Pacifism
Posted by Yam on December 30th, 2006
I saw a sadly common thought on a recent post, and thought it’d be worth making a top-level post about it. Here’s a link to the actual comment, and here’s the text:
What a moral trainwreck.
It’s really strange to me how wimpy and mindless LDS people turn when they start talking about forgiveness and Hitler. It’s as if they achieved some high idealistic mystical state, that they can turn off all faculties and judgment and be prepared to forget all the millions of victims (men, women and children) and forgive one of the cruelest killers of all time. When you encounter a person like that, it’s a moral imperative to kill him. It would actually be immoral to start gushing about forgiveness and not hating and being really nice and pondering every potential exigent circumstance.
No. You execute him. On the spot. With whatever is handy. Hopefully there’s a rope, a beam and a chair nearby. Or a knife. Or a gun. Doesn’t really matter.
I don’t quite know what to say to that. It’s just wrong.
It actually requires a great deal of strength to pursue peace. It’s not easy–our animal instincts tell us to snarl and strike back at those who are doing wrong. But it’s the right thing to do.
Can you picture Jesus Christ wielding a rope, or a beam, or a chair? How about President Hinkley? Or one of the twelve? You have to get pretty low in the church organization before you can imagine someone who’d espouse such thoughts.
If it’s not right for Jesus to do it, it’s not moral for us to do it.
In an extraordinary situation, it may be necessary to kill, particularly when defending ourselves–although even then, leaving the area is usually possible, making it a better option. Killing might be the lesser sin, but it’s always a sin, something to regret and apologize for. There can unfortunately be no restitution.
I’m sure everyone’s familiar with the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies from The Book of Mormon, but I’ll link to it anyway, just to reinforce the point that killing is always a sin.
Joseph Smith himself struggled mightily with this, you know. One of the things I got from Bushman’s biography of him was how driven he was by nineteenth century honor, which demanded duals of honor and taking one’s rights at the point of a gun.
The world will always need warriors. We just don’t need executioners.
WHAT!!??!!
That is a gross misapplication of the history of the people of Anti-Nephi-Lehi. The point if that story is “DO NOT BREAK YOUR COVENANTS.” However, their sons (the 2000 stripling warriors) were under NO condemnation for killing their enemies. Killing is NOT “always a sin.” The story of king Saul is instructive: he was under condemnation for SPARING lives, thus he was removed from power.
That being said, the person you quoted was also completely off base. We don’t do the temple work for monsters like Hitler because it seems likely he’ll be exalted, or because we are okay with his crimes, we do it because it must be done for EVERYONE or God would be unjust. However, IMO, temple work for people like him could wait until the Millenium because it really is a P.R. nightmare.
By the way, Jesus DID wield a rope. (And I’m fairly sure that Thomas S. Monson is a kung fu master…)
Comment # 1 left by Latter-day Guy on December 30th, 2006
1) I am opposed to capital punishment.
2) I am opposed to misusing scripture. You are guilty of this when you link to the Anti-Nephi-Lehis: they made a covenant never to kill again because they had killed unjustly in the past. In other words, they were over-compensating for sins.
To be frank, I couldn’t tell whether this post was sarcastic. Quoting Anti-Nephi-Lehis as being anti-war and then ignoring Helaman’s war campaign is just too obvious an omission that I find it hard to believe it wasn’t intended. But then I have a hard time understanding the sarcasm in the rest of the post.
Comment # 2 left by BrianJ on December 30th, 2006
Hey, thanks for the clarification on the story of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis–I’d read it differently, but going back to it, I think you guys are right.
I still think the main point of the post stands without that paragraph. Anyone want to try arguing otherwise? That killing is acceptable even when there are other options, that it’s what Jesus would do? (Enlighten me!
I tend to avoid sarcasm; there’s nothing holy in it. A sharp wit doesn’t show that you’re right; it just shows that you’re clever; I’ve known a number of clever-yet-not-so-good people. In fact, it’s pretty rare that good thoughts are expressed via sarcasm, so maybe it’s not even all that clever, if you have something useful to say.
Comment # 3 left by Yam on December 31st, 2006
Very little is ever solved by violence. Those who win have an image problem and resentment of the masses. Some of the greatest gains the past few decades have all been the result of non-violent methods of civil disobedience, something which takes much more faith and courage.
Even as this has occured, this past century has been the bloodiest in history. It’s sad really.
