Sincere question: D&C 42:18 reads: Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come. We presume that in this context, killing relates to a non-defensive ending of anothers life. In other words, killing is okay when necessary to protect your own life from an aggressor. Joseph Smith spoke, in connection with this verse, that A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood cannot have forgiveness—thus implying, it would seem, that killing outside of murder may be justified. Assuming that interpretation is legitimate, how do we reconcile this scripture with the statements of some modern leaders of the church who divorce from the individual soldier any moral culpability for their termination of another persons life in a non-defensive (illegitimate war) scenario? For example, in 1942 the First Presidency issued this as a statement: 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, harkening 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 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. President Hinckley once said, I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. President Monson once said, In time of war or stress, we have no hesitancy in following the flag. You wont find any more patriotic group. In D&C 98 the Lord reveals the law that I gave unto mine ancients which is an ensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me. What is that law? It is that we should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, command [us]. Youll note that this says go out — meaning, engage with others in hostilities that do not entail repelling an attack. In other words, we shouldnt follow the attackers to their home turf to teach them a lesson. So were okay, presumably, to 1) defend ourselves, even if it involves killing somebody and 2) seek retaliation or aggressively fighting if God explicitly commands it. But the follow-the-[military]-leader mentality, in which soldiers are justified to be mere pawns to their commanding officers, seeks to remove from the individual soldier any consequence for his actions, so long as he complies with whatever he is told. As I understand it, this argument seeks to remove the soldiers agency from him. I find that troubling. The position that seems most reasonable to me suggests that one cannot and therefore should not attempt to suspend the commandments of God when one is a part of a military force. If we are to not kill others outside of imminent, defensive circumstances, then this is a universal position that, I would think, should not have a massive loophole like this: Thou shalt not kill.* * Not applicable when told otherwise by a military commanding officer. Void where prohibited. Im not looking for prophet-bashing here, and I encourage you to address this (again, sincere) question without snide remarks, insults to sustained leaders, etc. etc. Id really like to see a thoughtful conversation about this (extremely relevant) issue.
Posted on: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 04:02:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015