Comments on: The Question of Pacifism

By: J. Madson

J. Madson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 22:35:26 +0000

And I’d have to give credit to rob who commented earlier for that insight.

And yes I’m the same one in your parents ward.

By: James Olsen

James Olsen — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:59:42 +0000

TV Free (#51) – I think your experience with your neighbor highlights the need for to follow Peter’s injunction and “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” Most of the principles of the NT require some sort of reconciliation with those of the OT. Much of Christianity has either ignored the OT as anything more than moral allegory or taken a Pauline approach and relegated it to the place of a very tough schoolmaster, preparing the world for truths that entirely transcend it. We can’t do that since, as Bushman very insightfully notes (in Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction, pg 62-63), Joseph Smith took Christianity and returned it to its Hebraic roots. Above, I alluded to one way we can reconcile the pacifist prophets with the non-pacifists. I think both Dan and J. Madsen have also given you a much more plausible interpretation to Matt 10:34 than your comments seem to give.

J. Madsen (#52) – My parents live in Highland–I assume you’re the pacifist J. Madsen in their ward who is always giving them such good food for thought! If the blogging format were different, or if I knew how to cite you (or maybe if I just had more integrity), I would have somehow referenced you in my thoughts about the Strippling Warriors. I had never made the connection with Nephi’s unsuccessful preaching in the lands of the north until hearing your Sunday School comment.

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:29:08 +0000

TV Free,

It’s not that hard to rebut your neighbor’s comments. Jesus taught us to love our enemies, to do good to them that wish to hurt us. The Sword must be taken in light of what Paul taught, when we wield the sword of righteousness, not the sword of bloodshed. We put on the armor of God, not the armor of Man. Jesus most certainly did not intend for us to become a religion that forces others into it through the use of a sword. It is sad that this was the way Christianity flourished under corrupted leaders (Constantine), which made them no different than early Islam. It is corrupted thinking for anyone who thinks Jesus taught that the use of the sword was righteousness.

By: J. Madson

J. Madson — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:41:06 +0000

James,

just came across your post since I dont read Times and Seasons much these days. Great post and very thoughtful. You wouldn’t happen to be the James Olsen from Highland would you? If so, its good to see you sharing some of your insights in the bloggernacle.

As to your post, I myself decided a few years ago that I had to renounce violence as part of my understanding of the gospel. While I understand the difficulty many having in embracing pacifism, I see no other way out of the mess we are in individually and collectively.

TV Free #51,
Matt 10:34 is not an endorsement of violence but an observation that his message and teachings would divide people even families leading to potential violence. It is a pretty weak example to prove Jesus endorses violence given the sheer weight of his life’s example, teachings, and ultimate manifestation of those non-violence teachings in his death

By: TV Free

TV Free — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 02:29:27 +0000

I was talking with my atheist neighbor the other day about this topic. When I mentioned that I am a pacifist, he commented something to the effect of, “How can you believe in the Bible, yet be a pacifist?” Although for the most part Christ taught peaceful principles, He also taught that “I came not to send peace, but a sword.” (Matt. 10:34). Along with the multiple examples of Jehovah-sanctioned violence in the Old Testament (over something as temporal as land ownership), I had a hard time rebutting my neighbor’s comments.

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:51:21 +0000

Wesley,

I’m not a pacifist. I believe there are times for the use of violence. I only took exception with Eric’s belief that it is not true that violence is never the most effective form of resistance. My issue is with “most effective.” I honestly believe it is NEVER the most effective form, even when it is the last resort. It is still not the most effective form, because violence tends to beget more violence, causing more problems for society to have to deal with.

By: Wesley Warren

Wesley Warren — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 06:05:25 +0000

re: Dan #46
Violence is, in fact, the most effective form when all other forms of diplomacy fail. And not because the diplomatic, defensive party was in error in how they tried to pacify the volatile situation, but because some violent offenders do not and will never respond to diplomacy.

(If a drugged-up low-life breaks into my home, and I pull out my CZ gloc and explain to him that he can either have a seat and stay seated while I call the police and have him taken away, or he can continue his advancement into my home as a sign of intent to do harm to my family, that is all the diplomacy needed before I resort to violence is he chooses the later option.)

When all diplomatic options have been exhausted, is the morally correct thing simply saying, “Well, we tried – continue in your violent disregard for law and human life. Nothing else is to be done.”
Don’t get me wrong – I disagree with very little that James has had to say. I’m a very, very strict “self-defense” kind of guy. I’ve even changed some of my opinions on the matter because of the thoughts and discussions on this board (and because of James’s incredible post). But to claim that “violence is never the most effective form” can in no way – in this fallen existence full of “natural men” – be a correct statement. Ever.

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:24:37 +0000

I think Atticus Finch Is my kind of pacifist.
But even he had to bring his rifle out to shot the mad dog. But he took no pleasure in his action.

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:52:38 +0000

Whatever you say, Dan.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 22:07:18 +0000

Eric,

I’m simply countering the notion that violence is never the most effective form of resistance.

But it really is never the most effective form of resistance. Violence is usually the resistance of last resort. Violence has usually been categorized as the failure of diplomacy, as the failure of all other methods. To claim it is on occasion the "most effective" form of resistance is just inaccurate. When someone resorts to the use of violence it is because that person, group, nation came to the conclusion that all other means failed. It is never the most effective form.