How Much Do We Value Free Agency?

[filovirus]

I'm not arguing that Capt. Moroni would not first control the situation. Just that bloodshed may not be his first recourse. Of course we're both speculating here on what he would do.

[iWriteStuff]

Firearms

Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law.

https://www.lds.org/....2?lang=eng#212

Funny, I've had several bishops specifically ask that certain members come packin'

[VideoGameJunkie]

Speaking of what Captain Moroni would do, how does the church feel about killing someone in self defense and in war? I can never imagine taking another person's life even if my own life or someone else's depended on it, so I was wondering how the church views those types of killings and shedding blood.

[mirkwood]

Speaking of what Captain Moroni would do, how does the church feel about killing someone in self defense and in war? I can never imagine taking another person's life even if my own life or someone else's depended on it, so I was wondering how the church views those types of killings and shedding blood.

 

That it is justified.  There are plenty of LDS who have done such a thing and they are in good standing in the church.

[Calm]

Speaking of what Captain Moroni would do, how does the church feel about killing someone in self defense and in war? I can never imagine taking another person's life even if my own life or someone else's depended on it, so I was wondering how the church views those types of killings and shedding blood.

Can't copy, see the Penrose quote about halfway down, search on "self defense" if you want to pinpoint it:

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-31-firm-in-the-faith-of-christ?lang=eng

[Kenngo1969]

Well we have many rules and commandments we have to follow and obey if we want to avoid eternal punishment so we're choosing to obey. Why we choose to obey or not obey is up to us but using free agency for bad decisions has dire consequences and we have expectations to live up to.

My Young Padawan,

 

To the extent that I obey (and I will admit freely that there is a lot of room for improvement there), it is because I love God and because it fills my soul (see John 14:15 and Mosiah 2:20-24), not because I fear that God will, as Captain B.J. Hunnicutt of M*A*S*H fame once put it, "send me to hell without an electric fan."  And as President Ezra Taft Benson is reported to have said once, "The day obedience becomes a quest and not an irritation is the day we gain power."  Most of the consequences of our disobedience are not simply because God, like Seinfeld's soup Nazi, says, "No soup for you!"  Most of them are simply the result of the Law of the Harvest, of reaping what we sow.

 

Two pop culture references, two scriptures,  and a prophetic utterance, all in the same paragraph!  Top that!

 

Anyway, those are my two cents' worth.  Your mileage may vary.  As always, I wish you well.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Meadowchik]

Speaking of what Captain Moroni would do, how does the church feel about killing someone in self defense and in war? I can never imagine taking another person's life even if my own life or someone else's depended on it, so I was wondering how the church views those types of killings and shedding blood.

That resistance to the idea is good.

For me, after becoming a mother, I've dreamed of having to defend and save my kids,literally prying apart a tiger's jaws (before King Kong did it in the movie.)

[Kenngo1969]

Just as an aside, the phrase "free agency" isn't used much anymore by Church leaders. The term in the scriptures is either moral agency or just plain agency.

 

Elder (later, President) Boyd K. Packer pointed that out some years ago, and since then, authoritative discourse in the Church has not used "free" when talking about agency.

 

 

Thanks for the info. I can see some reasoning behind it. Do you know why the distinction was made?

 

 

Probably the best I could do is link you to the 1992 address by Elder (later President) Packer.

 

 

Perhaps he felt that use of "free" in front of "agency" was giving people the false impression they could with impunity violate the laws and commandments of God because, after all, they had their "free agency."

 

There's no directive in here forbidding the use of "free" in the phrase, but I do note that afterward, we who work on Church correlated publications were instructed to not express it as "free agency," but as moral agency or just agency.

Actually, our agency was purchased at quite a high price.  See, e.g., 2 Nephi 9, circa vss. 6-13.

[Kenngo1969]

No, regardless of the circumstances (however justified), we human beings are neither psychologically nor sociologically "well-engineered" to shoot (at) our fellow human beings.  (If we were, we would be psychopaths and/or sociopaths).  And no, because we human beings are neither psychologically nor sociologically well-engineered to shoot (at) our fellow human beings, it's not fair that we ask soldiers and law enforcement officers to do exactly that (the high incidence of, e.g., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even after justified shootings is testimony of that).  However, sometimes, it is necessary.  We needlessly complicate the lives of law enforcement officers and soldiers when we question most such decisions from behind the anonymity of a computer screen.  Most all of them deserve better.