Comment # 4 left by Doc on December 31st, 2006
That quoted comment is mine. I don’t regret the comment at all.
Mercy should not be extended to a tyrant who kills millions of people.
Comment # 5 left by danithew on December 31st, 2006
Also, I agree with the comment that says the Anti-Nephi-Lehis were not pacifists. They weren’t.
The Anti-Nephi-Lehi’s provided support to the Nephite war effort by providing supplies to the Nephite armies. They also taught their sons to fight with faith and valor. And fight they did, like dragons (against evil adversaries).
Comment # 6 left by danithew on December 31st, 2006
Yam,
The problem with your question is that there are ALWAYS other options to killing. When it comes down to it, even in a life and death situation you could always choose to lay down your life. I would even go so far as to say that sometimes that might be the right response. (I can’t imagine such a situation, but I allow for its possibility.)
Thus, the fact that Jehovah commanded killing in the OT and BOM says that, yes, it IS what Jesus would do, even though he had other options (an all-powerful being usually would have lots of options). That is why the Nephi/Laban story is a hard one. The Lord could have had Nephi gotten the plates in a different way. Lots of different ways. Still, he commanded killing, and not even a terribly honorable killing: Laban was incapacitated at the time.
For a mortal to have ordered this would be in some ways more problematic, however, you can see the issues we have got to deal with while reconciling like actions with our conception of an omni-benevolent, omnipotent deity.
Short answer: Yes, sometimes killing IS what Jesus would do, even when there are other options. Why? I have no idea. But the most dangerous doctrine Joseph Smith ever preached was that whatever God commanded was right, even if it stands our prevailing mores and ethics on their head. (Bushman makes some great comments about this in Rough Stone Rolling.)
Comment # 7 left by Latter-day Guy on December 31st, 2006
A few related quotes:
My thoughts:
1. I am for capital punishment if administered correctly and with proper justice.
2. I feel that certain punishments, including capital punishment, will only be properly administered under the theocratic government with Christ reigns.
3. I agree with Danithew about not granting mercy to men such as Hitler. To repeat a comment I made on the other thread, “Forgiveness does not necessarily equal amnesty.” We are commanded to forgive these men (and all men) since we are not in a position to stand as their judge, yet we can and should support the justice that should be meted to them based on their actions. In cases such as these tyrants, execution is merited.
4. I slightly disagree with those on this thread who have said that the ANL scripture was quoted out of context. Yes, they had made a covenant to renounce murder, but they would not have done so if they thought murder was kosher. While understanding that murder is in some cases necessary (e.g. defense, c.f. the McKay quote above for three acceptable reasons), they also preferred not to shed blood and therefore completely renounced the barbaric practice. While murder is justified in defense circumstances, I don’t believe it is condoned. We should sue for peace, and not jump on every opportunity to uphold justice, promote defense, and slaughter our brothers and sisters.
5. Best line of Yam’s post: The world will always need warriors. We just don’t need executioners. I think this is in harmony with our call to fight the Lord’s fight, but final judgment and verdict is His responsibility.
6. I’m buying a shotgun this week.
Comment # 8 left by Connor Boyack on December 31st, 2006
Yam: you commented, “I still think the main point of the post stands without that paragraph. Anyone want to try arguing otherwise? That killing is acceptable even when there are other options, that it’s what Jesus would do?”
And in the main post, you wrote:
“In an extraordinary situation, it may be necessary to kill…. Killing might be the lesser sin, but it’s always a sin, something to regret and apologize for.”
There are just too many people that I think you would view as righteous—or that at least the scriptures portray as role models—that have killed and not apologized for it. You could try this excercise: make a list of all the “good guys” in the BofM, then put a check mark next to those that killed someone. Nephi, check; Moroni, check; etc. I think you’ll end up with a list that convinces you that you need to rethink your post.
The BofM shows many different correct ways to respond to threats of violence; then it is for us to decide how those apply to us in our specific situations.
Comment # 9 left by BrianJ on December 31st, 2006
By the way, I am arguing a case for war and killing but I would consider myself a pacifist (in some ways). And I don’t agree with danithew or Connor.
