Killing Saints

[Mark Beesley]

On 7/25/2019 at 7:29 AM, Stargazer said:

I looked directly at the brother in question after the bolded sentence was brought up, and he gave me a rather sour look.  I got the point a few years later as to why he thought he wouldn't want to defend his family unto bloodshed -- because he clearly thought it OK to divorce his wife without cause and abandon his family instead.  Which is what he did.

.

This ad hominem did nothing but distract from your argument.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Quote

. . .People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. . . .

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Right, right, right.

Quote

I sleep peaceably in my bed at night because . .  oh brother, why bother? 

Because I am curious as to how you would finish that sentence.  Are you seriously suggesting that a peaceable society does not rely on law enforcement and the military being willing to do violence on our behalf?

Quote

Have a nice, peaceable life relying on the violence of rough men.

I rely on rough men being willing to do violence.  So, in fact, do you.

Such is the price of living in society.  The men and women who honorably serve in the military and in law enforcement deserve our gratitude and respect.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

As you like.  Meanwhile, I find this apocryphal statement to be apt: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

You have the luxury of rejecting service in the military (and, I assume, in law enforcement) because there are others who are willing to take up arms and do what you believe your conscience requires you to do.  I can accommodate your stance and not condemn you for it, but I would hope that you would, in turn, be able to accommodate a stance that honors military and law enforcement service, and that does not condemn those who choose to enter into that service.

Sounds too much like someone trying to justify being a “rough man” to me. I assume “rough” in this case does not just mean knowing how to fight but a kind of moral coarseness about violence that I do not believe should be condoned.

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

As you like.  Meanwhile, I find this apocryphal statement to be apt: People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

You have the luxury of rejecting service in the military (and, I assume, in law enforcement) because there are others who are willing to take up arms and do what you believe your conscience requires you to do.  I can accommodate your stance and not condemn you for it, but I would hope that you would, in turn, be able to accommodate a stance that honors military and law enforcement service, and that does not condemn those who choose to enter into that service.

Sounds too much like someone trying to justify being a “rough man” to me.

Yes, I justify them.  I am grateful for and respect the men and women who take up arms in the military and in law enforcement.

Quote

I assume “rough” in this case does not just mean knowing how to fight but a kind of moral coarseness about violence that I do not believe should be condoned.

For me, "rough" means a willingness to kill, and to be killed, in defense of one's country / society, and in defense of civilians / the innocent.

Captain Moroni, for example, was a "rough man."  I would not, however, attribute to him a "moral coarseness about violence."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2019 by smac97

[The Nehor]

36 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

That is rather naïve and idealistic for you to believe the wars today are being waged to protect my freedoms or rights. Wars today are being waged to protect oil, and multinational corporation interests, and all sorts of other unrighteous designs.

Read D&C section 98 before you say that I’m judging people, or laying some terrible sin at their doorstep.  I am simply suggesting a higher way for the covenant people of the Lord. And since I am unqualified to judge whether a person is righteousness or unrighteousness, I cannot say that I know that there are righteous Saints serving in the military. Can you?

It is more complex then just economic interests. The reality is that US interventions abroad have paradoxically increased since the end of the Cold War when it could be argued national survival could be argued to be at stake. At the same time we are also losing more of those interventions as time goes on. I am not sure what to put it down to but I suspect corporate interests in exploiting resources in conflict areas are more scavengers then instigators. I suspect the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about and the people. We have a taste for conflict especially when it seems to require no direct sacrifice from us. I felt it strongly in Desert Storm and the invasion of Afghanistan.

The problem is the old playbook does not work. Ever since Mao rewrote the war book by defeating Chiang Kai-Shek’s government the way for weak actors to defeat the strong has been laid out. Some still try old conventional conflict (Korea, Iraq at first) and lose but others use the new model (Afghanistan, Vietnam, Syria) and we lose every time. We need a new playbook or to stop playing.

[Amulek]

52 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

The point is, it is better to die than to knowingly shed the blood of another Saint, I believe.

Why is that? Shouldn't it be harder to end someone's mortal existence prior to them having an opportunity to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Seems like it should be easier to send someone to meet their maker if you know they are already on the covenant path. 

 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I justify them.  I am grateful for and respect the men and women who take up arms in the military and in law enforcement.

