inheriting Mormon...

Originally written at the outset of the war of Iraq the article did not find publication at either SLC newspapers or the Sunstone magazine. I have re-visited the article updated it slightly and present it here for some kind of re-publication.

"Person of the the Year, Time" dry-point etching 12x18"

There is a lesson I have taught as a sunday school teacher the premise of which goes like this. We spend our lives living religiously and attempting to be Christlike. For the most part we easily accommodate these values into our lives, but there are moments of truth where our years of study is put to the test. I ask the group a question. Will you be able to apply religious principals in a true moment of crisis? The idea is to assess whether the years of incorporating spirituality as part of your life will be of assistance when the foundation of your values are tested. Will you be “Christian” or will you resort to solutions that reflect the modality of contemporary culture, “the world,” or as church leaders are wont to say, will you become a “natural man” an enemy of God?

Our civilization, society, and the Mormon church passed through one of these moments of truth before America invaded Iraq. We failed. In Mormon church President’s Gordan Hinckley’s War and Peace address in its semi-annual Conference he opted for War. In part his decision was based on the idea that national leaders “...have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally.” It subsequently become clear that the world was lied to about the imminent threat posed by Iraq’s Weapon’s of Mass Destruction (WMD). The notion that the government fabricated the evidence against in Iraq is not startling, however. The USA was bent on war and we all sensed that propaganda was simply being applied to ensure popular support for a potentially unpopular war. As a member of the Mormon church I am ashamed with my association with an organization whose leader, given the test, chose to parrot political leaders slogans couching their epitaphs in a shroud of religious legitimacy. My hope is with a new prophet we can, in retrospect, amend our past failure and make a comprehensive statement that supports peace and apposes war on terror, assassination, imperialism, and dispels the notion of a crusade to protect our supposed “way of life.”

We must first assume a common ground of understanding about the war in Iraq in order to critique the prophet and by extension the church’s position as expressed by President Hinckley. Lets agree on the following:

1), the war was not fought to eliminate a threat to the United States. That the threat was  fabricated to justify war;

2), this is not a war of liberation. You do not liberate a people by bombing them, shooting them, encouraging betrayal with ransoms, or choosing who its new leaders will be. These are all characteristics of an occupying imperial state;

3), the USA tolerated Hussein when it was politically expedient to do so. America knew of his secret weapons programs, gave him political legitimacy and CIA assistance, and hid his abuses from world public opinion;

"Globalism" etching 20x30"

4) the war and subsequent occupation has been a failure, when measured by the creation of viable state, the protection of peoples civil rights, establishing peace in the region, making the world more secure, or building international institutions that support the idea of “collective security.”

5), then if no threat existed, if Hussein had no connection to Al Qaida, if the WMD used in the war were exclusively American, if the USA regularly tolerates dictators, if arms inspectors were in place, then we must conclude this war is a war fought by an imperialistic superpower determined to enforce its will, even if it requires invading and occupying intransigent nations.

In an attempt to come to terms with my communities approach to this war I have spent a little more time reflecting on Hinckley’s conference address when he acquiesced to the war as it both guides and reflects the opinions of our Mormon community. Given the conditions described above, I have asked myself how could President Hinckley , a prophet, seer, revelator, and God’s chosen spokesman, who tells us at the outset of his address “I seek the direction of the holy spirit, I have prayed and pondered much concerning this,” give his assent to the war.? One would think a prophet’s wisdom would be able to see past the thin veneer of propaganda purported to justify armed aggression. The address has several fundamental problems. It’s historical interpretations are simplistic, it manipulated the religious texts by selecting the most provocative passages, it is ethno-centric betraying the notion of an international organization, and finally it places the Mormon church on the side of violent repression and against peace.

The prophet defines the essential conditions of conflict. The dichotomy of good versus evil inherent in the scriptural texts is the prism President Hinckley was most comfortable looking through. Using this paradigm the prophet implied that Iraq and Saddam Hussein represented evil that the United States was justified and maybe compelled to remove him from power. President Hinckley stated: "We are a freedom loving people, committed to the defense of liberty ... it may be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede ... those who are involved in a contest with the forces of evil and repression.” This final sentence is most damning in its consent for the conflict and its tacit condemnation of those engaged in peace activism.

He went on to criticize the Empires of the past Rome, Byzantine, Britain. He states there is a darker side to empire “ of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and ... cost of life and treasure.” This statement is indicative of President’s greatest failing in the talk. His inherent ethno-centrism. He fails to see America cast in these same terms. To many in the world this war is proof of the United States attempt at self aggrandizement at the cost of brutal conquest, post-war repression, at the cost of between 100,000 to 500,000+ Iraq lives, over 4000 American lives and $3.8 Billion each month. It is surprising that the prophet is unable to see the exercise of American power and empire as an essential condition of this war.

"Watching 9/11" etching 12x18"

Of all the passages in Mormon scriptures President Hinckley chooses a passage that glorifies the aggression of battle and strikes a cord intolerant of dissent. In The Book of Mormon, an ancient prophet Moroni famously rents his coat, unfurling it as the “standard of liberty.” I have always felt uncomfortable with Moroni and his tactics. Moroni tore his coat in order to stir the people against the “cunning” leader Amalickiahtes. Once Amalickiahites were captured and defeated Moroni and gave them the choice “support the cause of freedom ...(or) be put to death.” (Alma 46: 35) This was a pattern for Moroni forcing people to choose liberty or death. Upon their defeat the Lamanites were given the same choice but Zerahemnah honorably retorted “we are not of your faith, we don’t not believe that it is God that has delivered us into your hands, but we believe it is your cunning (breastplates) that has preserved you from our swords (or because you have WMD and we do not). “(Alma 44:9-14). But defeating the enemy was not enough for Moroni he had to overwhelm them culturally as well and when the Lamanites did not submit to an oath he began a massacre until they submitted completely to the Nephites. Is the prophet suggesting the same. In quoting Moroni does he suggest we too should destroy the Iraqi’s if they are too ignorant to choose our brand of “liberty.”