[/THREADJACK OFF]

Edited October 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Meadowchik]

No, regardless of the circumstances (however justified), we human beings are neither psychologically nor sociologically "well-engineered" to shoot (at) our fellow human beings.  (If we were, we would be psychopaths and/or sociopaths).  And no, because we human beings are neither psychologically nor sociologically well-engineered to shoot (at) our fellow human beings, it's not fair that we ask soldiers and law enforcement officers to do exactly that (the high incidence of, e.g., Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even after justified shootings is testimony of that).  However, sometimes, it is necessary.  We needlessly complicate the lives of law enforcement officers and soldiers when we question most such decisions from behind the anonymity of a computer screen.  Most all of them deserve better.

 

[/THREADJACK OFF]

 

No, what? You mean you don't agree with me?  It sounds like you do.  VGJ was talking about not being able to imagine killing, even in self-defense.  And I was saying this is a good thing. Resisting the idea of killing another is good.  IOW, there's nothing wrong with you if you feel that way.  Although, feelings might alter somewhat, even if only subconsciously, when one is faced with imminent threats.  I would hate to have to kill a tiger

 

I don't see how resisting the idea of killing is offensive to those called to do so. It's recognizing their humanity and the sacrifice that you reference.  We don't do enough for our soldiers and others who serve and suffer from PTSD.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Meadowchik

[Bee Sweet]

My Dad was a police officer when I was young. One day I was asking him questions about his life, I asked him if he had ever shot at a person. He told me a story I had never heard.

He got a domestic violence call, upon arrival, while approaching the door, he heard a gun shot, he and his partner stepped to the side of the house and drew their guns, the husband involved in the violence

came out the front door, walked to the side of the house where they were standing and aimed his gun directly at them. My Dad shot and killed him.

 

He told me this story with sadness in his face. I felt no sadness, I was happy my Dad was not killed, he was the most courageous man I have ever known. He served in WW2 as nose gunner in a B-24 airplane, was in a mid-

air collision and survived.

 

Kenngo is correct, you must be mentally prepared to shoot at another person. There is a book called, " On Killing," a very interesting read.

 

Personally, I have my own gun, a Smith and Wesson 38, I know how to use it and am a good shot. I have thought a lot about if I could shoot another human being. If I was in a circumstance such as these school shootings, and

had the opportunity to kill the person taking innocent lives, I pray that I would.

[alter idem]

Speaking of what Captain Moroni would do, how does the church feel about killing someone in self defense and in war? I can never imagine taking another person's life even if my own life or someone else's depended on it, so I was wondering how the church views those types of killings and shedding blood.

For several decades we've been blessed in the US to have only voluntary military service.  With an uncertain future, THAT could change and it is possible that our young men and even young women may have little choice in whether to fight or not.  So, I think understanding that good men can be righteous warriors is important for LDS to understand.  Mormon and Moroni were both military men for most of their lives, Mormon from the age of about 15.  Moroni grew up in the world where he knew nothing but war and carnage.  There is NO DOUBT they killed, yet they were righteous Prophets of God.  Also, many of our present church leaders served in World War II and the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

So yes, there is a time and place for killing and shedding blood and the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants will anwer your questions on this subject. 

[mirkwood]

My Dad was a police officer when I was young. One day I was asking him questions about his life, I asked him if he had ever shot at a person. He told me a story I had never heard.

He got a domestic violence call, upon arrival, while approaching the door, he heard a gun shot, he and his partner stepped to the side of the house and drew their guns, the husband involved in the violence

came out the front door, walked to the side of the house where they were standing and aimed his gun directly at them. My Dad shot and killed him.

 

He told me this story with sadness in his face. I felt no sadness, I was happy my Dad was not killed, he was the most courageous man I have ever known. He served in WW2 as nose gunner in a B-24 airplane, was in a mid-

air collision and survived.

 

Kenngo is correct, you must be mentally prepared to shoot at another person. There is a book called, " On Killing," a very interesting read.

 

Personally, I have my own gun, a Smith and Wesson 38, I know how to use it and am a good shot. I have thought a lot about if I could shoot another human being. If I was in a circumstance such as these school shootings, and

had the opportunity to kill the person taking innocent lives, I pray that I would.

