2 Shenanigans 6:10 Thou shalt fight wars.
Posted by Ryan on July 25th, 2006I would post a picture but Blogger is being finicky. I’ll add it later
Albert Einstein when confronted with his seemingly conflicting pacifist preaching and his support of going to war against Hitler said:
“I am indeed a pacifist, but not a pacifist at any price. My views are virtually identical with those of Gandhi. But I would, individually and collectively resist violently any attempt to kill me or to take away from me, or my people, the basic means of subsistence.”
That seems fair enough in my mind. We should always seek for peace - but there are times when war is justified, perhaps even righteous.
Consider, for example, Captain Moroni and his Title of Liberty, which he used to gather together a large army to go to battle.
Consider that Ecclesiastes 3:8 declares, “there is…a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.
The scriptures are filled to the brim with wars and it is not uncommon for the Lord to support one army over another, not just spiritually but in a supernatural and physical way (see: Stripling Warriors)
Compare these examples to the teachings of Christ:
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.”
And of the Lord through Joseph Smith
D&C 98:16 Therefore, arenounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to bturn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;
Are we therefore commanded to be like Professor Einstein? Should we renounce war but be willing to defend ourselves, violently if necessary?
I engaged in a discussion over at Purim in which I cited Captain Moroni and his willingness to fight. The response from Mike Kessler was thus:
“The scale of modern warfare is ramped up absurdly high now. I think the lessons learned in the BoM concerning Captain Moroni would be different if he had employed drone airplanes doing extensive carpet-bombing.”
I didn’t respond to this argument at the time although I later considered that the scale of modern warfare actually seems to be ratcheted down rather than up. Consider the absolute slaughter of hundreds of thousands of warriors, the raping and pillaging of the innocent by the victors and the inhumane punishments exacted on POW in civilizations past. It seems to me that the more technologically and culturally advanced we become, the toll of war diminishes. Even in this latest conflict between the Israelis and Hezbollah.. the property destruction is astonishing yes.. but what of the body count? The only statistic I could find was from the San Francisco Chronicle reporting approximately one week ago:
“In all, the death toll on both sides rose to above 200”
Not quite the Battle for Cumorah.
I guess I am tending to believe that the gospel of Christ teaches us to love and forgive our enemies but that there are times when the Lord sees fit to say “Enough is enough, stand up and defend yourselves.” Or, as they say over at Purim. “Tyrants and Fanatics will be defeated”
Ryan,
I suspect that by this reasoning both Gandhi and Einstein would have been much more pro-war than they actually were had they the benefit of not only believing in the Bible but also the BoM.
As it is, both pretty much rejected the Bible and Gandhi in particular found Christians to be out of sync with the teachings of Jesus on the subject of war.
I personally do not find quoting scripture in support of the justice of any given war to be particularly helpful beyond justifying ones own position (something both sides tend to do). In reality this path of reasoning seems to place excessive emphasis on assumptions about the mind of god. The book (including the BoM) may suggest that some warfare was justified by god and that god may have taken sides…but how exactly do we take this information and apply it with such certainty to contemporary wars? Aren’t we actually doing what has been done in other wars? I mean, it seems to me that there is an element of religious justification throughout the history of war and on both sides of war…which really seems contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the BoM’s just war doctrine. How do we know that this war is different from any other war? That our convictions about its justification before god are any different?
Finally, in the context of Purim…defeating tyrants and fanatics would most likely not refer to doing so via the brutality of war. In my mind (and I’m not speaking for my fellow Purim bloggers) war itself is not only caused by, but conducted and perpetuated by tyrants and fanatics. We don’t defeat them by playing their game but by banishing war and proclaiming peace.
Comment # 1 left by Matt Elggren on July 25th, 2006
Furthermore, I don’t think it’s really fair to use the BoM’s depiction of the final Nephite battle in comparison with what Mike Kessler said about modern warfare. For one thing, that battle was not of the type that Mike was referring to, nor that the BoM justifies (that waged by Cpt Moroni). For another, the true modern equivalent would be unlimited nuclear warfare…this is obviously “ramped-up”.
But some are seeking to compare this contemporary warfare with that waged by Cpt Moroni…and this comparison ignores the fact that the BoM does not justify the slaughter of innocent civilians even after the Lamanites had come upon the Nephite villages and done just so. To use the BoM to justify the kind of total war that now is fought today is to use the final Nephite battle in the BoM to justify war…which in fact turns the message of the BoM on its head.
Comment # 2 left by Matt Elggren on July 25th, 2006
Whew, you covered a lot of bases there Matt!
Let’s see if I can get to everything..
