wants to sit on their throne and do nothing while others work, labor, and die to keep you free. Capt Moroni didn’t think to highly of people like you! God blessed Capt Moroni because he did not delight in war or slaughter but Capt Moroni also used his talents to prepare his people for war, including the manufacture of weapons and preparation of fortifications. He did all he could and then relied on God!

  7. Brent Garner says:

    Further, you fail to draw one important distinction. You cite numerous anti-war scriptures and latter-day statements. All of those are accurate provided you put them in the proper context. The man of God does not delight in the taking of life. Even when compelled to do so, he does it as a final resort and he regrets doing so. Capt Moroni’s account clearly indicates that if the Lamanites had stayed in their own lands and not come upon the Nephites with the purpose of destroying them, their religion, their freedom, and their way of life, then there would have been no war. Also, do not forget that at one point Moroni threatened to follow the Lamanites into their own lands and end this fight once and for all! Hardly the pacifist picture you seem to want to create!

    • Pacifist? Where did I say that? You’re putting words in my mouth. It’s really easy to get riled up by the mainstream media. Read the Book of Mormon for what it is. Moroni was a man of “perfect understanding” … We don’t have leaders like Moroni. I wish we did. Our leaders are Amalickiah types. You want to follow them to war? No wonder Elder Packer says we’re raising our kids in “enemy territory.”

  8. Brent Garner says:

    Additionally, you cling finatically to a definition of aggression that is outdated. Your definition requires the enemy to enter your country and attack you their before defense is authorized. In Moroni’s day that definition would be appropriate. In a day when nuclear armed missiles can fly thousands of miles to incinerate cities, when biological weapons can be smuggled into countries to wreak havoc, when chemical weapons can destroy wantonly, that definition becomes outmoded. In that environment when does the aggression begin? Does it begin with the weapons enroute to their targets? Does it begin with the order by someone to employ those weapons? Does it begin with the stated objective to build and use those weapons? Answer those, if you can!

    • Alan Wild says:

      I have thought about this very issue many times. Obviously this is a concern. However, I firmly believe in the basic principles taught in the Book of Mormon. One of those is no attack until attacked. It makes me nervous to apply this principle in modern times, but if the BofM says so I think we must comply. The alternative it the mess we have now, with the United States trying to be the policeman of the whole world, attacking everybody we see as dangerous. We cannot afford this and it ends up making even more enemies. The statement above from Pres. Kimball is the crux of the matter. We just build more weapons, which causes the other side to build more in a senseless race. Frankly, most of our problems stem from unrighteousness. Righteous people have protection.

    • Fanatically? Wow. I really got under your skin.

      God is the same today as he was in Moroni’s time. His laws are the same today, yesterday and forever.

      To answer your seemingly unanswerable question:
      From WWII to the second Iraq war in 2003, the policy of the U.S. was to wait until an enemy launch to launch our nukes back. So for about 50+ years, we were defensive. Then we switched to the “Bush Doctrine” (not God’s doctrine) and attacked Sadam H. under the “assumption” that he had or was building WMD. But we were wrong.

      We’re still stuck there.

      So you tell me? Do we attack when our obviously corrupt government says we should? Or when God says we should?

      I’m not a pacifist. I’ll stand here between my loved home and the wars desolation with like minded men.

    • MuchoBrento says:

      Brent-

      You said “you cling fanatically to a definition of aggression that is outdated. Your definition requires the enemy to enter your country and attack you their before defense is authorized.”

      Interesting. The U.S. is responsible for creating coups d’tats through subversive CIA actions; we are manipulating the value of their currencies through monetary policy (having a direct effect on their quality of life); we are forcefully imposing economic sanctions in foreign countries (with the result being mass starvation and poverty); we are engaging in assassinations; the list goes on and on.

      By your updated definition of aggression, are foreign countries within reason to consider the U.S. as “aggressors” in their nations? And, are they justified in attacking us?