For me, "rough" means a willingness to kill, and to be killed, in defense of one's country / society, and in defense of civilians / the innocent.

Captain Moroni, for example, was a "rough man."  I would not, however, attribute to him a "moral coarseness about violence."

Thanks,

-Smac

Most of the definitions of rough do not match yours and I think my reading of the quote is more accurate to the original intent of whoever coined it.

I am not as optimistic as you. I do not respect everyone in the military or in law enforcement. They are dangerous jobs and I respect and a am grateful to those who do them well with a moral compass guiding them but I do not think that constitutes most of them. I avoided those careers mostly because I think I could like violence too much. I learned how to fight well primarily to try to curb that impulse.

Captain Moroni was a hero mostly for his hatred of killing and his paradoxical love for the Lamanites who he called his “brethren”. Anyone who can do the same I will respect and be grateful for. I think one of the best ways to show that gratitude is not to ask them to risk their lives for me unless it is important. In that respect I think the western world is failing.

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

That is rather naïve and idealistic for you to believe the wars today are being waged to protect my freedoms or rights. Wars today are being waged to protect oil, and multinational corporation interests, and all sorts of other unrighteous designs.

I agree that the US is not entirely innocent, but are you so naive to believe that if we lay down our weapons of war that our people, constitution, and freedoms will be protected from extremists and other external threats?

44 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

Read D&C section 98 before you say that I’m judging people, or laying some terrible sin at their doorstep.  I am simply suggesting a higher way for the covenant people of the Lord. And since I am unqualified to judge whether a person is righteousness or unrighteousness, I cannot say that I know that there are righteous Saints serving in the military. Can you?

I read section 98 - it still seems like you are judging them.  You seem to suggest that their enrollment and participation in the military is unjustified and that they are not following the “higher way”.  You call them “gentiles”.  I wonder how maj. Brent Taylor’s wife and children feel about that.

Are you suggesting that saints are not justified in enlisting in the military?  That it is against God’s will?  Keep in mind, soldiers don’t get to pick and choose which battles to engage in.  They don’t get to say that this war is justified and this war is not, therefore I will fight in this war and not that war. 

 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Why is that? Shouldn't it be harder to end someone's mortal existence prior to them having an opportunity to hear and accept the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Seems like it should be easier to send someone to meet their maker if you know they are already on the covenant path. 

 

There is that. Book of Mormon talks about the inequality of death. Ammon told the Lamanite King it would be better for his son to die then him because of the state of their souls.

That said, I think I would have a harder time killing a devout saint of my faith then another. There are a few members of the church though that if I was asked to kill......meh, they had it coming.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

I interpret it in light of Mormon 7:4,  “Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you.”

Do you really think this verse constitutes a divine mandate to be a pacifist?  

Context, Mark, context.  Is Mormon 7:4 directed at everyone and is everyone required to follow every aspect?  No, it's not.  Let's explore the context, shall we?

1 And now, behold, I would speak somewhat unto the remnant of this people who are spared, if it so be that God may give unto them my words, that they may know of the things of their fathers; yea, I speak unto you, ye remnant of the house of Israel; and these are the words which I speak:

Now, to whom is he speaking?  "unto the remnant of this people who are spared..."  And who is "this people" to whom he is speaking?  The chapter introduction says this: "Mormon invites the Lamanites of the latter days to believe in Christ, accept His gospel, and be saved..."  The entire chapter is directed at the Lamanites of the latter days. 

4 Know ye that ye must lay down your weapons of war, and delight no more in the shedding of blood, and take them not again, save it be that God shall command you.

And why must they do this?  Because they and their fathers delighted in the shedding of blood.  And like the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, and for the same reason, they must repent of this delight by adjuring violence.  

If verse 4 were directed at everyone, then Mormon would NOT have written in verse 10:

10 And ye will also know that ye are a remnant of the seed of Jacob;

Because not everyone is a remnant of the seed of Jacob, and of the "first covenant".

You cannot take "the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed" and blithely contend that the Lord changed his mind because he asked the modern day Lamanites to put away their weapons of war. The two are unconnected.

Quote

I am unaware of any conflict since the Utah War where the Lord had commanded us to take up weapons of war. There are plenty of Gentiles willing to kill in waging America’s wars. I don’t need to.

