The Pilgrims and Puritans weren't pacifists either. And how many of our forebears were among those early ones who sought and brought freedom?
ChelseaSeptember 11, 2015
The Lord makes it very clear, in D&C 98 when war is justified. Also, both WWII and the war on Iraq, including the current wars the United States are involved in, deserve deeper research. Especially after studying the above chapter, none of them have been justified if we are using it as a guide.
DarlaGSeptember 7, 2015
In his essay "Why I am Not a Pacifist," which is found in the book "The Weight of Glory," C.S. Lewis lays out a very compelling argument against the pacifist Christian philosophy, particularly in the case of moral wars, like WWII. One particularly cogent passage reads,"The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil."
Further along he notes that one of the major issues with embracing pacifism at all costs, rejecting war no matter how justified, Lewis observes this mind set, "consists in assuming that the great permanent miseries in human life must be curable if only we can find the right cure; and it then proceeds by elimination and concludes that whatever is left however to prove a cure, must nevertheless do so. Hence the fanaticism of Marxists, Freudians," etc.
Kent BusseSeptember 7, 2015
You both (Boyce and Garner) captured my attention! I was attracted by the blurb asking “What is the right attitude toward war?” My university training spots this as a TRICK QUESTION, a valid way of introducing a discussion that shows there is no “right attitude.” Dr. Boyce supports my questioning of the question by presenting the possibility that “this conflict … is not actually genuine, but a mirage.” I am eager for part 2 because part 1 contributes several definitions to use in developing further understanding, and culminates in another trick question “Is pacifism the correct point of view—or isn’t it?” This comment is my contribution to the game: perhaps the next article will demolish my theory that pacifism (or any alternative behavior) must be defined and evaluated by context; “right” and “correct” are NOT the useful questions.
D FunkSeptember 7, 2015
What a great article Brother Boyce! I am looking forward to parts two and three. I never really saw the account of the Anti-Lehi-Nephites as an argument for pacifism. I've always seen it as an allegory for the turning away from sin in general, not merely away from the sin of war. When I am striving to turn away from sin, I will avoid ANYTHING that could potentially lead me back down that road of sin. For a normal person, it may not be considered a sin to walk past a liquor store on the street on the way home from school or work, but for a recovering alcoholic, it would be wise to avoid it all together by choosing a different path. You can see from Alma 23:7 that prior to their conversion the Anti-Lehi-Nephites used their weapons of war to rebel against God and their brotheren, not in their defense. They chose to bury their weapons in order to prevent themselves from returning to this open rebelliousness that they were predisposed to in the same way a recovering alcoholic would avoid walking by a liquor store. Now remember, it was the same Ammonites that laid down their weapons of war as a symbol of their conversion to Christ that also offered up 2000 of their sons to join Helaman's army to defend their people and their lands from the Lamanites. You can hardly call a group of people pacifists who are willing to send their own Sons into battle to defend their people.
Nadine AndertonSeptember 7, 2015
My thoughts were exactly like those of Brother Garner. The Anti-Lehi-Nephites were so steeped in the culture of killing that they could be likened to addicts. Anyone familiar with addiction knows that anyone so inflicted can only overcome it so far as one abstains. Breaking the abstention usually brings back the addiction at the point of the prior abstention as it is progressive in nature. Were the repentant Anti-Lehi-Nephites to take up arms again, they feared they would risk reverting to their old bloody ways. Some can't understand why they would allow their valient sons, therefore, to fight in their place. The sons were not raised in the bloody culture, so they had no "addictive behavior" to fall back into. As Brother Garner concludes, this example has nothing to do with pacifism.
I have been reading the Old Testament, and, of course, I have read the Book of Mormon many times. Regarding the Lord's people, he has always supported them in defensive wars (when they were righteous), meaning that they were not the aggressors. I am looking forward to the rest of this discussion because I am uncertain about where the line should be drawn when the war is to liberate other nations and take down oppressive regimes. Some label these as wars of aggression. What is true? I do remember sitting in the Tabernacle during the Vietnam War when there was such controversy with the draft-dodgers. A General Authority - perhaps even the Prophet - said that we should honor the draft and go to war if called and that if there was any wrong in it, it would be upon the heads of the leadership of the forces involved and not upon the heads of those who fought.
herm olsenSeptember 7, 2015
Extremely difficult area. Thanks for the insights. Generally, I think that LDS are a little too quick to embrace and justify war, forgetting the admonition of the Lord to Renounce War and Proclaim Peace. Sometimes our lips invoke peace, and our hearts yearn not only for revenge, but OBLITERATING revenge - and then use a multiple of scriptures to justify our bloodlust.
Brent GarnerSeptember 7, 2015
Those who cite the Anti-Lehi-Nephi refusal to take up arms as a justification to support pacifism miss an important point of the Anti-Lehi-Nephi's experience. A point made openly in the scripture. Consider the motivation of the Anti-Lehi-Nephites in burying their weapons and refusing to use them even in self-defense. Summarizing the scripture, their motivation was concern for their souls. This concern arose from their past in which they had been a murderous group. They were fearful that if they should, after having been cleansed, take up their weapons again, they might revert to their former attitudes and behaviors and thus lose their immortal souls. This is a totally different motivation than what pacifism supports. As such, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi example should not be used as a support for pacifism as it has noting to do with the reason people embrace pacifism.
Comments | Return to Story
R G KingSeptember 14, 2015
The Pilgrims and Puritans weren't pacifists either. And how many of our forebears were among those early ones who sought and brought freedom?
