The real issue is when is something suicide? Certainly there is a difference between putting a gun to my head and letting someone else murder me without doing anything about it. But is there *that* grave a difference? I bring this up as the anti-Nephi-Lehites are often portrayed as Ghandi-like pacificist. I don’t think that’s right, mind you. I think they only refused to fight because of their past actions. They were worried about blood lust and becoming as they were.

But it is an interesting question…

While not willing to go to war themselves, because of the oath they had taken, they fully supported the Nephite war effort with their labor. In fact, at one point the situation became so dire that they were about to break their oath to come to the aid of the Nephites, but were convinced to send their sons instead, who had been too young to swear the oath.

In looking at it, it almost seems they were more concerned about oath-breaking than about taking a life. After all, if the taking of Lamanite lives was their concern, shouldn’t they have prohibited their sons from going to kill Lamanites?

While I’m sure war deaths aren’t pretty, it seems like there are worse ways to die, like torture, etc. Didn’t Saddam order certain gruesome [grievous] deaths of certain people? Not that this alone is necessarily justification for war, but I’m just trying to answer Nate’s question. If someone is causing others to die in a painful [grievous] way, wouldn’t a less “grievous” death happen if you were to kill that person in a less painful way?

Although I think Rob would disagree with me, my reading of the ancient and modern prophets indicates that they justified killing under very limited circumstances: as self-defense in an extreme last resort, in certain circumstances where the Lord specifically authorizes it, and a couple of others. The problem seems to be that it is easy to develop a taste for violence — Captain Moroni appears to be one of the rare exceptions who could kill without hating and without becoming accustomed to it. The prohibitions on initiating wars and showing extreme restraint in defense tend to lessen the probability that we will develop a propensity for such actions.

Consequently, I primarily agree with Nate’s final suggestion — that war and killing (and torture even more so) are to be avoided if at all possible because such activity endangers the warrior spiritually. If this is a selfish reason, then avoidance of any sin is selfish, since they all do spiritual damage to a greater or lesser extent. The warning of the Book of Mormon is that warfare almost inevitably leads to such damage, both personally and collectively.

That’s exactly the way I’d put it, what I especially liked about what you said, Dan, is the EXTREME LAST RESORT part. I think that’s something we tend to overlook, and I think that’s something that’s being overlooked a lot in the current debate about the war in Iraq (not that I would wanna start a new one on that… ;). The questions are:

1. Is the killing I’m doing really preserving life?

2. Is there no other way I could have prevented deaths, without causing the side effects that my own killing somebody may have? (In war situations the destruction of infrastructure, broken families, civilian deaths…)

3. Do the pros outweigh the cons of killing?

4. Do I resort to violence because it’s “necessary” (after having answered the first three questions), or is it just more “comfortable” for me?

Those are tough questions that would probably trigger a debate themselves, but I think they are a good point on which to start deciding on whether killing is justified, or if the possibility of one’s own death because of refusing to kill should be considered…

lyle, I don’t have the answers to my questions, and I don’t believe there are any that fit just any situation. It’s something the people involved will have to ask themselves. All I tried to point out is that I find these question to be a good base to decide upon whether violence or killing is justified in a specific situation. The answer depends on the situation and on the people involved.

(I hope you understand what I’m saying. English is only my third language after German and French, and sometimes I have a hard time coming across clearly… ;)

also…if one can’t say ‘beforehand’ when it is correct/incorrect to do/not do “x,” then…I don’t think there are any grounds for criticism after the fact either. that is my not so hidden agenda in asking for ‘answers’. :)