I have no objection to your refusing to bear arms.  But you need to justify to me that I must also refuse or be in violation of God's law. Additionally, you need to justify to me that I am not allowed to defend myself or my flesh and blood from attack. So far you haven't.  And I'm not entirely sure that the Lord actually commanded us to take up arms in the Utah War, and for that matter, as the Mormon Battalion.  To the best of my knowledge there are no published (or unpublished) revelations to that effect, other than the implicit actions of President Young to take up arms in those cases. Perhaps you can enlighten me if I've missed something. 

If Mormon 7:4 is to be understood as you say, then I direct your attention to the following:

• The section of the Church website called Military Relations and Chaplain Services.  On these pages you will find plenty of resources for members of the Church who are serving in the military.  If Mormon 7:4 were actually to be understood according to your private interpretation, then there should have been a page there directing the members of the Church to claim Conscientious Objector status if drafted, and never ever to volunteer for military service.  It doesn't. In fact, Church materials on the subject in general actually praise members for serving their countries in this way. So your private interpretation is for you alone.

How many members of the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have served in the military?

• President Russell M. Nelson - "On November 19, 2014, the Republic of Korea’s ambassador to the United States, Mr. Ahn Ho-Young, visited Elder Nelson at his office at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City. The ambassador presented the Apostle with a medal 'of thanks and honor' for his service during the Korean War."

President Dallin H. Oaks - Utah National Guard President Henry B. Eyring - US Air Force Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf - Luftwaffe (German Air Force) Elder M. Russell Ballard - US Army Many others among deceased Apostles have also so served, and so have numerous other general authorities.

 

Quote

And your crap about the Lord having to intervene for the Israelites and Hezekiah is just that crap. Silly to even argue it.

Seems a bit harsh, Mark.  What's the problem? Did I hit a nerve with you or something?  That wasn't my intent, if I did.

Do you really believe that the Pharaoh was going to "let my people go" without divine intervention, or that the camp of Israel was perfectly capable of defending itself against Pharaoh's army? Or was the Lord just grandstanding, and His intervention wasn't truly necessary?  

Come on, if it's silly crap, please demonstrate how it's silly crap.  Would you be willing to let me get away with calling your arguments "silly crap," as if that were some kind of rebuttal? Actually, calling someone's argument "Crap" is more in the nature of an admission of defeat. You can't rebut it successfully, so you call it names.  If I may be so bold, that is crap, to believe you've refuted anything.

ETA: Sorry about the underlining -- it won't let me undo it.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

You are welcome to believe it was a fabrication if you want.

Well, let's not leave it there.  How much confidence do you have in this story?  Who told it to you, and what was their connection to it?  What is its provenance?  Or are you a fan of the story merely because it fits your prejudices?

Quote

Illegal stuff happens all the time in war, by soldiers and their commanders. Don't be so naive.

Who said it doesn't?  I sure didn't.  But just because illegal stuff happens does not prove that this act of illegality actually occurred.  The stated circumstances alone put it into serious doubt.

Quote

As for your query regarding executing murderers, my general opposition to capital punishment aside, I’m pretty sure the Church excommunicates murderers.

Next . . .

Last time I looked, the Church was not a secular government, and according to DC 134:10, has no right to anything past excommunication: "...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." So I don't know why you even bring this up.

Isn't your general opposition to capital punishment counter-scriptural?  Genesis 9:5 - "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."  This has been a standing law unto man from the beginning. It wasn't introduced by the Mosaic Law, and thus wasn't rescinded by the new covenant when Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses (any more than the 10 Commandments were rescinded).  So opposing capital punishment is counter-scriptural, it seems to me.

Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Yes, I justify them.  I am grateful for and respect the men and women who take up arms in the military and in law enforcement.

For me, "rough" means a willingness to kill, and to be killed, in defense of one's country / society, and in defense of civilians / the innocent.

Captain Moroni, for example, was a "rough man."  I would not, however, attribute to him a "moral coarseness about violence."

Thanks,

-Smac

Most of the definitions of rough do not match yours

"Rough" has a variety of definitions, including "acting with or characterized by violence" (as in "Boxing is a rough sport").

Having previously served in uniform, I am very grateful that I never had to kill another human being.  But I trained to do it, and I prepared myself emotionally and spiritually against such a possibility.  That preparation changed me.  I became "rough" not because I acted with violence, but because I trained for, and was willing to resort to, violence.

