Killing Saints

[Mark Beesley]

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 Johnston’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. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by Mark Beesley
Name correction for Johnston

[The Nehor]

What makes the 21st century so different?

[USU78]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What makes the 21st century so different?

We've evolved beyond such things.  Hadn't you heard?

[Mark Beesley]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What makes the 21st century so different?

I’m still wallowing in mortality and my Mom and Dad aren’t. 😎

But, point taken, filed, and cherished.

[Duncan]

If you are in combat how would you even know what religion your enemy is? it isn't practical to exchange pleasantries during combat

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We've evolved beyond such things.  Hadn't you heard?

Wait, everyone has abandoned the urge to kill?

Come Pinky, we have work to do.

 

 

[JAHS]

D&C 98:
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

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. ...
But the Church membership are citizens or subjects of sovereignties over which the Church has no control. The Lord himself has told us to "befriend that law which is the constitutional law of the land." ...
While by its terms this revealed word related more especially to this land of America, nevertheless the principles announced are world-wide in their application. ... When, therefore, constitutional law, obedient to these principles, calls the manhood of the Church into the armed service of any country to which they owe allegiance, their highest civic duty requires that they meet that call. If, hearkening to that call and obeying those in command over them, they shall take the lives of those who fight against them, that will not make of them murderers, nor subject them to the penalty that God has prescribed for those who kill. ... For it would be a cruel God that would punish his children as moral sinners for acts done by them as the innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign whom he had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist." (First Presidency Statement April 1942)

 

[mfbukowski]

I'll start worrying about that when California invades Utah.

Oh wait.

It's already happening....

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If you are in combat how would you even know what religion your enemy is? it isn't practical to exchange pleasantries during combat

I sing “Where Can I Turn for Peace?” loudly whenever I am in combat to make it clear I am a (sigh, take deep breath) member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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

Why not?

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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?  

Yes.  

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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?  

Latter-day Saint soldiers grappled with this issue in wars of the past (certainly during WWI and WWII).

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Where should our primary allegiance lie?

To God.

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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

Yes, that can be seriously argued.

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Remember Joseph Smith?  

Yes.  I don't follow.  How does the extra-judicial murder of Joseph Smith obviate our duty as citizens to fight for our country?

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Remember the refusal of aid from the United States? 

Yes.  So what?  It was a long time ago.

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Remember the veiled threat of extermination if the Mormon Battalion was not organized?  Remember Johnson’s army?

Johnston's Army?  Yes.  Are we really going to impose some sort of collective guilt on an entire country for things that happened 150+ years ago?

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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? 

Yes.  I'm really not following your reasoning.  Our duty as citizens is not contingent on the United States being perfect in every respect.

48 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

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

A few thoughts:

AoF 1:12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  This must mean something.

D&C 134 is an extended treatment on government.  It merits quotation in full (with emphases added):

Quote

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

D&C 134:12 is interesting, given its treatment of slavery (all the more so since the Church in 1835 was anti-slavery).  Some context for it is available here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Colorado Springs is host to a lot of military.  Fort Carson, Air Force academy, Cheyenne Mountain complex, Lots of space/satellite command stuff, Lockheed Martin, etc.  Had plenty of military folks in my ward over the years.  The one guy who stands out was former CIA, training our satellite operators how to look for bad guys.  One Elders Quorum, he walked us through the training process - which includes mandatory counseling after everyone is introduced to the horrible evil animal things our enemies do to people, and how air and ground assets identify it when it's happening, and how it's dealt with.   Not everyone makes it through that training, the greatest rates of dropping out happen shortly after coming face to face with evil of that blatant, gory magnitude.

No, some of our enemies aren't just people of different political persuasions.  Some of them, through their own actions, have torn up any reasonable 'live on planet earth with the humans' card. 

Stuff gets real morally clear after learning certain realities.  God relies on His good children to protect all of us from His bad children.  

The answer to your question Mark Beesley, is yes, yes 21st Century Latter-day Saints should serve in combat units in a country's militaries, but only in the good countries.

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[mfbukowski]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Come Pinky, we have work to do.

😂🤣😆

One of the best shows ever!

[The Nehor]

I admit I do not trust D&C 134 that much. Written without the prophet’s approval, not a revelation, and written to try to calm fears and get secular governments to leave us alone.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Colorado Springs is host to a lot of military.  Fort Carson, Air Force academy, Cheyenne Mountain complex, Lots of space/satellite command stuff, Lockheed Martin, etc.  Had plenty of military folks in my ward over the years.  The one guy who stands out was former CIA, training our satellite operators how to look for bad guys.  One Elders Quorum, he walked us through the training process - which includes mandatory counseling after everyone is introduced to the horrible evil animal things our enemies do to people, and how air and ground assets identify it when it's happening, and how it's dealt with.   Not everyone makes it through that training, the greatest rates of dropping out happen shortly after coming face to face with evil of that blatant, gory magnitude.

