abortion=death=wrong, war=death=wrong??

[bodhigirlsmiles]

Oh, of course it bothers me. I don't want to hurt or kill anyone. Of course it would not be easy. I believe the folks that share the earth with me are both my neighbors whom I am commanded to love, and my brothers and sisters because we all share a father in heaven. What a horrible, awful thing it would be to have to kill someone! I'd never consider doing such a thing, unless the alternative is worse, as it would be if a bad guy broke into my house because he saw my daughters out playing in the yard and figured he could have some fun with them and then dump their bodies in a ditch somewhere. I cannot permit myself to ignore the fact that such people exist.

Well, bodhigirlsmiles, you sound like a very good person. Here's hoping that both of us get to live long, healthy, happy lives that never experience such awful things like we're talking about.

LM

very well said. thank you for your candor.

[YoungMormonRoyalist]

Could one say that those who are truly worthy of a 'death sentence' are those who seek to take away the right of someone to choose to live their life in a particular way?

Abortion is wrong because it takes away the choice of a being to life.

If you think about all those who were executed in the Book of Mormon were those who saught to take away the agency of others. A few examples include:

Laban - "It is better that one man should die than a whole nation shall dwindle in unbelief". What does this have to do with agency? Everything. As we saw in the time of Noah, a perpetually wicked nation will eventually remove any chance for agency. Children who are raised in a wicked society, taught only wicked things, sees only wicked things, and is figuratively drowned in 'wickedness' will eventually have no freedom to choose otherwise as they don't know what is truly good in this world.

The Kingsmen - This one is obvious, as the kingsmen wanted to install a leader with aboslute authority to run people's lives.

Murderers - These take away the right of someone to choose, by taking away their life.

[ninjormon]

Abortion is a touchy subject, I personally think that the only reason for one would be to protect the life of the mother.

War, same thing, fight in protection. In martial arts and as law enforcement this is something I have to think about alot. Basically it comes down to this for me, I am attacked physically; I know that I have a purpose here on earth, I know what that purpose is. I know that the things I believe in are true and will not fight unless attacked or to prevent iminent attack. Therefore if the other person attacks me I fight not only for the protection of myself but furthering the cause of the Church just by being alive and working towards those goals for myself, my family, and community.

[Traveler]

but why???? this is what i do not understand. please do not mistake me, i have no intention of disrespecting you or your religious beliefs, but i do not understand how a god would justify the taking of another's life. i really wish to know your opinion. in the case of war or criminal activity, it seems to me that there are other ways in which we can handle such cases....prison, for one.

Perhaps you can explain to me how you can respect life and enable someone, even in prison to continue to take life by refusing to stop them from killing? If you can stop someone that takes life from continuing to do so but your refuse - then are you not also a contributor to any continuing unnecessary deaths?

If we respect life then do we stop respecting those that die unnecessarily and allow those without conscience and will not respect life - even if it is their own from killing? If the only way to save ten lives is to take one how can we say we respect life when we allow the lost of ten to preserve a one.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

The later chapters of Alma and also Helaman will provide great insight into why sometimes war is necessary. The primary reason to justify war is to defend one's inalienable God given right to be free. Before we came to this earth there was a great war in heaven where Satan persuaded a third of the hosts of heaven to give up their freedom and thus lost their spiritual lives.

Physical death is nothing to fear. Spiritual death (separation from us and our Father in heaven) is what we should fear and the prophets and soldiers in the Book of Mormon understood this. Captain Moroni certainly did. The scriptures (BoM and Bible) are replete with examples of this and the fact that God supported and strengthened those who defended their freedom, especially to worship Him and continue His work to save souls.

God will always uphold the nations that believe in Him and fight for the cause of liberty and to worship Him according to our conscience. Hence the old saying in the currency of the US: "In God we trust."

I discussed this topic last night with one of my daughters and stated, I cannot imagine if there was no WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, and other conflicts that brought about a better country, greater technology spin offs, and other such outward growth for this country. Not only that, we had freed so many people from different tyrants and allow them to chose for themselves how to govern.

[Hemidakota]

What is the difference of murdering and killing?

[Guest DeborahC]

There is no difference.

We murder people in war just as we murder people with abortion.