I have a friend in law enforcement.  He is "rough" in the sense that he is willing to resort to violence to stop bad guys.  Our society needs people who are willing to do that.  They do it under the color of law, and as ethically and prudently as possible, but they do it.  And I am grateful for it.

Quote

I am not as optimistic as you. I do not respect everyone in the military or in law enforcement.

Quelle surprise.

I don't even respect everyone in the Church, and yet I remain a member of it and love it a lot.  That love is not diminished because of the misconduct of some of its members.

Again: "The men and women who honorably serve in the military and in law enforcement deserve our gratitude and respect."  Surely you can at least agree with that?

Quote

They are dangerous jobs and I respect and a am grateful to those who do them well with a moral compass guiding them but I do not think that constitutes most of them.

And the factual and evidentiary basis for your denunciation of the bulk of our brothers and sisters in military and law enforcements is . . . what, exactly?

Quote

I avoided those careers mostly because I think I could like violence too much. I learned how to fight well primarily to try to curb that impulse.

Sounds fine.

Quote

Captain Moroni was a hero mostly for his hatred of killing and his paradoxical love for the Lamanites who he called his “brethren”.

As compared to the bloodthirsty and hopelessly depraved men and women of law enforcement, "most of" whom in your view lack "a moral compass?"

Quote

Anyone who can do the same I will respect and be grateful for.

You say this while simultaneously slandering "most of them" as lacking "a moral compass?"  How is that respect/gratitude?

Quote

I think one of the best ways to show that gratitude is not to ask them to risk their lives for me unless it is important.

Which speaks to the morality of politicians.  They are the ones doing the "asking."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 26, 2019 by smac97

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

#MeToo

Given how you've responded to me, I don't see how you could #MeToo that.  You've written that Mormon 7:4 enjoins putting away the weapons of war for all, yet this statement that you've MeTooed says:

"Latter-day Saints in the military do not need to feel torn between their country and their God. In the Church, “we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12). Military service shows dedication to this principle."

In other word, Latter-day Saints should be fine with taking up the weapons of war, and even says "Then, if they are required to shed another’s blood, their action will not be counted as a sin."

UNLESS - I have completely misunderstood what you said about Mormon 7:4.  Though it seemed pretty darned clear.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Isn't your general opposition to capital punishment is counter-scriptural?  Genesis 9:5 - "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."  This has been a standing law unto man from the beginning. It wasn't introduced by the Mosaic Law, and thus wasn't rescinded by the new covenant when Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses (and more than the 10 Commandments were rescinded).  So opposing capital punishment is counter-scriptural, it seems to me.

FWIW, I have more or less transitioned to opposition to capital punishment.  Not because I believe it is immoral, but because our legal system does such a crappy job at utilizing it.  See here:

Quote

As of October 2015, we have executed over 1,414 individuals in this country since 1976. 156 individuals have been exonerated from death row--that is, found to be innocent and released - since 1973.  In other words, for every 10 people who have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., one person has been set free.

These 156 exonerees bear witness to the fact that we have made grave mistakes in the application of the death penalty. 

As Freddie Lee Pitts put it (same link): “You can release an innocent man from prison, but you can’t release him from the grave.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Mark Beesley said:

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I sleep peaceably in my bed at night because . .  oh brother, why bother? Have a nice, peaceable life relying on the violence of rough men.

You sleep peaceably in your bed at night because of 911 and the fear amongst the lawless of what it might summon (e.g. the "rough men", or in other words, the police). 

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Rough" has a variety of definitions, including "acting with or characterized by violence" (as in "Boxing is a rough sport").

Having previously served in uniform, I am very grateful that I never had to kill another human being.  But I trained to do it, and I prepared myself emotionally and spiritually against such a possibility.  That preparation changed me.  I became "rough" not because I acted with violence, but because I trained for, and was willing to resort to, violence.

I have a friend in law enforcement.  He is "rough" in the sense that he is willing to resort to violence to stop bad guys.  Our society needs people who are willing to do that.  They do it under the color of law, and as ethically and prudently as possible, but they do it.  And I am grateful for it.

Quelle surprise.

I don't even respect everyone in the Church, and yet I remain a member of it and love it a lot.  That love is not diminished because of the misconduct of some of its members.