I personally do not find quoting scripture in support of the justice of any given war to be particularly helpful
I agree that it is unfair to say that because Capt. Moroni did such and such, invading Iraq is therefore the will of the Lord.
I did not mean to imply endorsement of any recent war. I meant to ask whether or not the Lord wants us to believe that war is never the answer or if He is trying to show us through the example of others that although we are to do our best to find peace, we should not feel guilty if we are forced into war.
but how exactly do we take this information and apply it with such certainty to contemporary wars?
Revelation.
We don’t defeat them by playing their game but by banishing war and proclaiming peace.
Their “game” is not just to have wars for fun. Their “game” is genocide, domination, tyranny, rape, theft, secret combinations. I am unfamiliar with any tyrant who was put down by a refusal to engage them in their game. If I remember correctly, Neville Chamberlain has gone down as one of Hitler’s greatest enablers. His reluctance to fight a dictator cost a lot of lives.
the true modern equivalent would be unlimited nuclear warfare
How could the true modern equivalent be unlimited nuclear warfare? Of all the wars in the “modern era” not a single one has involved a nuclear blast. I think it’s a much fairer statement to say that modern warfare is characterized by smart bombs, drones, satellites, radar, precision strikes and all the other technologies that are specifically designed to cripple a nations ability to fight with a minimum of casualties.
I feel I need to re-emphasize that I am not trying to make a case for unbridled belligerence. I am asking what the scriptures and all their war stories are trying to teach us.
Comment # 3 left by Ryan on July 25th, 2006
“I meant to ask whether or not the Lord wants us to believe that war is never the answer”
I agree that the answer is not “never”…however, I think in the contiuum between always and never it’s probably much, much closer to rarely if ever.
“Revelation.”
Of course, in anything short of an unquestionable theocracy the role of revelation in war-making must be vigorously questioned.
“I am unfamiliar with any tyrant who was put down by a refusal to engage them in their game. If I remember correctly, Neville Chamberlain has gone down as one of Hitler’s greatest enablers. His reluctance to fight a dictator cost a lot of lives.”
Ol’ Neville gets too much credit for being the best example of the results of diplomacy and peace-seeking in the face of belligerence. It’s just as easy and perhaps more meaningful to say that in his particular case and his particular approach the results were undesirable…but it’s a mistake to make him the poster-child for all cases of seeking peaceful ways and means. In a way its rather like blaming the last person holding the ball when the buzzer sounds for losing the game.
As for your not ever hearing of tyrants and fanatics being put down by refusing to play the game…well, you haven’t heard of too many because they don’t tend to go out in flames, rather their power dwindles and they disappear. What I’m really talking about here is the idea that the only way to truly kill your enemy is to make them your friend. You know, that idea that love casteth out fear? Going to war is quite the opposite…it feeds the tyrant and fanatic and it creates more enemies…it perpetuates the future of war.
“Of all the wars in the “modern era” not a single one has involved a nuclear blast…”
And I didn’t say that the modern era of war constitutes nuclear blasts, rather that the final Nephite war was the equivalent of unlimited nuclear war. Same kind of results, global scale.
“I feel I need to re-emphasize that I am not trying to make a case for unbridled belligerence. I am asking what the scriptures and all their war stories are trying to teach us.”
I don’t think you’re trying to make the case for unbridled belligerence either…but it does seem to me that you’re making a case for more justified/god-directed war scenarios than the NT and BoM support. And you seem overly concerned with those who preach peace as being not supported by the NT and BoM.
This is just my impression.
Comment # 4 left by Matt Elggren on July 25th, 2006
but it does seem to me that you’re making a case for more justified/god-directed war scenarios
True enough… but only because I think there is a case to be made, I don’t feel like any of the arguments I am making are a stretch. Your counters are well-reasoned although I am not convinced that war is so rarely the best solution.
If you really want trip me up on that though, point out events like JFK’s handling of the cuban missile crisis, there was an example of aggressive “diplomacy” at it’s finest. The more I consider it, the more I think I might agree with the argument made back at Purim that diplomacy is under-utilized. I usually envision diplomacy as an effort to “make nice”. I wasn’t considering the kind of hardball diplomacy that Kennedy was playing during that time.
you seem overly concerned with those who preach peace as being not supported by the NT and BoM.
Actually my pro-war arguments find no safe harbor in the NT. I found my support only in the BoM and the OT.
Comment # 5 left by Ryan on July 25th, 2006
I think Captain Moroni and the people of Ammon make an interesting contrast. I just don’t think we will find black and white answers to match every situation.
Comment # 6 left by Eric Nielson on July 26th, 2006