      • Brent Garner says:

        I wonder how old you are and just where you were educated. Here is why. You are regurgitating the same socialist, marxist falsehoods I heard from those who supported the North Vietnamese against the South Vietnamese. The same lies that were spouted by those who stated “better Red than dead”. The same nonsense that I hear from the pacifists today who declare that nothing is worth fighting for or dying for. Of course, this is the line being taught in today’s socialist controlled public education. For your information I was very much alive when the CIA “coups” you refer to were happening. The Allende situation in Chile is oftenthe one cited by people like you. Let’s discuss that one.

      • Brent Garner says:

        Allende was a communist. He intended to turn Chile into another Cuba. The US was engaged in a world wide war, called the Cold War, to prevent communism from overtaking the world. FYI, Ezra Taft Bensen whole heartedly endorsed US opposition to communism. So, the US did not want another communist state in the western hemisphere so we took action to prevent it. You are focusing on the small part and missing the larger picture.

      • MuchoBrento says:

        Brent-

        My age, education, race, nationality, etc. are all moot points. We (maybe just me) are talking about principles. The “particular circumstances” are almost entirely irrelevant when discussing principles.

        My questions (which went unanswered) are based on principle:

        1) You, yourself, stated that the older definition of aggression is no longer valid, to which I asked, “Are foreign countries within reason to consider the U.S. as “aggressors” in their nations?”

        2) If so (and I cannot see why we wouldn’t define the U.S. as “aggressors”), are the foreign countries/tribes/factions/whatever justified in attacking us?

        We are philosophically at odds with each other. Facts and history will do nothing, when the fundamental principles vary so much.

        • Brent Garner says:

          I have worn the uniform of this country so I suppose in your view I am an abomination, an apostate, someone who’s garments are soaked in “innocent” blood. You are free to think and believe that but you would be wrong. I have been to these foreign countries which you claim we have committed aggression against. The philosophies and beliefs followed there are enmical to freedom and liberty. IF they were content to stay in their own countries and live lives of hellish existence, I suppose that would be tolerable. IF those who believe in socialism and communism would simply move to those kind of countries and leave the rest of us alone, I suppose I could accept that.

        • Brent Garner says:

          But they are not content to leave us alone. Like Lucifer, their master, they seek to make all men miserable like unto themselves. Passitivity, which your misinterpretation of the gospel represents, would allow evil to triumph and would ultimately mean the destruction of this country and the freedom and liberty our way of life represents. But, as bad as that passitivity’s result would be there is something worse. Your philosophy says, whether you admit it or not, that freedom and liberty are fine for us, but others do not deserve to enjoy them. Do you honestly think that squares? You probably do because your spirit is bankrupt and your views selfish and you seek justification for your beliefs.

      • Brent Garner says:

        MuchoBrento, I wonder how old you are. You arguments sound like tired repetitions of the arguments I have heard over my lifetime from those who espouse the doctrines of Marx and Engels. In that thinking the US is the aggressor. What is ignored is what was going on. The Big Picture is completely forgotten. Take Allende in Chile. Allende intended to turn Chile into another Marxist state like Cuba. The US was engaged in a life and death struggle with communism, a struggle orchestrated from Moscow and Beijing.

      • Brent Garner says:

        The US thus took action to prevent the creation of a new Marxist state. Also, don’t accuse me of following the Domino Theory. Why? Because the dominoes did fall. South Vietnam fell to Communism, then Laos, then Cambodia. Are you arguing those people are better off under communism? Seriously? Ezra Taft Benson would roll over in his grave hearing you say that.

        • Brandon says:

          I’m sure President Benson’s current perspective is far more eternally focused and beyond the comprehension of any point we can make here now.

      • Brent Garner says:

        You have referenced the attacks against the US on 9/11 and suggested that our attackers were justified. Let us examine that position. First, one of the demands of the Islamics is that we abandon Israel. Do you honestly think that is a good idea or would be acceptable before God? Second, the Islamics demand we recognize Islam as the only religion. That is from their Qu’ran, which I have read. Have you? Third, under Islam we couldn’t even have this conversation let alone worship God according to the dictates of our own consciences. Look at what is happening to the Copts in Egypt if you want proof of that point.