Comment # 10 left by BrianJ on December 31st, 2006
Personally, I think anyone who relies on the Book of Mormon to give either a gung-ho freedom fries pro-war argument or a peace-out make love not war pacificst argument is treading on thin ice. The Anti-Nephi-Lehis (who *do* in my opinion present a clear pacifist model even if their circumstances weren’t universal — but then show me the circumstances of war or peace anywhere that are universal) stand juxtaposed right next to Captain Moroni’s righteous warrior model for a reason in my view. That reason is that we’re not supposed to pick up a one-size-fits-all answer, but that we’re supposed to understand these are tough circumstances (the sort of tough situations we were sent to earth to encounter and learn how to face down), and that the key is seeking the guidance of God himself through study, thought, and fervent prayer for the answers to specific circumstances.
Comment # 11 left by NonArab-Arab on December 31st, 2006
It actually requires a great deal of strength to pursue peace. It’s not easy–our animal instincts tell us to snarl and strike back at those who are doing wrong. But it’s the right thing to do.
One way to pursue peace is to eliminate the cause of the problem. I don’t think the average Al Qaida member will be open to negotiations.
Can you picture Jesus Christ wielding a rope, or a beam, or a chair? How about President Hinkley? Or one of the twelve? You have to get pretty low in the church organization before you can imagine someone who’d espouse such thoughts.
Rope, beam & chair, no. Earthquakes, tempests, pillars of fire, foreign armies and floods, yes. These sort of treatments for evildoers are some of the oldest in the Book, and they come from the top.
Why did Nephi kill a helpless drunk the streets of Jerusalem?
You can forgive Hitler for what he did (if that’s not seventy times seven, I don’t know what is…), but that doesn’t mean you have to give him a hug and be done with it to do so.
Given someone knew without doubt about his past crimes and future intentions, I think it would be immoral to hesitate eliminating Hitler if given the opportunity.
Comment # 12 left by John Anderson on December 31st, 2006
Yam:
I admire you for sticking your neck out on this one. I appreciate your good and forgiving heart. I do think that you have been a bit absolute in your stand though.
Sometimes God says, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, other times he says, ‘ Thou shalt utterly destroy’. We need to be willing to follow the spirit in all situations. Sometimes that may be difficult. I would agree that the vast majority of the time the peaceful and nonviolent way will be the direction the spirit leads. But not every time.
I think there are times when people do not put enough emphasis on the ’sanctity of life’, and other times when people put to much on it. Eternally speaking, death is just a phase change. Passing from one stage of existance to another. Death is not an ultimate end for anyone.
Comment # 13 left by Eric Nielson on December 31st, 2006
Connor,
Re: Your comment number four –
You have confused the issue with your use of the word “murder” which, I think, most of us would define not merely as a synonym for “killing”. It is a specific kind of killing that neither properly describes war or execution. Also, I would be interested in seeing you expand your comment on justified vs. condoned; I don’t really see your point there.
By the way, what kind of shotgun?
Comment # 14 left by Latter-day Guy on December 31st, 2006
I think what Nephi and the ANLs teach us is that we should never revel in taking life. We should always show a deep reverence for life, and great fear in taking life unnecessarily. Nephi shirked from the command to kill Laban; it took great convincing by God to finally accept that unusual request from heaven. The ANLs didn’t want to risk staining their swords. They would rather die than risk making the mistake of wrongly spilling blood. There are other examples in the Book of Mormon of the attitude of Christlike souls — that of respecting life, not delighting in bloodshed.
Personally, while I do agree with comments that there are situations where capital punishment might be appropriate (the concept is supported in scripture), I think there ought to be more respect for life than the comment Yam quoted seemed to demonstrate. I don’t think we should be seeking to kill people “on the spot” except perhaps in critical moments of self-defense. We should be deeply sobered by any situation grave enough to seem to merit the loss of a life because of crimes that have been committed. We should approach any decision carefully and fearfully and fearfully, being certain it is the right thing to do. And sometimes, it will be. But I just don’t like the tone of that original comment. It seems too hasty, too eager to take a life, to ready and willing to be done with a person. And I think our attitude about this matters a great deal, because we ARE commanded to forgive ALL.
Maybe I’m reading that comment wrong, but I think there is a balance that needs to be had, and I didn’t feel that in that comment. So I can understand Yam’s reaction to it.
Comment # 15 left by Michelle on December 31st, 2006
I can’t speak for danithew, but I would guess his comment was based on hindsight. This makes all such opinions stronger and easier. I would also guess that much of it is based on a desire for justice for all the suffering that was caused, and to stop any further suffering from happening. I believe there are some righteous desires in there someplace.