They're dead.

[HiJolly]

There is no difference.

We murder people in war just as we murder people with abortion.

They're dead.

While it is impossible to disagree that dead is dead; Yet I think that it is not so that murder and killing are the same.

I think the difference is mindfulness and intent. Even the Buddha killed in one of his early lives (as per buddhist tradition), and Nephi killed as well. Both were serving humanity, and as such brought positive results.

I would also argue that the lives lost on both sides to defeat the Nazi forces were actually bettering the condition of mankind. Though I grant that this is a really, really complicated issue with much tragedy and wrongful action on both sides.

HiJolly

[beefche]

I'm not sure if I can articulate my thoughts on this.

Bgirl, you talk about other ways to deter someone bent on killing someone. If this were to happen to me, I pray that the Lord would inspire me to try to talk to the person and persuade him to cease. However, what if the person is on some serious drugs? They are delusional and truly believe that hurting me will free them or whatever their hallucinations tell them. Should my life then be sacrificed for him? Him, who will most likely do so to another? I cannot judge him--whether he "deserves" to die or not is not my call. But whether I die or not may be within my ability. I truly think that there are situations that it's either my life or the life of my killer and I choose life for me.

I hear people saying all the time to cease war and just talk to terrorists. The problem is that they don't WANT to talk. Their extreme beliefs are that anyone who does not follow their faith are infidels and it is their obligation to kill them. How do you deal with that? Seriously, what is the answer? Because their are a lot of completely innocent people dying everyday from terrorist acts and the consequences of such.

Obviously one way is through the children and youth. Teach THEM truth. The younger generation are the ones who can change a nation. But, how do we get to them without some kind of major change in their country? Major change that many, many people will fight to the death to keep.

[NeuroTypical]

There is no difference.

We murder people in war just as we murder people with abortion.

Murder is wrong, but sometimes killing is justified in the eyes of God.

Any believing Mormon who thinks otherwise needs to read their Book of Mormon more. Anyone need chapter and verse?

LM

Edited December 22, 2008 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[jms.mills]

Murder is wrong, but sometimes killing is justified in the eyes of God.

Any believing Mormon who thinks otherwise needs to read their Book of Mormon more. Anyone need chapter and verse?

LM

.... Or the Bible for that matter. There are times when God (for a reason that may be beyond our comprehension) asks a person or group of people to kill fellow human beings.

Those who choose to kill another human will face the judgment of God. He will determine if the killing was murder or not. I am sure there will be many who fought on the "Allies" side in WWII who will be judged as murderers (because they killed for pleasure or hatred) , just as there will be those who fought on the "Axis" side who will not be guilty of murder (because the honestly felt as thought they were protecting their families/country). It comes down to individual intent. The Gospel clearly teaches that we are all individual agents. We cannot blame others (parents, leaders, etc.) for our own actions.

JMS

[Hemidakota]

In war, military members are not held accounted for killing when commanded to do so. This is not murder. Having serve in the military, we face orders on assassination, sniper duties, conflicts, and even war, where we are face to remove another fellow brother or sister from mortality.

War and Saints by Hyrum L. Andrus

Killing in Defense of Government Not Murder

When a nation becomes involved in war, many serious questions inevitably confront the individual, particularly young men of military age. Immediately they begin to ponder the questions, What should be one's attitude toward the enemy? toward his government? toward military service? If one is brought in the course of military duty before the enemy, should he shoot to kill? And if he kills an enemy, has he committed murder?

These questions are as old as mortal time, but they confront each new generation that is forced by circumstances to face the problem of war. In our day, the Lord has said that he justifies members of the Church "in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land." (D&C 98:6.) In an official statement to the Church in 1942, the First Presidency explained what it means for one to sustain the political system under which he lives during a period of war and how such support relates to murder:

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. 1

President Harold B. Lee stated:

Soldiers who kill under orders are not murderers. There are many who are troubled and their souls harrowed by the haunting question of the position of the soldier who in combat kills the enemy. Again, the First Presidency has commented: Murderersa-Lee, Harold B.TP358

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, beyond the principle to be mentioned shortly. For it would he 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. (Messages of the First Presidency, ed. James R. Clark, 6 vols. [salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965-75], 6:159.)