      • MuchoBrento says:

        But, I will say that the principles that I subscribe to are those that I believe are the higher characteristics that I believe the gospel is trying to guide us to. And those are:

        – Love your enemy
        – Do good to those who would curse you
        – Turn the other cheek
        – Forgive your enemy seventy times seven
        – To never give an offense
        – To take up the sword only in defense of our lives (or the lives of our families)
        – That governments do not have the right to do anything either internally, or externally, that the citizens themselves do not have a right to do

      • Brent Garner says:

        Basically what you are arguing is that there is indeed moral equivalency between the US, Communism, Islamic totalitarianism, and all other totalitarian governments on this earth. That is one of Lucifer’s most effective lies. It feels good and gets you nods of agreements from your leftist, socialist friends. But, it also means that you are unworthy of the freedom bequeathed you by those who have fought and died to defend freedom not only for the US but for others.

      • Brent Garner says:

        Do remember t hat Moroni fought to preserve the liberty, freedom, and religion of his people. We are engaged in a war, whether you are willing to admit it or not, with those who seek to destroy our liberty, our freedom, and our religion and impose their belief set who’s origin is Satanic. Now, is the US spotless? Hardly, but despite our sins, our way of life is better and more friendly to the existence of the gospel and the Kingdom of God than any other. But you sound like someone who would sacrifice all of that because you claim we are the “aggressors”.

      • MuchoBrento says:

        Brent-

        According to you (and almost everybody looking to justify the wars that we are currently in), somebody has been “fighting for my freedom”. Apparently, my freedom of religion has been threatened as well.

        I mean no offense by this (sincerely), even though I believe you will be offended. But my freedoms, and the freedoms of my family & friends, has never been threatened by terrorists. Not once. My freedom of religion has not been threatened by terrorists either. And whether you disagree with that or not, there can only be one person that can judge whether those freedoms are being threatened; the individual to whom those freedoms belong (or me in this case).

        • Brent Garner says:

          Well, that confirms it. I have only heard that kind of selfish definition from self-centered, spoiled brats. Those who see no reason to exert themselves on behalf of others but are only concerned with themselves. So, until you are personally threatened the threat does not exist. What a myopic, short sighted, self-centered, and selfish view. On that basis, if a burgler is breaking into your home I should mind my own business and let it be. If your house is on fire, I should ignore it. It doesn’t directly affect me, after all. Truly you are one “sitting on their throne” and not willing to do anything to defend freedom which is a pre-requisite for the preaching of the gospel. Capt Morni would be ashamed of you!

          • Mo Roni says:

            Brent,

            You really ought to write your own article. You seem to have a lot to say. You’re going to have to get over this ridiculous name calling though. So far you have labeled those of us who disagree with you as SELFISH passivist, leftist, communist, socialists. Seriously: Cease and desist. You have no idea what you’re talking about. You are walking in darkness at noonday. You have missed the entire point. The entire point of this article is that men like you (men like me) and our parents and our grandparents have been deceived. We, as a nation, have been walking in darkness at noonday. The principles are laid out clearly in the scriptures, yet we continue to follow Amalickiah to battle. Some of us have woken up. It is time for you to wake up.

          • Brent Garner says:

            So I am walking in darkness at noon day? How interesting. Sir, perhaps your name should be Mo Ronic! The positions taken on this post are NOT those that a true Capt Moroni would support. He stood for freedom, liberty, the sanctity of religion, and for families. Your contention, by use of the words you use, suggest that the US is the sole source of evil in this world. THAT, sir, is a LIE! That lie is promulgated by those who have been deceived by the evil one; who call light dark and evil good. Such is also the domain, language, and method of the Alinsky crowd. IF you feel the US is such an evil place, please leave! We do not need the likes of you!

