Making a Claim

IV

Salt Lake City
February 11, 1970


Local Board No. 94
Los Angeles County
2091 E. Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena, Calif. 91107

Dear Sirs:

I have recently written you for information concerning the conscientious objector status. I have since that time received information which permits me to make a more specific request, i.e., that you please send me forms 150 and 151, concerning application for the I-O status and also concerning the preference of civilian work to be performed in lieu of military obligation.

I was heretofore unaware that it was possible, under the right conditions, to perform other work contributing to the good of our nation instead of participating in the military. I have taken steps to apply to the Teacher Corps (March, 1969) and the Peace Corps (Jan., 1970) on my own, before I had any knowledge that such non-military service is acceptable. I would appreciated more knowledge of these programs to supplement the scant information I have picked up by word of mouth, etc.,

Please send the necessary forms and information to

Harry Terrill
303 Douglas St.
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84102

SS No. 4-94-44-2906.

Thank you for your cooperation,

sincerely,



Harry Terrill







Salt Lake City
9 March 1970




Local Board No. 94
Los Angeles County
2091 E. Colorado Blvd.
Pasadena, California
91107



Dear Sirs:


Enclosed please find a statement from my wife’s doctor announcing the birth of our first child sometime next September. We are both very happy.

Also, I would like to officially declare myself a conscientious objector. I have previously requested the forms necessary to make my declaration in form of an application.




Thank you,



Harry Terrill
303 Douglas St.
Salt Lake City, Utah
84102

4-94-44-2906







April 9, 1970

SS Form 150
Selective Service System
SPECIAL FORM FOR CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR


1. Describe the nature of your belief which is the basis of your claim and state why you consider it to be based on religious training and belief.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) The following letter, printed in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, III, 1 (Spring, 1968) page 8, expresses the Church’s position on conscientious objection.

Mr. Eugene Englund, Jr.
1400 Waverly
Palo Alto, California

Dear Brother Englund:

Reference is made to your inquiry of President N. Eldon Tanner as to the attitude of the Church regarding conscientious objectors.

I am directed to tell you that membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make one a conscientious objector. As you are aware, there are thousands of young men of the Church assigned to the various services of the military.

As the brethren understand, the existing law provides that men who have conscientious objection may be excused from combat service. There would seem to be no objection, therefore, to a man availing himself on a personal basis of the exceptions provided by law.

Sincerely yours,
Joseph Anderson
Secretary to the First Presidency


While the Church is not generally known as advocating conscientious objection, we see by the last paragraph of the above letter that members are not discouraged from “availing themselves on a personal basis of the exceptions provided by law.”

The Church has, however, been continually concerned about war and killing in general, and the military draft in particular. The following letter was written by the First Presidency of the Church just after World War II.

Excerpted from Improvement Era, February 1946

We print below a letter dated December 14, 1945, addressed by the First Presidency of the Church to each member of the Utah Congressional Delegation—Senators Thomas and Murdock and congressmen Granger and Robinson. Word has been received by the First Presidency from both Senators and both Congressmen expressing their approval of and belief in the sentiments, reasons, and conclusions set forth in the letter. The letter follows:

Press reports have for some months indicated that a determined effort is in making to establish in this country a compulsory universal military training designed to draw into military training and service the entire youth of the nation. We had hoped that mature reflection might lead the proponents of such a policy to abandon it. We have felt and still feel that such a policy would carry with it the gravest dangers to our Republic.

It now appears that the proponents of the policy have persuaded the Administration to adopt it, in what on its face is a modified form. We deeply regret this, because we dislike to find ourselves under the necessity of opposing any policy so sponsored. However, we are so persuaded of the rightfulness of our position, and we regard the policy so threatening to the true purposes for which this Government was set up, as set forth in the great Preamble to the Constitution, that we are constrained respectfully to invite your attention to the following considerations:

