Killing Saints

[Mark Beesley]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Johnston’s army, not Johnson’s. 

Knew I could count on you. I shoulda let spellcheck have its way. 😀

Edited July 23, 2019 by Mark Beesley

[Oliblish]

Reminds me of a poem:

 

The Man He Killed

BY THOMAS HARDY

 

"Had he and I but met 

            By some old ancient inn, 

We should have sat us down to wet 

            Right many a nipperkin! 

 

            "But ranged as infantry, 

            And staring face to face, 

I shot at him as he at me, 

            And killed him in his place. 

 

            "I shot him dead because — 

            Because he was my foe, 

Just so: my foe of course he was; 

            That's clear enough; although 

 

            "He thought he'd 'list, perhaps, 

            Off-hand like — just as I — 

Was out of work — had sold his traps — 

            No other reason why. 

 

            "Yes; quaint and curious war is! 

            You shoot a fellow down 

You'd treat if met where any bar is, 

            Or help to half-a-crown." 

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Should 21st Century Latter-day Saints serve in combat units in any Country’s military?

No human being should serve in a military.  To be clear, I am not advocating disobedience necessarily.  I am advocating laying the groundwork for a completely different worldview sans military.

Quote

Latter-day Saints live in virtually every country on Earth. Would you be willing to kill another Latter-day Saint if you were on opposite sides of a secular war?  

I'd like to think not.  Let's see what my choices are when that is before me.  I already don't support military worldviews.

Quote

Where should our primary allegiance lie?

To humanity.  Our brothers and sisters. 

Moses Chapter 7

28 And it came to pass that the God of heaven looked upon the residue of the people, and he wept; and Enoch bore record of it, saying: How is it that the heavens weep, and shed forth their tears as the rain upon the mountains?

29 And Enoch said unto the Lord: How is it that thou canst weep, seeing thou art holy, and from all eternity to all eternity? [. . .]

31 And thou hast taken Zion to thine own bosom, from all thy creations, from all eternity to all eternity; and naught but peace, justice, and truth is the habitation of thy throne; and mercy shall go before thy face and have no end; how is it thou canst weep?

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

Quote

Can anyone seriously argue that the United States deserves the spilled blood of Saints in waging its wars. Remember Joseph Smith?  Remember the refusal of aid from the United States? Remember the veiled threat of extermination if the Mormon Battalion was not organized?  Remember Johnson’s army? Remember the impetus for the manifesto?  Remember the threat of confiscation of all Church property if It did not abandon the practice of its religion? 

Ah.  You see why I'm an anarchist.  A state can only exist by virtue of explicit or implicit violence, thus it's foundations are always anti-God.  I can't play that game, even if it's the only one in town right now.  All violence is automatically tyranny.  (Any one who claims to be an anarchist and indulges in violence is not an anarchist, but a tyrant.)

Edited July 23, 2019 by Maidservant

[Maidservant]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

what would be the difference for a Mormon to kill another Mormon in some ill-conceived and misguided war and a Mormon killing an atheist, muslim or Sikh?  

Bingo.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Pledging allegiance to God seems to have caused a good many to kill many a people...I don't know or care if its more or less than the deaths caused by allegiance to nations.

One day we'll be residing in some utopia where we don't feel so obligated to define our differences and start killing because of them.  We'll be living in peace.  Some might say, well we will be able to thank god for that.  I'll be saying, fewf!  we can thank secularism for this peace.  

what would be the difference for a Mormon to kill another Mormon in some ill-conceived and misguided war and a Mormon killing an atheist, muslim or Sikh?  

So you think not only that secularism can create a utopia but that it will happen in your lifetime?

And people say I am crazy.

Edited July 24, 2019 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Ah.  You see why I'm an anarchist.  A state can only exist by virtue of explicit or implicit violence, thus it's foundations are always anti-God.  I can't play that game, even if it's the only one in town right now.  All violence is automatically tyranny.  (Any one who claims to be an anarchist and indulges in violence is not an anarchist, but a tyrant.)

States exist to limit violence and allow it to only one organization (the state). So if someone attacks me and I fight back and kill them I am a tyrant?

[Maidservant]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

States exist to limit violence and allow it to only one organization (the state).

I agree (or at least that's the theoretical idea behind it).  I'm not interested in limited violence that one entity gets to do.  I think Kingpin already got the job (my word for Satan).  Doesn't mean I'm a fan of either.