Again: "The men and women who honorably serve in the military and in law enforcement deserve our gratitude and respect."  Surely you can at least agree with that?

And the factual and evidentiary basis for your denunciation of the bulk of our brothers and sisters in military and law enforcements is . . . what, exactly?

Sounds fine.

As compared to the bloodthirsty and hopelessly depraved men and women of law enforcement, "most of" whom in your view lack "a moral compass?"

While simultaneously slandering "most of them" as lacking "a moral compass?"  How is that respect/gratitude?

Which speaks to the morality of politicians.  They are the ones doing the "asking."

Thanks,

-Smac

The quote you used was a paraphrase of Orwell. The paraphrase was probably based on Orwell’s comments on a poem by Kipling. Here is a bit of what Orwell said:

“He sees clearly that men can only be highly civilized while other men, inevitably less civilized, are there to guard and feed them.”

“A humanitarian is always a hypocrite, and Kipling’s understanding of this is perhaps the central secret of his power to create telling phrases. It would be difficult to hit off the one-eyed pacifism of the English in fewer words than in the phrase, ‘making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep’.”

The Kipling poem was about soldiers being barred from a tavern due to their drunken behavior. It sounds more like license for soldiers to be less civilized and unruly because of the job they do. I doubt you agree with the original intent of the source of that quotation.

Yes, those who honorably serve deserve gratitude and respect though I do not in this case mean everyone who was “honorably discharged”. I already said that explicitly so not sure why you asked.

Why do I think most of them lack a strong moral compass? Seriously? Have you lived in this world? Heard the apostles teach us of the prevalent wickedness of our day? I would ask on what factual basis you would suggest that law enforcement and the military are a bastion of virtue from the general trend of the times? If you want to be offended on their behalf for that conclusion go nuts. I believe it about virtually every occupation. I sometimes suspect the flaw in myself.

Not just the morality of the politicians but also those who elect and influence them. Part of the justice of the principle of democracy as King Mosiah taught is that if it goes bad there is plenty of blame to share.

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Mark Beesley said:

This ad hominem did nothing but distract from your argument.

Easily distracted are you?  

Edited to add:  Sorry about that, @Mark Beesley, it happened a number of years ago and it bugs me to this day (I guess I get distracted by it).  It's not an ad hominem, as far as I understand the term -- it's not directed at you, but I realize now that it might have seemed to imply something about you I didn't intend, and that I certainly don't believe.  It's connected closely to that scripture and whenever it comes up it reminds me how this guy broke up two families with his selfishness -- that had only vague connection with with his understanding of the scripture, but the circumstances triggered me.  Sometimes I am my own worst enemy.  I apologize for bringing it up!

Edited July 26, 2019 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You sleep peaceably in your bed at night because of 911 and the fear amongst the lawless of what it might summon (e.g. the "rough men", or in other words, the police). 

The great “open secret” of law enforcement is that almost all of its actions are palliative and after the fact. They investigate more crimes then they prevent. Most crime is prevented by social rules. Almost no criminal believes they will be caught. Fear is a poor motivator for behavior.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The quote you used was a paraphrase of Orwell.

Yes.  It is often attributed to him, but it is at best a paraphrase.  We don't really know who coined it.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why do I think most of them lack a strong moral compass?  Seriously?  Have you lived in this world? 

Seriously?

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Heard the apostles teach us of the prevalent wickedness of our day?

And yet the men and women in law enforcement and the military are overwhelmingly honest in their conduct and deportment.

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would ask on what factual basis you would suggest that law enforcement and the military are a bastion of virtue from the general trend of the times? 

They are held to high standards of behavior and deportment, and are closely supervised.  And they are asked to put themselves in harm's way.  And they overwhelmingly strive to adhere to the Rules of Engagement and other provisions governing combat.

To be sure, the Word of Wisdom (drinking and tobacco) and the Law of Chastity (ahem...) both take a beating in the military.  But the same can be said for most of the world, can it not?

In the aggregate, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of law enforcement and the military.  They are not perfect.  I do not claim that.  But they are willing to put their lives on the line for me and mine.  And for that they have my gratitude.  "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."  (John15:13) 

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If you want to be offended on their behalf for that conclusion go nuts. I believe it about virtually every occupation. I sometimes suspect the flaw in myself.