I thought of another example here. It is in Alma 14, where Alma and Amulek witnessed the martyrdom of women and children by fire for their belief. Amulek tried to get Alma to stretch forth his hands and exercise the power of God to save them from the flames (v10). Alma refuses saying the ’spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth my hand’ (v11). Alam explain that the innocent who were dying were being received by God in glory, and wrath of God will eventually supply the justice.
I think this provides another balancing example here. As always, follow the spirit. We will not always know the will of God in such things.
Comment # 16 left by Eric Nielson on January 1st, 2007
“Can you picture Jesus Christ wielding a rope, or a beam, or a chair? ”
Considering what he did at the Cleansing of the Temple, yes I can - although perhaps not all at once as executioner. I will submit that would go against his mission on Earth. Perhaps it was far from killing, but it was violence. He taught that the Kingdom of God was to built up with peace, but he also warned the apostles to arm themselves. Some got the wrong impression and presented Jesus with the violence option - it was far from unheard of in that time - and he rebuked them.
Killing in the name of defense is considered acceptable. Even the Doctrine and Covenants gives “rules of engagement” in a revelation. We must seek for peace, if we can, even while we fight. However, the Book of Mormon makes it plain, as has been explained, that Capital Punishment is often seen as the way to peace, if not justice. I will go with the “there is no easy answers” one way or the other. To say that All is peace or All is war simply represents politicizing things in the cloak of spirituality.
Comment # 17 left by Jettboy on January 1st, 2007
I find it interesting that Hitler is always mentioned as the main mass-murderer of the 20th century. Hitler was a distant third place behind Mao and Stalin.
See: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
and:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM
Comment # 18 left by Bookslinger on January 1st, 2007
Bookslinger: I assume that Hitler is the “devil-of-choice” in America because we fought against him, in contrast to our dealings with Mao and Stalin. Who are the “devils-of-choice” in other parts of the world? I don’t know, but that could test my hypothesis. (I’m guessing that in Korea it is Emperor Hirohito, and I will have to ask my Korean friend.)
Comment # 19 left by BrianJ on January 1st, 2007
I believe there are some righteous desires in there someplace.
I’m sure that is true…it just came across pretty strong. I agree with you, Eric, about the balance thing.
Comment # 20 left by Michelle on January 1st, 2007
Bookslinger: I asked my Korean coworker today, without any introduction, “Who would Koreans pick as the most evil person ever?” Shyly—but without hesitation—she responded, “Hirohito.”
I asked if they ever talked about Hitler and she replied, “Only because he’s in all the movies.”
Comment # 21 left by BrianJ on January 2nd, 2007
Ooh, ooh a hot-button topic, I love these! I’m a total nutjob when it comes to this kind of stuff. I’m a war-mongering pacifist. I’d kill someone just to get a little peace… (and quiet)! Anyway, silly sarcasm aside, we should ALWAYS strive for peaceful ways to solve problems. However, we should be prepared to fight if no peaceful means are left to us.
God commanded Nephi to kill Laban (who even in his God-fearing obedient self wished to stay his hand). While the poor schlub was passed out drunk no less. The whole better one man die than a nation perish in unbelief kind of deal. When I first read that story I prayed and prayed and prayed that the Lord would never put me in that situation as it would be too much for me to bear.
Yet, I shed no tears when I read that Saddam had been executed. I believe there is such a thing as righteous anger. The wicked cannot be allowed to trample upon the innocent. It is an affront to God. However, I also know that God would NEVER ask us to bring violence to the table when a peaceful solution could be found. God does not want his children to suffer. However, we seem to do just fine on our own in that department.
The real answer I think is this. It is okay, if in righteousness you take another’s life. HOWEVER, it is never your place to condemn a soul as only God will decide that. So, as was mentioned before the work will be done for all. The reason? Only God knows a person’s heart. We, on the other hand, can only determine someone’s character by their actions. Temporary justice is in our hands, eternal justice belongs to Him.
Comment # 22 left by cew-smoke on January 2nd, 2007
1) I am against capital punishment. I think it goes against the atonement of Christ.