Quote

So if someone attacks me and I fight back and kill them I am a tyrant?

That's not violence. 

Although you might be surprised of what the options are, to limit someone without harming them in return. To allow someone to harm you is also violence.  To limit someone from harming you blesses both you and them.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Maidservant

[strappinglad]

6 million Jews went meekly to the slaughter. Now Israel and Jews worldwide say " Never Again " My friend has a lifted 4X4 truck. A sign on the back says " you can follow me, but it's gonna hurt!"  Switzerland is neutral but an armed and prepared camp. Houses are cement forts.  Adults have military training. Can Switzerland be conquered ? Sure , but it's gonna hurt. 

War is stupid, wasteful, and sometimes , very rarely ,  necessary. 

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

I agree (or at least that's the theoretical idea behind it).  I'm not interested in limited violence that one entity gets to do.  I think Kingpin already got the job (my word for Satan).  Doesn't mean I'm a fan of either.

That's not violence. 

Although you might be surprised of what the options are, to limit someone without harming them in return. To allow someone to harm you is also violence.  To limit someone from harming you blesses both you and them.

I have been in many physical altercations. It is difficult to subdue someone without hurting them. It is difficult to keep them from trying to hurt you again later unless you really hurt them

I wish I had your idealism. I just believe violence will end only when everyone with violent intentions renounce them or are dead.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

4 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Should 21st Century Latter-day Saints serve in combat units in any Country’s military? Latter-day Saints live in virtually every country on Earth. Would you be willing to kill another Latter-day Saint if you were on opposite sides of a secular war?  Does it make it easier that wars are waged remotely so we don’t have to look into the eyes of the people we are killing?  Where should our primary allegiance lie? Can anyone seriously argue that the United States deserves the spilled blood of Saints in waging its wars. Remember Joseph Smith?  Remember the refusal of aid from the United States? Remember the veiled threat of extermination if the Mormon Battalion was not organized?  Remember Johnson’s army? Remember the impetus for the manifesto?  Remember the threat of confiscation of all Church property if It did not abandon the practice of its religion? 

In at least one regard I believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses got it right. They don’t to pledge allegiance to anyone but God. 

You ask many philosophical (or hypocritical) questions concerning warfare. I served in the military (10 years) during peacetime, but went on “high alert status”, many times due to the actions of other Nations. On two occasions, we were breaking down our medivac helicopters, and loading them on C5A aircraft. Thankfully, certain situations were resolved before we went into full, “wheels up mode”. Before this, the military was already taking steps to isolate us from our family and friends. They do this for two reasons, one is to keep us focused on the task at hand, and the other is to keep us from giving away the plans of the units in which we served. Of course that is much more difficult now, when I was in the military, they could just get you on base, and cut all outgoing calls. In this Information age, who knows how hard it is to conceal such information due to iPhone, iPad, etc. 

But, to your original point about Armies, soldiers, and loyalties. Once in a war, and once on the battlefield, you fight for the soldier on your left and right. You are also leaving your “six”, or your back to the man who is meant to protect you, and those with him. Once the fighting begins, you are not checking I.D.’s, or religious affiliation, you are fighting for your life, and the lives of your brothers at arms. Or to quote Shakespeare, “he who sheds his blood with me this day, is my brother”. (I am sure I did not do that quote justice) The thing to remember also, is that the other person who is trying to kill you. So in war, it is “kill or be killed”, because those you love, at home or on the battlefield, deserve nothing less that being there for them. 

[Maidservant]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

It is difficult to subdue someone without hurting them.

Yes.

Quote

It is difficult to keep them from trying to hurt you again later unless you really hurt them

Yes.

And we don't have these limit-but-not-harm teachings (i.e. body and/or mind techniques) generally in our culture and we certainly don't bring our children up learning them.  (By the way, there is a difference between hurt and harm in my understanding.)

It's more difficult because we don't know what they are and we haven't learned them.  If we knew what they were (and they do exist on the planet; beginning with Aikido) and chose to learn them, there would definitely be effort involved.

Quote

I believe violence will end only when everyone with violent intentions renounce them.

Agreed.

And it can only be come to by persuasion in the end.   I like 3 Nephi 5:4.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Maidservant

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

you mean you wouldn't rather go out in the blaze of glory singing this song?

 

“I have wined and dined with kings and queens and I’ve slept in alleys and dined on pork and beans.”

