Self-defense poll for US Saints

[mirkwood]

The most correct book on earth tells us we are to defend our lives, families and freedom unto bloodshed.

[Sunday21]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

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

I have no argument with this statement. Does anyone have an argument with this statement? 

I live in a world in which gun violence is very low. I think there may be 1-2 gun deaths/ 100000 people per year in my area and this is up from zero gun deaths per year. 

I simply live in a different world than you do and my police are lovely people. In fact, in the capital of Canada, it is the custom to celebrate our national day by going to Parliament and taking selfies with the police...you can hardly imagine doing that with @mirkwood can you? 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Sunday21

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I have no argument with this statement. Does anyone have an argument with this statement? 

I live in a world in which gun violence is very low. I think there may be 1-2 gun deaths/ 100000 people per year in my area and this is up from zero gun deaths per year. 

I simply live in a different world than you do and my police are lovely people. In fact, in the capital of Canada, it is the custom to celebrate our national day by going to Parliament and taking selfies with the police...you can hardly imagine doing that with @mirkwood can you? 

Well, who would want to?  He's always wearing those T-shirts of horror films.

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

The only scriptural passages I know of that explicitly detail and praise pacifists–meaning those who refuse to take up arms for any reason–are those associated with the people of Limhi, or Anti-Nephi-Lehies.

These two come pretty close

(New Testament | Matthew 5:9)
9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
 

(New Testament | Matthew 5:38 - 39)
38  ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
 

This is not me buying into the pro or anti gun argument. This is just me expressing surprise at the possibility that @Vort might have overlooked these verses

[askandanswer]

24 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I simply live in a different world than you do and my police are lovely people. In fact, in the capital of Canada, it is the custom to celebrate our national day by going to Parliament and taking selfies with the police...you can hardly imagine doing that with @mirkwood can you? 

Didn't @mirkwood send you a whole bunch of selfies in his annual halloween picture thread? 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

I believe in peace through superior firepower.

[askandanswer]

Something like this?

LGM-118 Peacekeeper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Something like this?

LGM-118 Peacekeeper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-118_Peacekeeper

We'll make you an American yet.

[mirkwood]

42 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

I have no argument with this statement. Does anyone have an argument with this statement? 

I live in a world in which gun violence is very low. I think there may be 1-2 gun deaths/ 100000 people per year in my area and this is up from zero gun deaths per year. 

I simply live in a different world than you do and my police are lovely people. In fact, in the capital of Canada, it is the custom to celebrate our national day by going to Parliament and taking selfies with the police...you can hardly imagine doing that with @mirkwood can you? 

Uhhhh...I'm not sure how to take that...

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, zil said:

if it really meant "never kill anyone", that would make God a hypocrite.

Not really. I'm not saying it means that. But...no...if God commands us not to go to Timbuktu while He goes Himself it does not make Him a hypocrite. That's not what a hypocrite is, any more than my not letting my daughter, for example, go to war when I might is my being a hypocrite.

[mirkwood]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, who would want to?  He's always wearing those T-shirts of horror films.

Now that's an idea...horror movie t-shirts....

[zil]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not really. I'm not saying it means that. But...no...if God commands us not to go to Timbuktu while He goes Himself it does not make Him a hypocrite. That's not what a hypocrite is, any more than my not letting my daughter, for example, go to war when I might is my being a hypocrite. 

I meant there are other places where he commands killing.  To command both, well, hypocrite may not be the right word, but "inconsistent" wouldn't be strong enough a word.  Not that it matters because that's not what the commandment means.

[mirkwood]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

These two come pretty close

(New Testament | Matthew 5:9)
9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
 

(New Testament | Matthew 5:38 - 39)
38  ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
 

This is not me buying into the pro or anti gun argument. This is just me expressing surprise at the possibility that @Vort might have overlooked these verses

The Book Of Mormon (the most correct book on earth) tells us what the Lord has to say on the matter.

Alma 43:46-47

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the firstoffense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

[Vort]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

5 hours ago, Vort said:

The only scriptural passages I know of that explicitly detail and praise pacifists–meaning those who refuse to take up arms for any reason–are those associated with the people of Limhi, or Anti-Nephi-Lehies.

These two come pretty close

(New Testament | Matthew 5:9)
9  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

"Peacemaker" is not in any way the same as "someone who refuses to defend himself". The Book of Mormon's captain Moroni was a peacemaker par excellence, despite being probably the greatest of the Nephite generals throughout history. George Washington is an American example: First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.

25 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:38 - 39)
38  ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I believe it significant that the Lord used smiting someone on the cheek as an example, not running someone through with the sword, or running someone's wife and children through with the sword.

26 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This is not me buying into the pro or anti gun argument. This is just me expressing surprise at the possibility that @Vort might have overlooked these verses

I did not overlook them, I assure you. I simply do not believe they imply anything about pacifism, at least not in the sense being discussed.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe it significant that the Lord used smiting someone on the cheek as an example, not running someone through with the sword, or running someone's wife and children through with the sword.

Yes, if we alter that verse, it becomes absurd to believe the Lord would ever say such things:

Quote

39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall stab thee in thy right lung, turn to him the other also.

Quote

39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall slay thy first child, give unto him the second also.