I do not buy for one minute that Christ said it was OK to kill others. You just do not find that in the text. Secondly, the Lord is explicit throughout the BoM that war (i.e. violence) was due to the sins of the people. ( more specifically the Nephites. 1NE: 2:20-24) Thus when we are at war we have to look at our own sins that have put us in that position. This commandment of prospering in the land is given throughout the BoM. Anytime there is violence in the BoM it is due to Nephite sin. And Yes captain Moroni’s famous call to arms is due to the sin of the Nephites. If they were not in sin they would not need to call for arms. Ant-Nephi Lamonites made a non-violence covenant that they were willing to break. Sure the principal of breaking a covenant is serious, but do you not think that God is just as concerned for the effect of such violence would have on such people? Just read the BoM all the way through and see what Moroni thinks about violence. Such sin lead to destruction of his people. (In the big picture of things Capt. Moroni “holy war” did not change the people’s ways. The grand children and great grand children of the sons of Heleman did not benefit from their grandfather’s “righteous anger”. They fell away. How much more impact do you think that they would have on their descendents had if they had taken the oath of their parents? Do you not think that the Anti-Nephi-lamenites anti-war covenant did not play a big role in the formation of the admired values of the sons of Helamen? I personally feel that that covenant is what made their children so unique and noble. The BoM says that their righteousness is due to their parents teachings- i.e. non-violence.
Where in 3rd Nephi and in the gospels do you see Jesus command violence? The OT is full of violence, and it is obvious that they did not get Jesus. If they did then Jesus would not need to come to the people to reveal the Father to them. They would have already got it.
As for Nephi and Laban, Do you not think that in the reading that he had second thoughts about his action? Does his rationalization “is it not better for one to perish then for a nation to fall into unbelief ” sound very similar to the Jewish High Priest’s rationalization of murdering Jesus? Does not the gospel condemn that logic?
My brother just got back from Iraq and his experiences and the death to our soldiers, his friends and to Iraqis he said was terrible. He said it is just senseless violence. No good is coming from it.
I understand our concern to rid the world of wickedness. May I ask whose wickedness? I feel a lot of times righteous anger belongs to the victor and the wickedness belongs to the victim or defeated. Do you not think that the Jews thought that Jesus’ execution was righteous anger? I wonder if the women and children of Cannon who were bludgeoned to death in genocide felt that Joshua was serving righteous anger. If Hitler would have won would his holocaust been a righteous anger? I know that forgiving is a hard thing to do, and in a world so committed to violence it is hard to rid ourselves of our “sacred violence” like capital punishment in fear that our order and since of justice will be robbed.
I find it interesting that God Himself would rather come to earth and die a horrible death then to see you or I suffer. When Jesus climbs on the cross he is metaphorically saying: “Look what Father is doing so that you do not have to suffer. ” Christ exposed that it is our demands of justice that demand His death. It was our need of justice that caused him to pay for the sins of others. I wonder how many victims we throw under our bus of sacred violence so that we feel like our justice is served.
Comment # 23 left by John on January 3rd, 2007
I’ve gotta go with Yam on this one. I cannot picture Christ wielding a rope, chair, switchblade, broken bottle or anything else. I have a hard time picturing him cleansing the temple, though somehow I think it wasn’t what the media makes us think it was–a raucous thrashing of the patrons & merchants set to some kind of industrial or hard core music.
You can find exceptions of course. Some prophets killed. Jehovah ordered people to kill. We have young men who go off to war and kill.
But Yam’s point remains: You’re walking down the street. You see 117 year old Hiltler who somehow survived shooting himself. You do or you do not grab something and hit him with it. Answer? You do not.
I don’t think Yam was arguing for or against capital punishment, pacifism or revelatory death orders. He’s just saying that bloodthirstiness, even directed at malevolent dictators, isn’t Chirstlike.
All those in favor?
Comment # 24 left by Joel Dehlin on January 3rd, 2007
But Yam’s point remains: You’re walking down the street. You see 117 year old Hiltler who somehow survived shooting himself. You do or you do not grab something and hit him with it. Answer? You do not.
I like how you made the rubber hit the road here. What a vivid example of what we really should be about — love, compassion and forgiveness. Thanks for hitting that home, Joel.
Comment # 25 left by Michelle on January 4th, 2007
Interesting point Joel.
I still think the spirit is the director here, with Nephi/Laban as the example. This is an exceptional example, but so is the post.
Timing may be important too. Finding Hitler today in some nursing home and executing him after the fact in many ways is pointless (unless he were continuing to give execution orders himself). The spirit might lead someone to do a different thing if they were to come across him when he is on the verge of giving an exectution order himself for thousands of people. This would not be bloodthirstiness, but actively preventing it.
Yet again, the spirit stopped Alma and Amulek from putting a stop to executions of innocents by fire.