1. By taking our sons at the most impressionable age of their adolescence and putting them into army camps under rigorous military discipline, we shall seriously endanger their initiative thereby impairing one of the essential elements of American citizenship. While on its face the suggested plan might not seem to visualize the army camp training, yet there seems little doubt that our military leaders contemplate such a period, with similar recurring periods after the boys are placed in the reserves.
2. By taking our boys from their homes, we shall deprive them of parental guidance and control at this important period of their youth, and there is no substitute for the care and love of a mother for a young son.
3. We shall take them out of school and suffer their minds to be directed in other channels, so that very many of them after leaving the army, will never return to finish their schooling, thus over a few years materially reducing the literacy of the whole nation.
4. We shall give opportunity to teach our sons not only the way to kill but also, in too many cases, the desire to kill, thereby increasing lawlessness and disorder to the consequent upsetting of the stability of our national society. God said at Sinai, “Thou shalt not kill.”
5. We shall take them from the refining, ennobling, character-building atmosphere of the home, and place them under a drastic discipline in an environment that is hostile to most of the finer and nobler things of home and of life.
6. We shall make our sons the victims of systematized allurements to gamble, to drink, to smoke, to swear, to associate with lewd women, to be selfish, idle, irresponsible save under restraint of force, to be common, coarse, and vulgar,-- all contrary to and destructive of the American home.
7. We shall deprive our sons of any adequate religious training and activity during their training years, for the religious element of army life is both inadequate and ineffective.
8. We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war.
9. We shall take them away from all participation in the means and measures of production to the economic loss of the whole nation.
10. We shall lay them open to wholly erroneous ideas of their duties to themselves, to their family, and to society in the matter of independence, self-sufficiency, individual initiative, and what we have come to call American manhood.
11. We shall subject them to encouragement in a belief that they can always live off the labors of others through the government or otherwise.
12. We shall make possible their building into a military caste which from all human experience bodes ill for that equality and unity which must always characterize the citizenry of a republic.
13. By creating an immense standing army, we shall create to our liberties and free institutions a threat forseseen and condemned by the founders of the Republic, and by the people of this country from that time till now. Great standing armies have always been the tools of ambitious dictators to the destruction of freedom.
14. By the creation of a great war machine, we shall invite and tempt the waging of war against foreign countries, upon little or no provocation; for the possession of great military power always breeds thirst for domination, for empire,and for a rule by might not right.
15. By building a huge armed establishment, we shall belie our protestations of peace and peaceful intent and force other nations to a like course of militarism, so placing upon the peoples of the earth crushing burdens of taxation that with their present tax load will hardly be bearable, and that will gravely threaten our social, economic, and governmental systems.
16. We shall make of the whole earth one great military camp whose separate armies, headed by war-minded officers, will never rest till they are at one another’s throats in what will be the most terrible contest the world has ever seen.
17. All the advantages for the protection of the country offered by a standing army may be obtained by the National Guard system which has proved so effective in the past and which is unattended by the evils of entire mobilization.
Responsive to the ancient wisdom, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it,” obedient to the divine message that heralded the birth of Jesus the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the world, “…on earth peace, good will toward men,” and knowing that our Constitution and the Government set up under it were inspired of God and should be preserved to the blessing not only of our own citizenry but, as an example, to the blessing of all the world, we have the honor respectfully to urge that you do your utmost to defeat any plan designed to bring about the compulsory military service of our citizenry. Should it be urged that our complete armament is necessary for our safety, it may be confidently replied that a proper foreign policy, implemented by an effective diplomacy, can averr the dangers that are feared. What this country needs and what the world needs, is a will for peace, not war. God will help our efforts to bring this about.

Respectfully submitted,

Geo. Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark
David O. McKay

The First Presidency


You will note that I have underlined some of the parts of the letter for particular emphasis. In #4 the brethren reiterate the commandment of God, THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I cannot in good conscience obey this commandment and serve in combat. I will not be trained to kill. I wish to heal, not maim. In. #14 the brethren comment that the development of a great war machine is an invitation and a temptation to wage war rather than negotiate for solutions to problems, a situation which has become a reality in these days. Those individuals who could justify their killing before in the name of national defense would now have a very slim excuse. In the last four lines of the letter the brethren give the Lord’s formula for solving disputes: “…a will for peace, not war.”

I am opposed to war. The Lord has commanded against it:

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; (Doctrine and Covenants 98:33-5)

Only after we have put up a standard of peace three times in the face of attack can we go to the Lord and receive justification for battle. He has told us “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace….” (D&C 98:16) These are my sentiments also.