 

Post of the thread. 

[Kenngo1969]

No, what? You mean you don't agree with me?  It sounds like you do.  VGJ was talking about not being able to imagine killing, even in self-defense.  And I was saying this is a good thing. Resisting the idea of killing another is good.  IOW, there's nothing wrong with you if you feel that way.  Although, feelings might alter somewhat, even if only subconsciously, when one is faced with imminent threats.  I would hate to have to kill a tiger

 

I don't see how resisting the idea of killing is offensive to those called to do so. It's recognizing their humanity and the sacrifice that you reference.  We don't do enough for our soldiers and others who serve and suffer from PTSD.

As I made clear, my, "No" modifies, clarifies, answers what comes after it.

[Meadowchik]

As I made clear, my, "No" modifies, clarifies, answers what comes after it.

 

It wasn't clear to me.  I wasn't asking a rhetorical question.  I think we're both seeing the nuance of the problem, yet you seem to be saying I don't.

 

We should hold on to that resistance even when forced to act.  This, imo is better for mental health.  Remember Nephi's resistance? 

[Thinking]

Free agency cannot include freedom from consequences.

[thesometimesaint]

Looking a man in the face and pulling that trigger anyway is the hardest thing any of us will ever do. I'm thankful to be alive, but it was still hard.

[Thinking]

Looking a man in the face and pulling that trigger anyway is the hardest thing any of us will ever do. I'm thankful to be alive, but it was still hard.

 

I hope I never have to make that decision.

[Scott Lloyd]

Free agency cannot include freedom from consequences.

Which is probably why the Church stopped calling it "free" agency.

[Tacenda]

Not much if we continue to let this group suffer w/o it, free agency that is.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4E7acyv7UHQ

[MiserereNobis]

The gun control debate will now be determined by WWCMD bracelets

 

I did giggle a little at the thought experiment of placing Captain Moroni in the Oregon shooting scenario.

 

Of course, the problem with any what would <fill in the blank religious leader> do is that we really don't know.  It is certainly a pet peeve of mine with What Would Jesus Do.  Jesus is God!  He has a nice history of doing things that confound people's expectations of Him.  The pharasees and sanhedrin asked themselves "what would the Messiah do?" and they came up with the answer that it was something quite different than what Jesus was doing.

 

Often, these WWJD things tell us more about our own assumptions about divinity and not divinity itself.

 

/thread-derail

[Five Solas]

Just as an aside, the phrase "free agency" isn't used much anymore by Church leaders. The term in the scriptures is either moral agency or just plain agency.

 

Elder (later, President) Boyd K. Packer pointed that out some years ago, and since then, authoritative discourse in the Church has not used "free" when talking about agency.

Right. 

 

Oldsmobile ran an ad campaign a number of years ago.  The tag line was, "Not your father's Oldsmobile."   The message: We do it differently now, keep up! 

 

It's a cautionary tale - wouldn't you agree, Scott?

;0)

 

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

I can't speak for Scott, but if I were asked, I'd say, "Nope."

Thanks fer playin'!

[Five Solas]

I can't speak for Scott, but if I were asked, I'd say, "Nope."

Thanks fer playin'!

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, Kenngo, but Oldsmobile doesn't exist as a brand anymore.  Putting a question mark behind "cautionary tale" was a rhetorical device on my part. 

 

Hope I haven't messed up your car-buying plans too much.  You might also consider staying away from Volkswagen diesels, too. 

;0)

 

--Erik

[Kenngo1969]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, Kenngo, but Oldsmobile doesn't exist as a brand anymore.  Putting a question mark behind "cautionary tale" was a rhetorical device on my part. 

 

Hope I haven't messed up your car-buying plans too much.  You might also consider staying away from Volkswagen diesels, too. 

;0)

 

--Erik

Oh, so you're not really interested in substantive discussion, you simply want to play semantic "Gotcha!" games.  OK.  Thanks for clearing that up.  It'll help me decide how much attention to pay to your posts in the future.  (Read, "Not much.") Attempting to link a shift in linguistic emphasis in the description of the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Oldsmobile's demise (and, by so doing, no doubt attempting to suggest that just as one has now met its demise, so, too, is the other's eventual demise inevitable) is what's known in elementary logic as a non sequitur.

 

Thanks again fer playin'!