I will paraphrase the next statement from the message of the First Presidency in order to make these words more applicable today. The whole world seems presently to be in commotion. As the Lord foretold, we are in a time when men's hearts fail them. (See D&C 45:26.) There are many persons who are engaged in wars who are devout Christians. They are innocent instrumentalities of their warring sovereignties. On each side, people believe that they are fighting for a just cause, for defense of home and country and freedom. On each side they pray to the same God, in the same name, for victory. Both sides cannot be wholly right; perhaps neither is without wrong. God will work out in his own due time and in his own sovereign way the justice and right of the conflict. But he will not hold the innocent instrumentalities of the war—our brethren in arms—responsible for the conflict. (71-13, pp. 252-53)

Edited December 22, 2008 by Hemidakota

[PeterVenkman]

Just want to interject two thoughts here:

1. Hemi, you posted a quote from Hyrum Andrus that discusses the importance of the commandment not to kill, and also the importance of allegiance to the state and its laws. That quote indicates that only a cruel God would punish citizens for killing in the name of the state, when they were commanded to follow the state. My question to you is this: in light of the church's admonition to pledge allegiance to the state, is there any room for criticism of the state? Is it not righteous to protest unfair and/or authoritarian laws and/or decisions to go to war in the first place? Have I done something wrong by refusing to participate in the state's act of warfare? I guess I'm asking how pacifism and dissent plays into all of this.

2. The book Freakonomics. I've never read it, but I saw an episode of Boston Legal where they were discussing it. In the episode, James Spader discusses the statistics regarding abortion to make an interesting point. He says that certain groups of people are statistically more likely to opt for abortion than other groups of people, and that the groups of people that more likely opt for abortion are statistically more likely to give birth to future criminals. Therefore, the theory advanced in the book (as represented by television lawyers) is that the availability of abortion in the 1970s actually corresponded to the drop in crime rates.

It just seems like we start to make caveats for our universal commandments when it contradicts our "interests". I don't understand why all christian religions aren't pacifist. It would make moral universalism so much easier.

[Hemidakota]

There is Peter. I have done this in the past in light of my own religious convictions, being involved in conflicts, special force duties, and even war; killing our own brethren no matter our duties are always in eternal balance. We can give our testimonies on why not and help to shed light to our superiors but it is left in their hand on the fate of our enemies. I would not call it 'being a pacifist' but one who is concerned over the welfare of our brothers and sisters. Even Nephi must have a terrible time in asking why “I should kill Laban.” Some of us here, have already face this reality in this life in removing our brothers and sisters; now being scarred, living with it.

Even when I finally realize and felt the Atonement true meaning, I will cringed on eating another life form but in the end give thanks to them who gives us life here.

[FatherOfSix]

i am just curious, for those of you who hold a very strong opposition to abortion, what do you think is the difference between killing an unborn child and killing a human being period? i cannot see the distinction. i value ALL human life, whether unborn or not and cannot imagine a time where it is morally ok to take that away from someone. i am not trying to be argumentative, i am genuinly curious....thank you!

I would suggest this - Jesus Christ is supposed to be the Mediator of both Mercy and Justice. Abortion and War are often those extremes in life where it is hard to find the intersection of Mercy and Justice.

Abortion is rarely just. If the baby has no chance of living and there is a complication that will likely kill the mother before she would birth anyway - the just thing to do would be abort to save the mother's life.

It is the same with war - there is just war and injust war. If you are a people who have lived peacefully and your neighbors keep attacking you and killing your innocent people and no discussion or treaty will keep the peace then you may be left with no option but to take the war to them in order to protect the innocent lives of your people. Note that very few wars fit in this category, in my opinion.

In life, it is usually easier to show Mercy OR Justice, but both at once are sometimes impossible with Jesus Christ.

[Mormonatalie]

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

Author: Joseph Fielding Smith

Source: Doctrines of Salvation

Volume: 1

Page: 61

[KristofferUmfrey]

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

Author: Joseph Fielding Smith

Source: Doctrines of Salvation

Volume: 1

Page: 61

You just opened up a can of worms.

I'm guessing you really aren't LDS, or are inactive, or a fundamentalist.