One ought to do what the spirit says.
Comment # 26 left by Eric Nielson on January 4th, 2007
Part of this also makes me wonder. Is there a personality difference between Jehova and Jesus?
hmmmm.
Comment # 27 left by Eric Nielson on January 4th, 2007
A long time ago I wrote a T&S guest-post on the subject of wrathful Jehovah and merciful Jesus actually being one and the same person. Anyone who can’t picture Jesus being violent should probably read the chapters that precede 3 Nephi chapter 11.
You can read the post I wrote. It is titled Savior and Destroyer.
Comment # 28 left by danithew on January 4th, 2007
Thanks for the link danithew. I WAS thinking of posting on this in the near future. Perhaps something else.
I do think the personality of Jesus is perhaps more broad than we think.
Comment # 29 left by Eric Nielson on January 4th, 2007
“He’s just saying that bloodthirstiness, even directed at malevolent dictators, isn’t Chirstlike.
All those in favor?”
Raising my right hand, I have to say that I’m surprised again at the vehemence fo some of the answers on this topic, just as I was on the original thread (Forgiving Tyrants). Violence, retribution, and, therefore, war are very hot topics in our society right now, highly politicized and therefore greatly hyped in talk radio, the news media, etc.
We need to remember that such earthly distinctions as red states and blue states, temporal constructs of justice, war tribunals, and other ideas that lead to high emotions have no place in a discussion of celestial doctrines like forgiveness. It’s beyond apples to oranges. We simply need to accept that they are different spheres.
In the original comment he cited, I believe that it’s the vigilante tone, with its gratuitously violent imagery that attempts to blur the lines of celestial and temporal to which Yam was objecting.
Sure, there is temporal justice, and as believers in the Articles of Faith, we sustain and uphold the laws built around that idea. We need to remember that human law is human law. Celestial law, the standard by which we will be judged in the end, though, is more internal, and it is in there, in our very hearts, that we *must* forgive. In situations like Hitler, or any other dictator who has swayed world events, whose actions affect us indirectly at best, we simply need to accept that judgement is not ours to begin with, and leave it at that.
To lash out and violate a commandment not to murder (ie celestial law) based on human law standards is simply not appropriate.
Comment # 30 left by Naiah Earhart on January 4th, 2007
You’re walking down the street. You see 117 year old Hiltler who somehow survived shooting himself. You do or you do not grab something and hit him with it
To quote the comment that started this all… what a moral trainwreck.
You have, in this conversation, casually dismissed the propensity of evil men to do evil deeds and used the principle of forgiveness as a convenient broom to sweep away the responsibility to face wickedness head on. 117 year old Hitler? Is this supposed to evoke some pity from me because he is old and frail? For Pete’s sake he was initiator of the slaughter of millions of people by proxy! I’d put that animal down in heartbeat lest the blood of another million souls found it’s way to my head.
Don’t forget about transferred culpability when standing idly by while evil deeds are done.
Comment # 31 left by General Nonsense on January 4th, 2007
Wouldn’t you say that it’s one thing to lawfully apprehend someone and see that person brought to justice, and another thing entirely to unilaterally decide yourself judge, jury, and executioner (none of which you have a viable claim to, mind you)?
I don’t think that anyone here is advocating amnesty for such a person. Bear that in mind. That would again be confusing the two spheres I mentioned above (celestial and temporal). There are temporal condemnation and consequences under the law for such crimes. Though, you have to respect and abide by both the temporal and the celestial.
GN: “and used the principle of forgiveness as a convenient broom to sweep away the responsibility to face wickedness head on.” No, it’s not about avoiding it, it’s about how you face it, and bloodthirsty anger isn’t it, and not for the sake of the other person (ie, Hitler), but for *your* sake.
I fear that this is a strange, abstract, convoluted concept/example that we’re discussing here, into which everyone is reading their own set of circumstances to defend the position that is most comfortable to them. Let’s keep that in mind, and keep everybody’s blood pressure a little lower. Contention is of the who?
So, to take it out a step, how do we balance human justice and the commandment to forgive?
Comment # 32 left by Naiah Earhart on January 4th, 2007
Naiah:
I think you are doing well to sort this out.
Up till now I have been stuck at separating what one might do if they were in position to prevent someone like Hitler from doing the things he did, and what an individual outside the circumstances should feel well after the fact.