No, some of our enemies aren't just people of different political persuasions.  Some of them, through their own actions, have torn up any reasonable 'live on planet earth with the humans' card. 

Stuff gets real morally clear after learning certain realities.  God relies on His good children to protect all of us from His bad children.  

The answer to your question Mark Beesley, is yes, yes 21st Century Latter-day Saints should serve in combat units in a country's militaries, but only in the good countries.

 

Zion has not yet been established. Where are these “good countries” of which you speak?

[Mark Beesley]

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

The answer to your question Mark Beesley, is yes, yes 21st Century Latter-day Saints should serve in combat units in a country's militaries, but only in the good countries.

 

ROTFLMAO! 😂

Nice that is so simple for the deep-thinkers, yet it’s almost like section 134 has done all the thinking for some.

[Mark Beesley]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I admit I do not trust D&C 134 that much. Written without the prophet’s approval, not a revelation, and written to try to calm fears and get secular governments to leave us alone.

Thank you!

[Mark Beesley]

 I am reminded of the account that I heard while I was on my mission in Germany of an American soldier who was executed alongside a German soldier during WWII because the American refused to execute his fellow Latter-day Saints brother who was caught stealing food. Perhaps he would have been “justified“ in shooting his brother, but he would have missed out on the blessings that he undoubtedly had showered upon him by their Father in Heaven for loving his brother more than his country.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Mark Beesley

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Mark Beesley said:

Thank you!

I should be clear that I do not disagree with most of it. I just do not consider it the will of God. A lot of it is good advice. Then again, the Saints broke the law when they thought it was required so they did not consider it that binding.

It is also on interest that along with this section and created at the same time with the same approval was Oliver Cowdery’s now defunct piece on marriage which would raise eyebrows today.

"According to the custom of all civilized nations, marriage is regulated by laws and ceremonies; therefore we believe that all marriages in this Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints should be solemnized in a public meeting or feast prepared for that purpose, and that the solemnization should be performed by a Presiding High Priest, High Priest, Bishop, Elder or Priest, not even prohibiting those persons who are desirous to get married, of being married by other authority. We believe that it is not right to prohibit members of this Church from marrying out of the Church, if it be their determination so to do; but such persons will be considered weak in the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Ouch.

“Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.”

Yeah, about that.......

“It is not right to persuade a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband; neither is it lawful to influence her to leave her husband.

All children are bound by law to obey their parents, and to influence them to embrace any religious faith, or be baptized, or leave their parents without their consent, is unlawful and unjust. We believe that husbands, parents, and masters, who exercise control over their wives, children and servants, and prevent them from embracing the truth, will have to answer for that sin."

Yikes.

 

[Mark Beesley]

46 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Wait, everyone has abandoned the urge to kill?

Come Pinky, we have work to do.

 

 

 I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if nuclear arsenals aren’t deployed when Christ returns in glory. And I can see in my mind’s eye the transformation of all those weapons into butterflies at the command of our Lord.

Taking up arms in defense of oneself or one’s country or whatever is nothing more than trusting in the arm of flesh. The Israelites didn’t need it to escape from Egypt and Hezekiah didn’t need it save Jerusalem from Sennecherib’s  invading army. 2 Kings 19.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Mark Beesley

[Scott Lloyd]

2 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. 

Johnston’s army, not Johnson’s. 

[USU78]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I'll start worrying about that when California invades Utah.

Oh wait.

It's already happening....

I moved from the North Bay to Brigham  ...

 

 

 

in 1960.  Bwahahaha!

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I admit I do not trust D&C 134 that much. Written without the prophet’s approval, not a revelation, and written to try to calm fears and get secular governments to leave us alone.

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

[Calm]

2 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?  

Should it even make a difference what faith the other person has?

People like us we don’t kill, people different we do?

A better divider would be we don’t kill kind/good people if we had to choose, but since it is really impossible to judge, I don’t think one can operate on such a standard. So it is it seems to me either being willing to kill those you are told to kill by your commanders (except perhaps in extreme cases of war crimes and such)  or refrain from all killing and serve in other ways. 

[stemelbow]

2 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. 

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?  

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I sing “Where Can I Turn for Peace?” loudly whenever I am in combat to make it clear I am a (sigh, take deep breath) member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

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