          • Brent Garner says:

            Consider this idea from Niemoller and the context in which it was said. Perhaps you have heard of this:

            “In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
            And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
            And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
            And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”

            The attitude of only being concerned when personally confronted empowers tyrants and evil people and is not in keeping with gospel teachings.

          • Mo Roni says:

            See Ether 8 about waking up to this awful situation. We all have to wake up at some point. You need to read the author’s other aritlce about Amalickiah. You also need to read Richard Maybury’s World War II The Rest of The Story and learn why we sided with Stalin and Mao (the worse socialist dictators) and contributed to the deaths of 80-120+ million in the old world. Roosevelt knew who they were. It’s absurd to think he didn’t. He was a socialist just like them. You also need to consider that regardless of why you think the US Civil War was fought that once the Southern states were conquered, that they were no longer participants in this union of their own free will and choice.

          • Mo Roni says:

            That single event alone made us, the USA, an empire of coersion and it hasn’t gotten any better. But the victors write the history books and you have obviously read their books. Stop accusing us of being pacifists or socialists. I want freedom. Warring in foriegn lands does not help us be free. Spreading democracy does not make us free. I want Zion. I will not follow Amalickiah any further. “Making the world safe for Democracy,” the most prevalent of war propaganda since WWI is the most insidious of fallacies.

          • Mo Roni says:

            “Democracy is the most vile form of government… democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” (James Madison Federalist #10 1787)

        • Brandon says:

          Most of the threats to my freedom are growing and coming from within the U.S., not without.

  9. Brent Garner says:

    Finally, you sound like a pacifist seeking justification. I repeat what I implied of you earlier. A pacifist is a weak creature who values nothing and for whom nothing is worth dying, not even his/her own life, the lives of their families, nor their freedoms. Such weak creatures cannot be kept free unless others, willing to bear the necessary burdens, keep them free. A pacifist is more pathetic than a slave. The slave may not have much of a choice, but the pacifist chooses his role. Again, I remind you that sitting on your throne waiting for God to do all the work is not compatible with the gospel. Faith, repentence are good things, but I remind you we are saved by grace only after all we can do!

    • To all:

      I’m done talking with Brent. Brent that’s a lousy ad hominem personal attack. It’s a logical fallacy. I never espoused pacifism. You are obviously really riled up by the media. I think you just lost all your credibility because no where in my article or in Alma or in the Book of Mormon does it say you MUST be a pacifist. The Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s chose that of their own free will.

      My article describes how the Nephites followed the Lords law of non-aggression and they expected to be blessed by it. All my life I’ve supported the U.S. and our fighting men of whom I am descended. But like Mormon I utterly refuse to be a part of this new doctrine of pre-emptive war. (Mormon 3:11) I would follow Captain Moroni to battle. You keep following your Amalickiahs.

  10. Morgan D. says:

    Great comments Brent. I make very similar arguments here: http://mormonwar.blogspot.com/search?q=offensive+warfare

    A longer and more polished version of it is always coming out in a book called “War and Peace in our Times: Mormon Perspectives.”

  11. Brent Garner says:

    If you position is so strong, Daniel, why are you quitting the field of battle? Yes, God requires us to resort to violence as the final and last resort. But you take that position and extend it to the point of absurdity. Using your logic we would have to wait until at least 1 nuclear weapon or biological or chemical weapon was used and only if it is used on the territory of the US before we can respond. Until 1945 it was possible to have such a wait and see attitude. With the advent of weapons that can literally destroy entire nations in a moment, such a “absorb the first blow” borders on national suicide. No where in the scriptures is national or societal suicide supported. You conveniently focus only the the “pacifistic” ideas you have extracted.

  12. Brent Garner says:

    Under your logic we should not have come to the aid of any nation that is attacked regardless. That would mean that we do not help Israel. It would mean that Kuwait would still be under the control of Iraq. It would mean that the Serbs would still be slaughtering non-Serbs throughout what was once Yugoslavia. Who, then, applying your logic would be the one with blood on their garments? Or, is your unspoken premise that all these wars have been done for unrighteous reasons, i.e. for oil, for capitalist corporations, etc.? What is your real agenda here, Daniel?