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

Yes.

Yes.

And we don't have these limit-but-not-harm teachings (i.e. body and/or mind techniques) generally in our culture and we certainly don't bring our children up learning them.  (By the way, there is a difference between hurt and harm in my understanding.)

It's more difficult because we don't know what they are and we haven't learned them.  If we knew what they were (and they do exist on the planet; beginning with Aikido) and chose to learn them, there would definitely be effort involved.

Agreed.

And it can only be come to by persuasion in the end.   I like 3 Nephi 5:4.

If everyone knows them their value in conflict goes down. Aikido allows you (generally) to throw your opponent but it does not disable them.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

“I have wined and dined with kings and queens and I’ve slept in alleys and dined on pork and beans.”

a true, true legend!!!!

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If everyone knows them their value in conflict goes down. Aikido allows you (generally) to throw your opponent but it does not disable them.

Yes.  Aikido would simply be a beginning (or one kind of beginning; it's simply a possible technique--and it is not only to learn how to throw, but to learn how to be thrown and use the energy one saved from fighting to cause the person to pass by you without either receiving harm--it's a mental and spiritual understanding not only a physical ability; in other words, the opponent fails under the power of their own energy).

If everyone knows limit-but-not harm (whatever the technique), thirst for bloodshed and oppression would be non-existent. 

It's true that when one trains oneself to meet those who insist upon framing one as an enemy or victim and treating one as such, there is no guarantee of who would come in one's path--it might be one less strong and stamina-ed, less trained, less aware, less knowledgeable; or it might be one stronger and better trained which might indeed afford one defeat, or at least at the time.  There is no perfection of guarantee.  One limits as one is able; and if not, the best thing they can do in the situation which might be to kill and maim, submit, run away, whatever seems best or even possible in the given situation.

If everyone learns martial arts for the purpose of harming, then there's no point and it doesn't fulfill what I'm talking about.

[Thinking]

10 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Would you be willing to kill another Latter-day Saint if you were on opposite sides of a secular war?

Quote

God is no respecter of persons (Acts10:34)

 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

...............................

A statement from the First presidency 1942 about the war:

"We have not forgotten that on Sinai, God commanded "Thou shalt not kill;" nor that in this dispensation the Lord has repeatedly reiterated that command. ...
But all these commands, from Sinai down, run in very specific terms against individuals as members of society, as well as members of the Church, for one man must not kill another as Cain killed Abel. ........................................

Insofar as translated correctly....   The commandment is not "thou shalt not kill," but rather "You shall not murder."  The Hebrew word is only "murder."  Murder is unrighteous killing.  When King David had Uriah the Hittite killed that was murder.  If you shoot a home invader in self-defense, that is justifiable homicide.  If you kill opposing forces during war, you are not guilty of murder.  If you round up civilians and execute them during war, that is murder -- and a war crime.

[JAHS]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Insofar as translated correctly....   The commandment is not "thou shalt not kill," but rather "You shall not murder."  The Hebrew word is only "murder."  Murder is unrighteous killing.  When King David had Uriah the Hittite killed that was murder.  If you shoot a home invader in self-defense, that is justifiable homicide.  If you kill opposing forces during war, you are not guilty of murder.  If you round up civilians and execute them during war, that is murder -- and a war crime.

I think they qualified they meant murder when they said "As cain killed Abel". That was definitely murder.

[USU78]

The bee is armed to protect her queen, her nest, her food source, and her life. Most avoid her, leave her alone. Others dare challenge her because the reward for doing so is so sweet.

G-d gave the bee her life and armed her. Take away her arm, leave her that sweet reward, and she starves, her tribe scattered, her nest smashed, her queen dead.

Are we less than the bee?

[Amulek]

17 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Should 21st Century Latter-day Saints serve in combat units in any Country’s military?

Who better to serve and lead in the military than good, moral men and women who possess an understanding of the fullness of the gospel? 

I'm guessing you have never known / worked closely with many service members, but aside from fulfilling one of the highest duties of citizenship (i.e., defending one's country), if a young person simply lives the gospel and is faithful / willing to represent what they believe in, they will be presented with a myriad of opportunities to move the Lord's kingdom forward throughout their career - through teaching, baptisms, retention, re-activation, etc. 

 

Quote

Would you be willing to kill another Latter-day Saint if you were on opposite sides of a secular war?

Yup. 