The person who is conscientiously opposed to war maintains a difficult position in a society with a propensity for combat. Jesus said to the Pharisees, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (Mark 12:17) If one opposes war he must decide just how much he opposes it. Enough to leave and renounce citizenship of the country? Enough to discontinue payment of taxes? Enough to refuse to render any service at all to the country? Enough to merely refuse military service? I love my country, and will not leave it because a few unrighteous men wish to wage war. I will serve my country, rendering unto it those things I can render, while at the same time (to the best of my ability) obeying and honoring the laws of my God. However, when Caesar demands me to render to him that which is God’s, I feel my allegiance is first to God. Governments are established for the protection of God-given rights of man (D&C 134:1,2), not to deprive him of them. An involuntary draft into the military deprives citizens of a large degree of personal life and liberty. It indirectly deprives others of life. The soldier must be trained to kill, and he must kill in combat upon orders or be in jeopardy of losing his own life. If a man volunteers for this type of activity and relishes its execution he has then chosen his own damnation. I choose a different road.

I would rather not serve at all in any way that would support killing of men and war against another nation. If called to service as a medic I would like to think I were serving my fellow man and my country, but not the military and what it stands for. I would hope that during my entire life, not just for two years, I am oriented to the service of my country and mankind. I wish to heal, build, create. I will not kill, destroy, or urge others in these aims. “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace.”

2. Explain how, when and from whom or from what source you received the religious training and acquired the religious belief which is the basis of your claim.

I have been educated in the doctrine of Christ all of my life. I have been regularly in attendance at weekly Sunday School and Sacrament meetings for as long as I can remember. My teaching in the home has always been oriented around the gospel of Jesus Christ. Life has always been sacred to me, and the waste of life in any form has been looked upon severely in my home. Furthermore, violence and disregard for the rights of others were very subtly but very strongly taught as being evil. I can remember only one fight I have been involved in which was anything more than a daring exchange of playground epithets and a modified pushing match. Except for this one time I never exchanged blows in even the worst of engagements. As I consciously examine my motives in retrospect, I see that the principle of the “golden rule” has been at work in my life. I know what it is to be “picked on.” I therefore don’t believe in “picking on” others or treating them with disrespect. I have been taught to extend this principle of respect to animals and property.

I have always believed that prophets have headed our church. I have always believed the Bible to be the word of God as far as translated correctly, and that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are also the word of God revealed to prophets in our time. My beliefs probably began to really crystallize into knowledge in my nineteenth and twentieth years when I was away at college at Brigham Young University, where I was greatly influenced by religion instructors and roommates. In January of 1965 I was called to serve a mission for my church. My experiences, associations and studies in the ensuing two years and three months were vital to my present outlook. In the mission field I was called to positions which necessarily cultivated both a sensitivity to others and a sense of obligation to God in fulfilling His purposes on the earth. Since being released from the mission field in 1967 I have worked for two years as a teacher in the Language Training Mission at Provo, Utah. There it was my number one responsibility to help the missionaries become disciples of Christ. I worked with them daily in scripture classes and in Spanish classes. Aside from my work as the Language mission I have continued active in the Church as a Sunday School teacher, a worker in youth social programs and presently as instructor of my Elder’s Priesthood quorum. In December, 1967, I was married in the Los Angeles Temple of the Church. The companionship of my wife has been one closely allied with gospel principles. We attend church together and often discuss at length in our home what we learn in church. We regularly hold what is called Family Home Evening in our home, a weekly period of discussion of gospel principles and their practical application. All of these activities are centered around the teaching of Christ. Love and respect for mankind are most necessarily a part of a Christian life.

In the few months since I have been contemplating my claim for conscientious objection I have talked extensively with my wife, parents, friends, Bishop and Stake President concerning these things. I have also been studying the volumes of discourses of most of the general authorities of the Church since its founding in 1830. These studies have all consistently pointed toward the bases of my claim mentioned in part 1 of this application. Perhaps the most influential piece of knowledge I have gained has only been the reiteration of what I had known before: each member of the Church must be responsible to know for himself what it right for him to do, and act on that knowledge. Hugh B. Brown, and Apostle in the Church and at the time a member of the First Presidency, said in a letter (dated April 24, 1969) to Dennis M. Clark concerning conscientious objectors: “This is, of necessity, a matter which each individual must determine for himself based upon his own convictions and having in mind the welfare of the state.” I have no doubt that my own convictions are very much in keeping with the welfare of the state.