ChelseaSeptember 11, 2015
The Lord makes it very clear, in D&C 98 when war is justified. Also, both WWII and the war on Iraq, including the current wars the United States are involved in, deserve deeper research. Especially after studying the above chapter, none of them have been justified if we are using it as a guide.
DarlaGSeptember 7, 2015
In his essay "Why I am Not a Pacifist," which is found in the book "The Weight of Glory," C.S. Lewis lays out a very compelling argument against the pacifist Christian philosophy, particularly in the case of moral wars, like WWII. One particularly cogent passage reads,"The doctrine that war is always a greater evil seems to imply a materialist ethic, a belief that death and pain are the greatest evils. But I do not think they are. I think the suppression of a higher religion by a lower, or even a higher secular culture by a lower, a much greater evil." Further along he notes that one of the major issues with embracing pacifism at all costs, rejecting war no matter how justified, Lewis observes this mind set, "consists in assuming that the great permanent miseries in human life must be curable if only we can find the right cure; and it then proceeds by elimination and concludes that whatever is left however to prove a cure, must nevertheless do so. Hence the fanaticism of Marxists, Freudians," etc.
Kent BusseSeptember 7, 2015
You both (Boyce and Garner) captured my attention! I was attracted by the blurb asking “What is the right attitude toward war?” My university training spots this as a TRICK QUESTION, a valid way of introducing a discussion that shows there is no “right attitude.” Dr. Boyce supports my questioning of the question by presenting the possibility that “this conflict … is not actually genuine, but a mirage.” I am eager for part 2 because part 1 contributes several definitions to use in developing further understanding, and culminates in another trick question “Is pacifism the correct point of view—or isn’t it?” This comment is my contribution to the game: perhaps the next article will demolish my theory that pacifism (or any alternative behavior) must be defined and evaluated by context; “right” and “correct” are NOT the useful questions.
D FunkSeptember 7, 2015
What a great article Brother Boyce! I am looking forward to parts two and three. I never really saw the account of the Anti-Lehi-Nephites as an argument for pacifism. I've always seen it as an allegory for the turning away from sin in general, not merely away from the sin of war. When I am striving to turn away from sin, I will avoid ANYTHING that could potentially lead me back down that road of sin. For a normal person, it may not be considered a sin to walk past a liquor store on the street on the way home from school or work, but for a recovering alcoholic, it would be wise to avoid it all together by choosing a different path. You can see from Alma 23:7 that prior to their conversion the Anti-Lehi-Nephites used their weapons of war to rebel against God and their brotheren, not in their defense. They chose to bury their weapons in order to prevent themselves from returning to this open rebelliousness that they were predisposed to in the same way a recovering alcoholic would avoid walking by a liquor store. Now remember, it was the same Ammonites that laid down their weapons of war as a symbol of their conversion to Christ that also offered up 2000 of their sons to join Helaman's army to defend their people and their lands from the Lamanites. You can hardly call a group of people pacifists who are willing to send their own Sons into battle to defend their people.
Nadine AndertonSeptember 7, 2015
My thoughts were exactly like those of Brother Garner. The Anti-Lehi-Nephites were so steeped in the culture of killing that they could be likened to addicts. Anyone familiar with addiction knows that anyone so inflicted can only overcome it so far as one abstains. Breaking the abstention usually brings back the addiction at the point of the prior abstention as it is progressive in nature. Were the repentant Anti-Lehi-Nephites to take up arms again, they feared they would risk reverting to their old bloody ways. Some can't understand why they would allow their valient sons, therefore, to fight in their place. The sons were not raised in the bloody culture, so they had no "addictive behavior" to fall back into. As Brother Garner concludes, this example has nothing to do with pacifism. I have been reading the Old Testament, and, of course, I have read the Book of Mormon many times. Regarding the Lord's people, he has always supported them in defensive wars (when they were righteous), meaning that they were not the aggressors. I am looking forward to the rest of this discussion because I am uncertain about where the line should be drawn when the war is to liberate other nations and take down oppressive regimes. Some label these as wars of aggression. What is true? I do remember sitting in the Tabernacle during the Vietnam War when there was such controversy with the draft-dodgers. A General Authority - perhaps even the Prophet - said that we should honor the draft and go to war if called and that if there was any wrong in it, it would be upon the heads of the leadership of the forces involved and not upon the heads of those who fought.
herm olsenSeptember 7, 2015
Extremely difficult area. Thanks for the insights. Generally, I think that LDS are a little too quick to embrace and justify war, forgetting the admonition of the Lord to Renounce War and Proclaim Peace. Sometimes our lips invoke peace, and our hearts yearn not only for revenge, but OBLITERATING revenge - and then use a multiple of scriptures to justify our bloodlust.
Brent GarnerSeptember 7, 2015
Those who cite the Anti-Lehi-Nephi refusal to take up arms as a justification to support pacifism miss an important point of the Anti-Lehi-Nephi's experience. A point made openly in the scripture. Consider the motivation of the Anti-Lehi-Nephites in burying their weapons and refusing to use them even in self-defense. Summarizing the scripture, their motivation was concern for their souls. This concern arose from their past in which they had been a murderous group. They were fearful that if they should, after having been cleansed, take up their weapons again, they might revert to their former attitudes and behaviors and thus lose their immortal souls. This is a totally different motivation than what pacifism supports. As such, the Anti-Nephi-Lehi example should not be used as a support for pacifism as it has noting to do with the reason people embrace pacifism.
ADD A COMMENT