Quote

39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall rape thy wife, give unto him thy daughter also.

Absurd.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Now that's an idea...horror movie t-shirts....

You're welcome.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

...selfies with the police...you can hardly imagine doing that with @mirkwood can you?

I'm feeling slightly compelled to find a stuffed Snoopy so it can take a selfie with mirkwood...

[mirkwood]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

I'm feeling slightly compelled to find a stuffed Snoopy so it can take a selfie with mirkwood...

How about matching Creature From The Black Lagoon t-shirts instead?

 

[zil]

Just now, mirkwood said:

How about matching Creature From The Black Lagoon t-shirts instead?

 

Do they make that in stuffed-Snoopy size?

[mirkwood]

@zil we could let our pistols take a selfie and post that.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

(New Testament | Matthew 5:38 - 39)
38  ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39  But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Dr. Glenn Stassen has an interesting take on the cultural symbolic meaning of all this cheek slapping business in Jesus' time:

Quote

In Jesus’ culture, ‘to be struck on the right  cheek was to be given a hostile, backhanded insult’ with the back of the right hand. In that culture, it was forbidden to touch or strike anyone with the left hand; the left hand was for dirty things. To turn the other cheek was to surprise the insulter, saying, nonviolently, ‘you are treating me as an unequal, but I need to be treated as an equal.’ Jesus is saying: if you are slapped on the cheek of inferiority, turn the cheek of equal dignity.” Such actions and other creative responses “go beyond what is demanded to take a nonviolent initiative that confronts and initiates the possibility of reconciliation."

 

As Vort and Zil have mentioned, the scripture says nothing about submitting yourself to more violence after being stabbed or burned or hung or run over by a pyramid.

Edited November 7, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Lindy]

On 11/5/2018 at 3:00 PM, mirkwood said:

I carry a Glock 17 and a reload ALL the time, except on duty, then I carry two reloads, plus all the extras in the vehicle. 

 

Glock- my daughters weapon of choice!

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Dr. Glenn Stassen has an interesting take on the cultural symbolic meaning of all this cheek slapping business in Jesus' time:

 

As Vort and Zil have mentioned, the scripture says nothing about submitting yourself to more violence after being stabbed or burned or hung or run over by a pyramid.

All of Alma 14 is an interesting commentary on how to respond to violence. This is just a short excerpt but its certainly not the full story.

(Book of Mormon | Alma 14:9 - 11)
9  And it came to pass that they took Alma and Amulek, and carried them forth to the place of martyrdom, that they might witness the destruction of those who were consumed by fire.
10  And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene?  Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.
11  But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the innocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.
 

[Guest]

I've spent some time wondering why was @let’s roll protected?  And, let's be as honest as @MormonGator.  Most of us were wondering if he made it up.  I honestly don't know.  But I have now come to the conclusion that it is highly believable.  But I don't think he had "protection" (in the traditional sense). Here's why.

There are pre-meditated murders, there are professional type murders, and there are heat of the moment murders.  While murder is murder, there are varying degrees of evil that need to be present to commit these different types.

These men were simply thieves.  They were not murderers.  And they weren't prepared to become murderers.  But if they were in the heat of the moment, their emotions may run high and they might become murderers.

Sadly, I believe that many men cross that line because of emotions running high.  But Let's roll came to them both in a very calm manner.  The calmness with which he proceeded did nothing to hype up their anger.  He was not a threat to them.  So, their "fight" response did not kick in.  Their flight response kicked in.  And this could be a much more common outcome if the rest of the world weren't so hyped up.

But what if he had come across someone who was highly prepared to murder someone?  His calmness would have had no effect.  The would have sent him to the ground.

Now, if there is some way of telling what kind of criminal we're talking about, then it might serve us well to deal with the less violent armed robbers... ehrr emm...  You know what I mean.

Wyatt Earp was indeed able to stare down some people who were simply bullies.  But he came across some people who were simply evil.  And there was no staring them down.  As a law man, he did end up having to kill some outlaws.  That was the simple truth of it.

[Colirio]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 

Now, if there is some way of telling what kind of criminal we're talking about, then it might serve us well to deal with the less violent armed robbers... ehrr emm...  You know what I mean.

 

 

In recent years, law enforcement has really had to rethink its strategies on how to deal with various situations. 

 

You now have mass shooters, jihadists with potential exploding vests, protesters with chains and clubs, all combined with your always standard armed and unarmed robbers and burglars. (This list is clearly not meant to be comprehensive.) 

 

Each of these situations requires a completely different approach in trying to deal with the threat. What works in one situation is completely the wrong approach in a different situation. 

 

As someone who has been trained and has done the training for these types of situations, I can somewhat understand the hesitation some people have with armed citizens trying to deal with these situations. Even highly trained professionals make the wrong call sometimes in how to respond. 

 

That being said, protection of life really is everyone's own responsibility. As the saying goes, "when seconds count, the authorities are minutes away." They are called first "responders" for a reason. They will show up to clean up the mess where violence has already occurred. 

 

I would encourage everyone to pray and learn for themselves what God expects them to do in their lives. And then remember that not every individual is going to get the same answer. 

 

There is enough room in the church pews for lambs and sheepdogs to sit next to each other. We are all part of the Master's flock. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Colirio