  13. Brent Garner says:

    Or, Daniel, do you assign moral equivalence between the US, the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and any other nation, including some of our European “friends” who suppress freedom, suppress religion, and fight against a belief in Jesus Christ? Tell me, truthfully, where are you on this? I have seen far too often that when I meet someone spouting your ideas that if I scratch the surface what I finally find is someone who wants someone else to shoulder the responsibilit of maintaining their freedom. Are you one of those?

    • Anon says:

      Brent, you’re bordering on absurd. The entire article is about Moroni who obviously gave his all in the defense of his country. You have interpreted his moral discernment of good or evil wars as some sort of weakness. I mean the point that we didn’t find any WMD in 2003 should set off your spidey senses. Oh and who made the US king to police the world? God certainly didn’t.

      You seem to have been watching a lot of TV; living in some sort of Orwellian 1984 where the enemy gets changed on a regular basis. Of course we’re all living in that same nightmare, which is why guys like this author have had to step up and do the heavy lifting to get the word out that you’re being deceived. The answer to 1984 is 1776.

      I like how he quotes the Declaration of Independence!

  14. Withheld says:

    Now do ye remember, my brethren, that we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn?

    For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language.

  15. Withheld says:

    And moreover they did say:

    Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

    26 But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls.

  16. Brent Garner says:

    Anon, to the contrary, what I am attacking is the highly biased and skewed interpretation being attached to the life of Capt Moroni. Everyone one of the arguments presented here by Daniel amounts to the equivalent of sitting on your throne and doing nothing–see Almo 60:7. While faith is a very good thing and it is also true that God has fought for His saints numerous times in the past, God also clearly expects us to do all that we can before expecting Him to fill the gap. Yes, there are times where this does not seem the case. For example, the Israelites “trapped” at the Red Sea with Pharoah’s army bearing down on them. We also read that the wicked would not attack Enoch’s Zion. But there is also the opposite.

  17. Brent Garner says:

    Please, Anon, take note of the fact that God had Moses number the Israelite males who were old enough to go out to war. Was this simply a census? Not at all. Also note the marching order and organization of the Camp of Israel while it was journeying to Canaan. It is a wonderful example of military preparedness. Note also that during Joseph Smith’s time that God did indeed disperse their enemies by means of a massive thunderstorm, but this was AFTER Zion’s Camp had entered the Missouri area in what could only be interpreted as an “offensive” operation to reclaim the lands owned by the Church and restore the Missouri saints to their properties. That Zion’s Camp did not accomplish that is immaterial. The scripture shows that was its intent.

  18. Brent Garner says:

    Now, some say I am arguing that the US should be the world’s policeman. Far from it. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan should not have happened the way they did. First, those people did not want us there except to use us to hold down their enemies while they plundered. There is not a single Islamic country where there is true unity. Iraq and Afghanistan are arbitrary lines drawn. No, the loyalty there is to one’s tribe, not one’s country. All Karzi in Afghanistan wants is for US/NATO to keep the rabble under control while he and his tribe loot and pillage. The Shiites in Iraq are no different. Having been suppressed by Saddam, they now want to run the show and pillage the country for their own purposes.

  19. Brent Garner says:

    Should the US have intervened in both Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes! In Iraq, Saddam had not abided by the agreed upon CEASE FIRE! News flash to you peaceniks. A CEASE FIRE is not a PEACE TREATY! It literally means that both sides have agreed to stop shooting at that time. In the Iraq case there were conditions attached none of which Saddam obeyed. Was the US justified then in being involved in the first Gulf War when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Here is where you so-called libertarians and peaceniks show your true colors. Will you argue that the US should not of assisted Kuwait in expelling the invading Iraqis? If you do not, then your own selfishness begins to show.