Only in the past year have I really had to worry about the draft, so only in the past year have I really begun to think of how I would react personally to the military and to combat. I applied for and was offered a Navy commission in early 1969. After visiting the Naval Air Station at Alameda, California, and associating there for a while with the officers, I came to the conclusion that the tendency among the men there was to be idle, to dwell on lewd thoughts and to get the most from the military with the least possible effort. Many openly expressed that it was a good chance to obtaining free training (at a good salary) to become airline pilots upon discharge. Because of my feeling after visiting Alameda I turned down the commission in favor of prospects of working in the Teacher Corps, a national program dealing in education among the poor. These feelings I had at the time compare remarkable with the items 6 and 11 of the letter of the First Presidency concerning the draft (pages 2 and 3 of this application).

My first feeling against the service was, then, not an antipathy for killing men. I had never quite thought about the seriousness of the action, but thought that if the situation ever occurred when I would have to kill that all would be justified. Hadn’t men been “justifiably” at war for centuries? I at first merely thought that the service was a waste of good, productive, creative time. I still believe it is. I found that I didn’t want to be put in a position where I would involuntarily have to perform. What if I didn’t want, for example, to sing a marching song with obscenities in it? What if I didn’t want to live in a barracks atmosphere that was degrading and filthy? In no other area of American life does one involuntarily lose his free agency as he does as a draftee.

During the November 15, 1969, student moratorium against the war in Viet Nam I was disgusted with the overwhelming majority of students who were more interested in wearing black arm bands and marching and cutting classes than they were in learning about our position in Viet Nam. I went to the library and studied the issue. I am convinced that the “freedom” of the Vietnamese has become a secondary issue in the war—secondary to making money in defense industry, building a bigger military machine, and furthering other selfish interests. Vietnamese elite seem to be jut as guilty as we are. Would I become another by-product of such corruption? There is a lot of money to be made in a war.

These feelings abut Viet Nam are a part of the knowledge that all wars are unrighteous—a fact I had not really encountered face-to-face until January of this year. All wars are unrighteous unless declared by God. I doubt He has declared this one or any other war in modern history. There is no record of His justifying such a war to any of His living prophets.

In January I also began to feel the way I do about killing. For all the blood that is shed and lives that are taken there must be justice exacted. The scriptures are full of reference concerning this, but I have only recently realized that God doesn’t give license for warring nations to kill. Someone must pay. I am not ignorant of these eternal laws, nor am I legally powerless to avoid combat and killing. I cannot allow myself to be put in a position to be required under military law to kill another man.

#3 To what extent does your religious training and belief restrict you from ministering to the sick and injured, either civilian or military, or from serving in the Armed Forces as a noncombatant without weapons?

My religious training does not restrict me from ministering to the sick or injured in any case. On the contrary. As a part of my priesthood duty I frequently administer to the sick. My religious training and belief does not restrict me from serving as a non-combatant without weapons, either.

#4 Have you ever given expressions publicly or privately, written or oral, to the views herein expressed as the basis for your claim?


As I mentioned previously, I have only realized in the past few months that I could conscientiously object to participation in war. I began in January of this year to investigate actively my feelings and my church’s feelings concerning conscientious objection. Only last month did I feel I could officially declare myself a conscientious objector. I have since made a special trip to Los Angeles (from Salt Lake) to visit my parents and discuss my views with them. I have also in this time talked extensively with my Bishop and Stake President concerning the matter, not to mention the numerous conversations I have had and am still having with my wife, who whole-heartedly supports my stand. I have also participated in two hour-long discussions in my Elder’s quorum about this, although the discussions were specifically concerned with the Church’s stand on conscientious objection and not on their stand on war or killing, which are quite explicitly condemned in the scriptures and don’t need much argument. I have expressed my beliefs in letters to friends and associates in the past month, at the same time asking them to submit letters of reference to my local board. I have only in the last two weeks come to the conclusion that I can feel good about serving as a medic rather than seeking I-O status. What I tell people is what I tell you: I don’t believe in copping out. I want to serve my country. But I must serve constructively. If it is impossible to serve God and my country simultaneously, then I must serve God first.