The ancient scriptures it seems were written by the powerful, kings, judges, and military commanders. War is a means of defending the privileges of the elite's and it is the rich who view war as in their interests. For President Hinkley’s speech only one reference to Christ is made. Maybe this is because he is unique in the scriptures as he is one of us. As a carpenter, war and rebellion served no purpose. Whether viewing his crucifixion has the arbitrary administration of occupation justice or as a result of a collaboration compromised Sanhedrin really Jesus’ death is just another casualty of the imperial project. He taught that overthrowing the Romans would never free the soul. Only by loving God and serving ones fellow man can true “liberty” and salvation be found.

President Hinckley’s quotes Alma 43: 45-46 to justify America’s soldiers role in the war in Iraq “they were not fighting for ...power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, for their rites of worship and their church ... And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed their God.” These lines seem to apply to the people in Iraq, the Palestinians, or any other people dominated by occupying powers who seek to destroy the independence of a nation. I have not seen any American serviceman's families at risk, but I have seen scores of Iraqi woman and children dead in Markets, in their homes, killed by coalition bombs. I have seen young soldiers shooting into cars with families in them in the mistaken assumption that the vehicle contains terrorists. It is the Iraqi resistance fighters labeled Baathist’s holdouts who personify these scripture references, certainly no American marine.

President Hinckley spent this critical moment in history justifying the actions of church members who would be serving in this illegal war. The prophet uses the worst emotional contrivances to illicit sympathy for the men serving in the conflict. Trotting up lines like “Mom, I have to go so you and the family can be free, free to worship as you please” or “I am proud to be here (Middle East) serving my nation and our way of life.” An astute observer might say, “ I am proud to allow you to continue driving our family SUV to church on Sunday while we suppress Muslims right to reject materialism while taking their oil.” Given his status as prophet I would expect more original analysis at the very least. This plea to servicemen is one of the most egregious eras in his talk. It points to the narrowest cultural sentiments for a man purporting to lead an international organization. He is placating American members at the expense of feelings held by members and would be converts world wide.

"US Soldier in Iraq" etching 4x5"

President Hinckley has been applauded for “talking tolerance” and recognizing that people do have differing opinions. But those few sentences in his talk ring hollow and complacent. They are the consolation’s doled out by the victor. Of course those who are devastated to see civilization fail in it’s attempt to achieve a more civil society, and those whose homes are being bombed, are resentful of the circumstances they find themselves in. President Hinckley had a historic opportunity. He squandered it. He justified the propaganda and lies used to launch a pre-emptive war. He lent his name and the name of the Church of Jesus Christ in defense of the narrowest of cultural assumptions. The “direction of the spirit” led to a ringing endorsement for war. An excellent opportunity to firmly position the church as an institution heralding peace, honesty, tolerance, and diplomacy was squandered and he embarrassed me because my membership as a Mormon is associated even married to his interpretation of events.

President Hinckley and the Mormon community was faced with a test. Are we a people committed to peace, to international law, dialogue, tolerance? Have we learned from our years of prayer and study? Can we apply the principles Christ taught us in our personal and civic lives? When teaching little children on a Sunday I ask them, “what would Christ have done?” The most simple morality (light of christ) tells us killing is wrong. Christ teachings are filled with examples of love. Unfortunately we in the church have forgotten that the Pharisees “who reasoned together” conjured up reasons to kill Christ. We have become like those Pharisees. It is this wrong reasoning that allows a people to support cutting off a nation with sanctions for 10 years, killing thousands of innocent lives, deprive them of any weapons, then invade them in order to liberate them.

President Hinckley is just as guilty as the Catholic church was a 1000 years ago of glorifying the Empire. He knows that the Christian Church lost its way when it took advantage of its association with Rome. Persecution ended and growth took place within the context of the Empire but the Church became terribly compromised. Being in America, the 20 and 21st Centuries great Empire, will have the same impact on the Mormons. In part the prophets decision were based on the idea that national leaders “...have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally.” How far does President Hinkley think we should go to honor the direction of National leaders. Continuing to draw on history, the Catholic Church was further compromised in the 30’s when the Pope made concessions with Mussolini and stayed ever so quiet about the racism inherent in fascism. Now that it is clear that the world was lied to, is the church going to condemn the Bush and Blair administrations for conducting an illegal war on false premises.

President Hinckley negated the message of peace Christ taught . He, the leader of a purportedly international movement, practiced the worst kind of cultural bias and ethnocentrism, but he was true to the large American flag flying over the Salt Lake Temple. It need not be this way. It is possible for leaders of the church to serve the role of religious leaders who prick he consciences of their parishioners. Is it really Quixotism to believe that a prophet would assert the need for peace and question the use of violence in an already to deadly world. The relevance of the Mormon faith is its claim to having a living prophet, a spokesman for God in contemporary life. This claim is a burden, it requires the spokesperson to get “it’ right which clearly President Hinckley did not do. So we are in a unique space. The Mormon church has a new prophet and America has chosen a new president. Is it naive to think President Monson will demand an accounting of political leaders honesty, and will call for the end of the illegal occupation of Iraq by American Forces? Can Mormons be a constructive voice in the world or will we remain silent. I am ashamed now to be a Mormon and I hope the leaders of this church rectify the mistakes they made over the past years and reject the entire premise that Terrorism is a war that can or should be fought.

"London Allegory" oil on canvas 9x12"