  20. Brent Garner says:

    Granted Kuwait is not and was not a republic along the lines of the US. However, is it morally justifiable to allow a stronger nation to invade and occupy a smaller weaker nation? Because if you apply Daniel’s logic that is the conclusion you have to arrive at. In that case, the strong nations will, at will, gobble up the weak nations with no one to prevent it. Do you think that is consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ? No, it sounds more like an earthly manifestation of Lucifer’s plan or compulsion and dominion.

  21. Brent Garner says:

    Now someone on here has suggested that the gospel is consistent with Libertarianism. I ask that person if they have ever looked closely at the positions of Libertarians or is that person simply cherry picking a single Libertarian concept and expanding from there? You see, while it is true that Libertarians are isolationists, which seems to be the approved idea permeating Daniel’s and others’ posts, Libertarians also support the full legalization of drugs and prostitution. Do you really think that is consistent with a gospel centered life? I think not. No, the gospel is NOT libertarian. The gospel is conservative–note I did not say Republican or Democrat–and asks all people to VOLUNTARILY obey God’s laws. The key is the VOLUNTARILY.

  22. Matt says:

    This discussion seems to have turned to a lot of labeling, name calling and discourteousness.

    The scriptures should be our guide on these topics. Principles matter. Pre-emptive war is no where in scriptures. The Israelites didn’t go to war because they were going to be attacked. That example doesn’t work in the current situation of this country’s current or past policies. Morover, when war is justified, God commands when to go to war through his prophets or men of God. When has this nation in the last 100 years been commanded through God to go to war? It hasn’t.

  23. Spencer Patrick says:

    Great article Dan. This Brent guy needs to turn off the T.V. and turn on General Conference. I agree with Dan, “I will follow a Moroni into battle, you can follow your Amalickiahs.” That pretty much sums it up. I see the real question here is, where does your faith rest, in the scriptures or in the media of the day? Have faith in the Lord, keep his commandments, study the scriptures, serve others, and beware of false prophets (ideals, notions, arguments of the day).

    • Brent Garner says:

      Sir, I will gladly stack my righteousness and gospel knowledge against yours any day! What Daniel’s article seeks to do is to define when we can go to war. That is fine. But Daniel seeks to define the terms of the discussion which means only his argument wins. True, we are commanded to avoid aggressive war. Please explain to me what is meant by aggressive war? What is meant by defensive war? However, if you do answer my challenge be certain to explain what you consider to be an attack against us which would warrant a response. Daniel seeks to use a definition that is very cut and dried. Modern day warfare is not so clear. Is a state sponsored or assisted terrorist attack an act of war? Answer me that!

      • Brandon says:

        Brent,

        You have been unable to stack gospel knowledge against anyone on this thread, so stop with the hubris. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that he who speaks the most and the loudest is the most correct.

        Modern day warfare is not so clear? Principles of the gospel are always clear. Stop trying to muddle the waters in a desperate attempt to justify your warmongering attitude.

      • James says:

        DC 3
        2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

        3 Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;

        4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him

        Cont->

  24. jesse says:

    Nine Weeks ago we had our fourth child. I named him
    Captain Moroni Ernsberger.

  25. Daniel says:

    With evidence of actual existence of WMD’s being reported by the liberal NYTimes being delivered in late 2014, I have to wonder what the above posters are thinking now that stated that such weapons did not exist? It blows their entire point. Apparently their claimed spiritual alignment was off or they would not have been so easily mislead or feel so confirmed in a false position. Brent is right on the money. Freedom isn’t free. The beginnings of the country were started with war and done so by highly espoused and inspired men as noted by many a modern day prophet. All of the Founding Fathers could have remained passive and lived good lives, but that was not the answer. They fought, they won– liberty and freedom prevailed.

    • Ezra Taylor says:

      NY Times has been promoting unconsitutional wars for decades. Why wouldn’t they like to put up the straw man that WMD’s were needed to justify going to war?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: For further discussion of these articles and topics we invite you to join the LDS Freedom Forum.