Remembering all the talk about Mormon pacifism during the Vietnam War, and from attending the Church, I really didn't think Ann Romney would let this particular
cat out of the bag.
“So, you know, we find different ways of serving,” she said. “And my husband and my five boys did serve missions, [but they] did not serve in the military.”
The substitution, she went on to explain, makes sense because the two share essential, character-building and altruistic values.
“I sent them away boys and they came back men. And what the difference was — and I think this where military service is so extraordinary too — is where you literally do something where you’re helping someone else. You’re going outside of yourself and you’re working and helping others. And that changes you,” she said.
The Salon article goes on to imply Goldberg was wrong. She wasn't, in a more general sense. The Mormon Scriptures do, in fact, give their members the ultimate excuse to
not serve.
1 Now it came to pass that after the sons of Mosiah had done all these things, they took a small number with them and returned to their father, the king, and desired of him that he would grant unto them that they might, with these whom they had selected, go up to the land of Nephi that they might preach the things which they had heard, and that they might impart the word of God to their brethren, the Lamanites—
2. That perhaps they might bring them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and convince them of the iniquity of their fathers; and that perhaps they might cure them of their hatred towards the Nephites, that they might also be brought to rejoice in the Lord their God, that they might become friendly to one another, and that there should be no more contentions in all the land which the Lord their God had given them.
Even the church's leader at the time of the
Vietnam War espoused the anti-war sentiment:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is clearly against war...
...the essays by David E. Hayes and Randy Shipley are detailed accounts of how a Latter-day Saint can obtain conscientious objection status. His booklet, however, goes a bit beyond these objectives, for it
implicitly encourages Latter-day Saint youth to become conscientious objectors.
And, particularly, which ones?
In my judgment, those few Latter-day Saints whom I know to be conscientious objectors are not cowards or disloyal to their country or the Church. On the contrary, they have shown great courage and are frequently subjected to considerable personal abuse. The long and torturous process including the costs of a lawyer would seem to be a test of one’s conviction. However, it also implies conscientious objection status is available mostly to the rich, educated, or wellborn.
Hmmm....
Then, we have the issue of not just military service, but
war.
In conclusion, the story of Zeniff reinforces the view from the story of the Ammonites, that Mormons need not be pacifists, but both stories make clear that if a Mormon is to use violence (still a big if), it should only be done for the sake of self-defense or to resist a war of aggression. These stories suggest that we should not fight in wars of aggression, just because a Lamanite king, or a Nephite ruler, or an American president tells us to. And if they do, if there is anyone we should fight, it’s those giving the orders to kill, rather than innocent Iraqis, or innocent Vietnamese, or anyone else they tell us to murder.