In the case of Hitler, everthing is well after the fact. So personally It is very easy for me to feel fine about leaving things in the capable hands of God to sort out.
In the case of someone like Saddam, or someone that if action is taken then suffering might be prevented, then that is a different matter.
There seem to be times when ‘it is better that one man should perish than’…..something. Short of a ‘religious experience’ I’m not sure that a common citizen can really know what justice will really be.
As far as forgiveness, I would think the only hope is to be willing to leave judgement to God. And maybe keep a healthy separation between sin and sinner.
Comment # 33 left by Eric Nielson on January 4th, 2007
IMHO… (and sorry for not chiming in earlier; life’s been crazy busy, as usual…)
Forgiveness has a selfish component; we live happier lives when we forgive other people. That’s good enough reason to forgive right there.
There are definitely times when killing is the least bad option. But those times are few and far between, and it’s always something to regret–it’s always a bad option, even when it’s the least bad.
Human justice should have a point. It should be making the world a better place somehow. If someone’s an ongoing threat to other people, locking them up seems appropriate. But what good can it do to kill them? What’s the point? If there isn’t one, if it’s not going to actually help anyone, I’d rather leave it up to Heavenly Father.
Some people would argue that “justice”, by itself, is a good reason to kill someone. I find myself strangely down on justice these days (strange, because I’m an American, and isn’t it one of the core American values?). Restitution is great, repentance is great… but justice? I’m actually having a hard time thinking of cases where “justice”, beyond restitution, produces a result which seems good. I’m probably just tired, but “justice” so often seems to come down to “an eye for an eye until the whole world is blind”. Which is pretty sad.
Or, more simply: if person A murders person B, killing A doesn’t bring B back; no restitution will ever be sufficient. If A is an ongoing threat to society, you can remove that threat by locking A up, hopefully giving A a chance to repent in this mortal life. If A is no longer a threat (suppose he’s touched by the holy spirit, and genuinely seems sorry and tries to do what he can to help the survivors), killing A becomes a tragedy, not justice. So killing A in cold blood is wrong; I can’t think of a situation which makes it the right thing to do.
Comment # 34 left by Yam on January 5th, 2007
Early Hitler?
- Don’t shoot. Just because he’s a preacher for Satan doesn’t justify murdering him. Fight with the approapriate weapon. He shoots with words, so we shoot with words. Satan has a lot of preachers today. Some will be Hitlers. There is no way to tell yet what actions are to follow. Don’t shoot until you see the white in their eyes.
1937 Hitler? He hasn’t officially shot anyone yet (that we can prove), but you can see the white in his eyes. If the US had an assassination program in the CIA, now would be a good time to use it, and I don’t think God would blink at society opting to send him home before he can commit the mass chaos his position and actions are proving he merits removal.
And if you’re his LDS chaufer and you know what he is plotting? Harder to answer, but I’m thinking you can drive both he and you off a cliff if that’s your best option for getting him. If it is a sin, I’m thinking it’s minor given the circumstances, and repentance here may not be as hard as it was for King David. It is heroic to stop such a massive crime before it occurs, and cowardly or ill-considered not to. A rational mind could deduce that there may be no other means than assassination.
1940 Hitler?
- There’s a war going on. For heaven’s sake poison him, run him over, javalin him. Teancum would have done it! Christ may have done it as well, and would certainly not count it sin! He obviously can’t play well with others, and the Lord wants him back NOW.
117 year old Hitler?
- Don’t shoot! Justice demands it, but let the law do it if the law will. You kill to put a stop to the killing. When he is no longer a threat to anyone, man’s laws govern, and if man’s view of justice is to make him play Bingo in a stripped suit, that’s man’s problem.
In all of this can we forgive? I think so. One can forgive and still insist that justice be served. We can forgive a lost soul at the same time we are the instument for stopping a crime in progress. How can a cop live with shooting a criminal otherwise?
It seems to me that active Mormon’s familiar with scripture would universally support the death penalty in certain instances. Alma hauled Nehor to a cliff and pushed him off because he slew Giddeon. Jehovah, (i.e., Christ), commanded by way of the Law of Moses the death penalty for a host of sins - not just murder. He commanded the complete anihilation of certain groups when Joshua entered Israel because they had proven that they couldn’t “work and play well with others”, and God wanted them to come back home for their lickin’ before they got a chance to corrupt Israel.