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The great “open secret” of law enforcement is that almost all of its actions are palliative and after the fact. They investigate more crimes then they prevent. Most crime is prevented by social rules.

And one of the main reasons "social rules" prevent crime is . . . fear of the "rough men."

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Almost no criminal believes they will be caught.

But many non-criminals are in that category because they do believe they will be caught.

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Fear is a poor motivator for behavior.

And yet sometimes, particularly in the extremes, it's all we've got.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I justify them.  I am grateful for and respect the men and women who take up arms in the military and in law enforcement.

For me, "rough" means a willingness to kill, and to be killed, in defense of one's country / society, and in defense of civilians / the innocent.

Captain Moroni, for example, was a "rough man."  I would not, however, attribute to him a "moral coarseness about violence."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Most of the definitions of rough do not match yours and I think my reading of the quote is more accurate to the original intent of whoever coined it.

I am not as optimistic as you. I do not respect everyone in the military or in law enforcement. They are dangerous jobs and I respect and a am grateful to those who do them well with a moral compass guiding them but I do not think that constitutes most of them. I avoided those careers mostly because I think I could like violence too much. I learned how to fight well primarily to try to curb that impulse.

Captain Moroni was a hero mostly for his hatred of killing and his paradoxical love for the Lamanites who he called his “brethren”. Anyone who can do the same I will respect and be grateful for. I think one of the best ways to show that gratitude is not to ask them to risk their lives for me unless it is important. In that respect I think the western world is failing.

The "quote" about "rough men" above is often attributed to George Orwell (of 1984 and Animal Farm fame). But he didn't actually write it.  Another writer later attributed that sentiment in those words, to Orwell, without actually quoting him. Which then went "viral" as an Orwell quote.

One thing that Orwell did actually write on the subject was this, in a definition of pacifism:

"PACIFISM: Those who “abjure” violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf."

Which has also been rendered: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."  Which probably comes closest to what Orwell actually meant.

I read about this HERE

 

 

[Mark Beesley]

 I do not to judge those who serve in the military. My father served. One of my sons served.

 Having been of age to be drafted and sent to Vietnam during the war, it scared me to death that I might have to kill someone. I probably would have done so, and I will be forever grateful that I never did. If called upon now to do so, I would refuse.

“For whosoever shall save his life shall lose it, and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.”

For those who need clarification, and them I am done, I  sleep peaceably at night because I trust in God.  The freedoms and liberties I enjoy come of God, not man.

The opening post was intended to provoke thought and careful reflection. Like most endeavors in my life, I failed. 

Welcome to the internet.

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It is often attributed to him, but it is at best a paraphrase.  We don't really know who coined it.

In the article I found, it says: "The earliest known matching statement appeared in a column in the Washington Times newspaper written by the film critic and essayist Richard Grenier in 1993"

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  It is often attributed to him, but it is at best a paraphrase.  We don't really know who coined it.

Seriously?

And yet the men and women in law enforcement and the military are overwhelmingly honest in their conduct and deportment.

They are held to high standards of behavior and deportment, and are closely supervised.  And they are asked to put themselves in harm's way.  And they overwhelmingly strive to adhere to the Rules of Engagement and other provisions governing combat.

To be sure, the Word of Wisdom (drinking and tobacco) and the Law of Chastity (ahem...) both take a beating in the military.  But the same can be said for most of the world, can it not?

In the aggregate, I have tremendous respect for the men and women of law enforcement and the military.  They are not perfect.  I do not claim that.  But they are willing to put their lives on the line for me and mine.  And for that they have my gratitude.  "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."  (John15:13) 

I am reminded here of Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."

Thanks,

-Smac

The first recorded use of a form of the quote was in a newspaper and it was specifically labeled a paraphrase of Orwell.

I am not overwhelmed by their honesty in their conduct and deportment.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Mark Beesley said:

The opening post was intended to provoke thought and careful reflection. Like most endeavors in my life, I failed. 

With respect, NO, it didn't fail.  

I don't know about anyone else, but I got a lot of thought and reflection out of it.  Got a little heated under the collar, too, for which I apologize, as it probably shines forth.

I still want to get the provenance about that story of the two LDS soldiers who were executed for what amounts to trivial and illegal reasons.  I remember hearing it, and believing it, until much later it began to sound fishier and fishier.