Edit: After reading your other post, I'm guessing Fundamentalist Mormon. Which group do you belong to?

[a-train]

Just want to interject two thoughts here:

1. Hemi, you posted a quote from Hyrum Andrus that discusses the importance of the commandment not to kill, and also the importance of allegiance to the state and its laws. That quote indicates that only a cruel God would punish citizens for killing in the name of the state, when they were commanded to follow the state. My question to you is this: in light of the church's admonition to pledge allegiance to the state, is there any room for criticism of the state? Is it not righteous to protest unfair and/or authoritarian laws and/or decisions to go to war in the first place? Have I done something wrong by refusing to participate in the state's act of warfare? I guess I'm asking how pacifism and dissent plays into all of this.

2. The book Freakonomics. I've never read it, but I saw an episode of Boston Legal where they were discussing it. In the episode, James Spader discusses the statistics regarding abortion to make an interesting point. He says that certain groups of people are statistically more likely to opt for abortion than other groups of people, and that the groups of people that more likely opt for abortion are statistically more likely to give birth to future criminals. Therefore, the theory advanced in the book (as represented by television lawyers) is that the availability of abortion in the 1970s actually corresponded to the drop in crime rates.

It just seems like we start to make caveats for our universal commandments when it contradicts our "interests". I don't understand why all christian religions aren't pacifist. It would make moral universalism so much easier.

One need only to look to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to see vehement critics of government. As recently as our last General Conference, Boyd K. Packer qouted praised Elder Phineas Richards' 1849 statement that characterized the administrations of Governor Boggs, President Martin Van Buren, and others as a "corrupted and degenerate administration". This speech actually gives good points about the proper coexistance of patriotism and criticism of government powers that do and should live in the hearts of the saints.

Joseph Smith lead a movement of pacifism. He lead a movement of freedom: freedom from the oppression of Congress, from Governors, from mobs, from slavery, from injustice. His political platform on which he ran for the Presidency in 1844 called for a decrease in the size and scope of the federal government to one third of its then relatively tiny size when compared to the enormous leviathan which oppresses us all today and spreads war and horror throughout the world.

Unconditional allegiance to the state is NOT the commandment of God to the saints. In fact, our allegiance is to God and our fellow man, not to a particular group of men, and certainly not to some such group which oppresses others.

Christians believe they are pacifists, and many are, yet history proves the bulk of them otherwise. I will make the biased statement that only "true Christians" are pacifists.

In the history of the Church, a great many leaders have spoken out strongly against war. That said, Church leadership is faced with very dangerous consequences in making statements about any particular conflict. Such activity could prove harmful or even deadly to saints in various parts of the world. It is therefore left to each individual member to "renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children" as we have been commanded by God. (D&C 98:16)

The overstatement and extreme misapplication of the Twelfth Article of Faith during the NAZI era of german history lead to very bad judgment and church policy there. The letter and spirit of the Article should not be put in any position to promote the violation of the Thirteenth Article of Faith. A king, president, ruler, magistrate or law that is engaged in oppression, favoratism, violence, and discrimination cannot be righteously supported in these sins if we are to be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and to do good to all men.

The proposal of Joseph Smith and his fellow abolitionists in peacefully ending slavery was decried as an affront to liberty by the pro-slavery movement and a position too pacifist by the statist abolitionist yankees happy to go to war with the South. Had his proposals been inacted, the United States of America could have ridded itself of slavery and saved itself the horrors of the Civil War as did every other civilized country in the world who enacted almost precisely the policy he advocated.

The LDS position on abortion recognizes the right of the unborn to the protection of the law. This is the same as the position of Joseph Smith on the subject of black Americans and their elegibility to be considered equal citizens with white Americans. While there are indeed cases wherein medical conditions will force parties to decide whether to lose an unborn child or the mother as well, the act of abortion as birth control amounts to the murder of a born child in the effort to save money and time.

If one looks closer at the issue, abortion is mainly the effect of a greater cause, which is largely economic and social dispare. Both of which would be solved by more liberal economic and social policies. With greater freedom comes the greater availibility of prosperity. A prosperous and happy people will not be so inclined to kill children in an effort to save money or face.

-a-train