 

Quote

Does it make it easier that wars are waged remotely so we don’t have to look into the eyes of the people we are killing?

The days of 'looking a man in the eye' are long gone. You don't look a man in the eye when you drop a bomb, fire a torpedo, or throw a grenade. That's simply not how modern warfare works. 

Does that make the taking of human life easier? In some respects, I suppose it does, but for the most part the ability to engage in military conflict with minimum casualties is generally considered to be a good thing.  

 

Quote

Where should our primary allegiance lie?

God > Family > Country. 

 

Quote

Can anyone seriously argue that the United States deserves the spilled blood of Saints in waging its wars.

Absolutely. As members of the Church, we have deeply rooted foundations in serving our nations and protecting our religious freedoms and our right to worship according to the dictates of our consciences.

When a person puts on a uniform and pursues a just cause in a military situation, he or she is in essence protecting the freedom of agency.

 

Quote

In at least one regard I believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses got it right.

Probably for the best then that the JW's weren't around back in Book of Mormon times. 

I mean, if you get rid of all the Captain Moroni's, Helaman's, etc. you're going to end up with a much shorter book.  

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Maidservant said:

Yes.  Aikido would simply be a beginning (or one kind of beginning; it's simply a possible technique--and it is not only to learn how to throw, but to learn how to be thrown and use the energy one saved from fighting to cause the person to pass by you without either receiving harm--it's a mental and spiritual understanding not only a physical ability; in other words, the opponent fails under the power of their own energy).

If everyone knows limit-but-not harm (whatever the technique), thirst for bloodshed and oppression would be non-existent. 

It's true that when one trains oneself to meet those who insist upon framing one as an enemy or victim and treating one as such, there is no guarantee of who would come in one's path--it might be one less strong and stamina-ed, less trained, less aware, less knowledgeable; or it might be one stronger and better trained which might indeed afford one defeat, or at least at the time.  There is no perfection of guarantee.  One limits as one is able; and if not, the best thing they can do in the situation which might be to kill and maim, submit, run away, whatever seems best or even possible in the given situation.

If everyone learns martial arts for the purpose of harming, then there's no point and it doesn't fulfill what I'm talking about.

I think the thirst for bloodshed and oppression runs much deeper then that.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I mean, if you get rid of all the Captain Moroni's, Helaman's, etc. you're going to end up with a much shorter book.  

And if you get rid of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who were sworn to pacifism the followers of Christ may have been extinct from the Americas before the Savior came.

Sometimes fighting is the answer. Sometimes suffering yourself to be killed without resistance is the answer. If you are looking for “always right” answers in this area you will look in vain. Sometimes it is okay to fight, sometimes it is best to submit, sometimes it is best to die, sometimes it is best to flee.

[Calm]

40 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I think the thirst for bloodshed and oppression runs much deeper then that.

And if those aren’t enough, territory and the belief you need it to be safe or to grow/be happy will trigger plenty of conflict, imo. 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is there any record or indication that the Prophet registered disapproval of it?

I found this to the contrary: "Although Joseph Smith was away in Michigan Territory when the declaration was presented to the Church, he accepted it and referenced it later in his speaking and writing." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/revelations-in-context/of-governments-and-laws?lang=eng

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

Should 21st Century Latter-day Saints serve in combat units in any Country’s military? Latter-day Saints live in virtually every country on Earth. Would you be willing to kill another Latter-day Saint if you were on opposite sides of a secular war?  Does it make it easier that wars are waged remotely so we don’t have to look into the eyes of the people we are killing?  Where should our primary allegiance lie? Can anyone seriously argue that the United States deserves the spilled blood of Saints in waging its wars. Remember Joseph Smith?  Remember the refusal of aid from the United States? Remember the veiled threat of extermination if the Mormon Battalion was not organized?  Remember Johnson’s army? Remember the impetus for the manifesto?  Remember the threat of confiscation of all Church property if It did not abandon the practice of its religion? 

In at least one regard I believe the Jehovah’s Witnesses got it right. They don’t to pledge allegiance to anyone but God. 

I think this is a personal decision. I don't think members who choose to serve in combat are primarily willing to kill other members, but as with most people, are willing to submit (not the same as pledging allegiance) to the powers that be. Like most people, I'd say they feel it is a tragic expediency that lives are taken and lost in combat. I think the Book of Mormon has a lot to offer with regards to the morality of war and saintly attitudes about it.