It could be argued that Alma didn’t condone the death penalty but was merely executing the law of his society. However, I think he would support this form of justice because it does in fact deter other would be killers provided that it is administered swiftly and cleanly after due process - which in American society simply never happens.
Man is not justified in removing fellow man from the second estate but for clear and obvious reasons - and to send a message to would be killers that you’ll be hanging in 30-days like Saddam is in my mind a valid reason. However God can call whole societies home when He’s had enough of them. And He can require it at the end of our swords if He wishes.
Comment # 35 left by Mike Brown - LatterDayLogic.com on January 5th, 2007
We posted at the same time, Yam. It does seem that capital punishment should have a point. “Eye for an eye” is a lesser law, after all.
To me, there are a few good points.
1. We have too many murders in America. One reason why is clearly because the “consequences” of 3-square meals a day for life amidst their friends simply is not sufficiently motivating to prevent them from cold-blooded murder!
2. It is irrational to claim that swiftly moving from conviction to executioner for murders where there is no question who did it, and the motive is weak, wouldn’t be an effective deterent. We should be executing about 100 times more than we do now, and it should be Iraqi style! There is nothing that says they can’t still “come to Jesus” while in Spirit Prison, so we need not feel guilty about denying them a chance to repent because we aren’t. When they have proven they can’t behave in the Second Estate, sending Home the most heinous among us is RIGHT! Not just for justice, because I agree that we can define what we’ll accept as justice and if three squares and a library is the majority’s idea of justice, I’m ok with that.
But the main “point” is that their life still has at least one good purpose. To be offered up for the sake of those still in pain at their hands, and to save future lives. I guarantee if it’s done regularly and swiftly, it won’t take long for would-be killers to get the message.
“Three squares? Who cares. Hangman’s noose? I’ll call a truce!”
Taking lives saves lives!
And the last reason? I really don’t want to pay tens of thousands every year to house the scum of the earth, nor pay their scummy lawyers hundreds of thousands more to conjure up lies and loop holes that will get them off the hook.
Taking lives saves money!
Comment # 36 left by Mike Brown - LatterDayLogic.com on January 5th, 2007
The crime of murder can take place at many different levels.
I don’t feel that talking about the penalty for someone like Hitler or Saddam is the same as talking about the penalty for someone who kills in a bar fight or in the midst of a crime or whatever.
I don’t like Mike Brown’s tone in the preceding comment. I mean, if the main reason he has to support the death penalty is to save money, then I think he’s a bit addled. That’s not, in my opinion, what this is about.
Comment # 37 left by danithew on January 5th, 2007
No, you’re right. It’s not about saving money. Saving money is simply a nice side benefit of doing the right thing, so I mentioned it.
Comment # 38 left by Mike Brown - LatterDayLogic.com on January 6th, 2007
Sorry about the tone, but its all true. I guess in PC world you can’t say “scum” when talking about scum, and the truth is a bit too hard to hear. Saving money isn’t my main reason as you can see. I mention saving money only as a secondary benefit of doing the right thing.
So go do the right thing! (No, that would not be vigilanteism - unless you’re Hitler’s driver in 1937. It would be voting for people who will craft the law so that we can swiftly send the killers Home, and maybe save some lives along the way).
Comment # 39 left by Mike Brown - LatterDayLogic.com on January 6th, 2007
In an extraordinary situation, it may be necessary to kill, particularly when defending ourselves–although even then, leaving the area is usually possible, making it a better option. Killing might be the lesser sin, but it’s always a sin, something to regret and apologize for. There can unfortunately be no restitution.
This brought to mind Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ 1992 Conference Talk where he shares a very personal example of how the Lord’s protecting care had “shielded me from the evil acts of others and has also protected me from surrendering to my own worst impulses”. Basically it’s 1970, late night Chicago, a young man with a gun tries to rob and repeated threatens to kill Elder Oaks. During this standoff, a city bus comes along and Elder Oaks senses a chance to wrestle the gun away from the young man with the distraction. This is the part of the story that stays with me:
Certainly this is one of those cases where it would be legally justifiable if the young man were shot, something Elder Oaks would have definitely known given his profession, but lawful or not, he chose to act in a different manner. Following the Spirit, he talks to the boy and eventually the young man puts the gun away and leaves–situation resolved peacefully for all. This had a major impact on Elder Oaks’ life, he notes:
Comment # 40 left by Téa on January 8th, 2007
Téa,
Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Excellent.
Comment # 41 left by Michelle on January 9th, 2007