Well, M* has found itself in the middle of another controversy. Some people did not like Bryce Haymond’s post (see below). Here is my take on the issue.
Within certain limits, the most charitable attitude to take toward a post you don’t like is to politely disagree, using factual, on-target talking points. If you really don’t like it, you don’t have to read it. What is not going to fly on this blog is suggesting that the entire post is silly, unpalatable to your friends, involves unacceptable political thoughts or should not have been written in the first place. We are trying to create a different atmosphere at this blog – one of respect for bloggers, commenters and most importantly the Church. We are also willing to explore ideas that are perhaps different than at other blogs. We don’t always succeed in being respectful (mea culpa) but we continue to try.
There are all kinds of opinions I find incredibly silly. The idea that Barack Obama will somehow magically end the Iraq war with dignity is absurd (Barack himself is admitting these days he won’t be able to do that) – yet all kinds of intelligent people seem to believe it. I personally find the idea that you can support the Church yet actively work against one of its most important current initiatives (stopping SSM in California) also incredibly silly. But the point is that this are my OPINIONS – all kinds of intelligent people have different opinions, and the point is that blogs are forums for people to express their ideas, refine them, consider them and defend them.
There is a subtle kind of censorship in the Bloggernacle that really bugs me. That censorship is that only a certain range of ideas can be expressed. People get incredibly offended if you say, “well, in my view, the Church says we should do this and that, and the scriptures seem to say you should do this and that, so I really think members should do this and that.” Nothing seems to set off flame wars more than daring to express an opinion of this nature.
Well, guess what? It is the writer’s opinion. In a free country, he is allowed to express it. If you really disagree, you can write a polite retort. Or you can go read another post on the blog that doesn’t offend you. Or you can go read another blog or go spend time with your family or get back to work. What you can’t do (at least on this blog) is insult the writer or try to intimidate him/her through a barrage of harassment to not express his opinions anymore. That, my friends, is called fascism. Mob rule by tyrants. It happens a lot these days in certain settings (college campuses, for example), but it won’t be happening at M*.
I certainly don’t intend to offend anyone. A lot of people are saying right now, “wait, did he just call me a tyrant and a fascist?” Obviously no one sees himself or herself that way. But I really want people to take a step back and think: if you don’t like somebody’s opinion, why can’t you just disagree politely and then move on? Or, guess what: you can avoid reading what that writer writes if you really hate it (may help your blood pressure). What is it that drives you to write snarky links implying that anybody who has an opinion like that is a complete idiot, that the post is silly, worthless, never should have been written, etc., etc. Could it be that you truly are trying to suppress ideas that dare to disagree with yours?
There is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in the old “the blogger is claiming I’m not righteous” complaint that we see all over the Bloggernacle these days. I have seen literally hundreds of posts and comments in the last five years claiming in one way or another that you can’t be a true follower of Christ is you support the Iraq war/war on terrorism/Guantanamo. Yet I have never seen anybody on the opposite side say, “you are claiming I’m not righteous – how dare you!” It may have happened, but the point is that the politically correct position in the Bloggernacle is to never, ever question somebody’s righteousness when they question the Church’s position on, for example, same-sex marriage, but it is completely okay and indeed expected to question somebody’s righteousness when they support the Iraq war.
As a supporter of the Iraq war/war on terrorism/Guantanamo, I can tell you why I have never written indignantly “how dare you question my righteousness!” when somebody claims I am not a true follower of Christ: I could care less what their opinion is. Really. My righteousness is between me and God. I could really care less what anybody else thinks, except my wife, my bishop and my stake president.
So, when Bryce has the audacity to use scripture or quotations from Joseph Smith to bolster his opinions on environmentalism, and you disagree, you can respond in several ways. You can politely say, “well, I don’t agree with your interpretations of the scripture and here’s why…” You can stop reading the post. You can go turn on the TV. But what you can’t do, at least with any integrity, is say, “he’s questioning my righteousness!! How dare he!!” If you don’t respect his opinion, then who cares what Bryce thinks (unless he is your spouse, bishop or stake president, and I think there’s only one person who is in any of those categories).
I will agree that certain posts are beyond the pale. You won’t see racist posts or sexist posts or, of course, posts insulting Church leaders (these are the posts I personally find most offensive). But you will occasionally see posts saying, “The Church says we should do this and that, the scriptures seem to say we should be doing this and that, so I really think Church members ought to do this and that.” If you don’t like it, I would suggest, in the kindest way possible, that you write your retorts politely and cogently and keep on topic. The fact that you didn’t like the post doesn’t mean you get to suppress a writer’s opinions.
One last point for all those offended by Bryce’s Wall-E post: I don’t know Bryce personally, by I highly recommend his web page:
He is doing some great work there defending the Church. I would also like to point out that roughly half the people who commented on Bryce’s post agreed with his take on the issue. There are a huge number of mainstream people who believe that 1)Wall-E represented a dangerous form of environmental extremism 2)environmental extremism is a false religion for many and 3)it will even lead people to do crazy, Satan-inspired things like sterilize themselves and have abortions to “save the planet.” Yes, from a cynic’s perspective, you could say it seemed silly for him to get so offended by a cartoon. But, again, that is his opinion, and he defended it well, and a lot of smart people agreed with him. If you don’t agree, hey, that’s certainly your right. But you don’t have a right to try to censor his opinions or insult him. At least not on M*.
Bryce, interesting quotation. Thanks for that. If I find the time. I’ll find nibley’s thoughts on environmentalism that I was referring to. I definitely will cede the ground on nibley’s writings to those with greater knowledge than I.
I’m reminded of a Mormon joke where the Devil is giving this guy a tour of hell showing the man all the madness and horror of the place. Each form of hell was separated by different religions behind different doors. He comes to a door and opens it and inside they find a beautiful valley full of trees and plants and farms.
The devil closes the door cursing saying “Those damn Mormons are irrigating again.”
I like the idea that Mormons care for the land they have.
Great post Geoff.
Howard,
“As a supporter of Guantanamo? Really? Please explain how you resolve the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo with the gospel.”
Well, we could always force them to work all day fortifying Guantanamo so that they would be easier to guard as in Alma 53:5. Or we could execute them if they do not take an oath to never wage war on us again as in Alma 44:11. Instead we provide them with healthy food, safe living conditions, religious liberty, etc.
War is unpleasant, it consists of killing people after all. We are waging it the best we can.
BTW, the automatic scripture links are great, I was going to make you all do the hard work of finding the references yourself but the blog decided to take it easy on you.
Aluwid, while we may not be able to master the WP polls, we certainly do a killer job of linking scriptures.
Aluwid,
Thanks for taking it easy on me.
A more recent scripture comes to mind, revelation pertaining to the law given to Nephi, Joseph, and Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, all ancient prophets and apostles D&C 98:28-48.
Howard,
I don’t see anything in those verses that talks about how a secular nation at war should handle it’s war prisoners.
If you think it does, it would be interesting to know if you think a country is ever justified in holding a POW, or in holding a repentant criminal in prison. Because stretching these versus to apply to Gitmo means they have to apply in those situations as well.
Aluwid,
This revelation was given to our prophet Joseph Smith. It clearly lays out the law of going to war; not to go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
But, before the Lord is willing to command us we are to offer our enemies peace two or three times and we will be rewarded if we spare them. If they repent we shall forgive them even seventy times seven. If they trespass without repenting we shall forgive him three times. Etc.
Are we offering Gitmo prisoners peace? Do we forgive them if they repent? We are commanded to love one another and to love our neighbor like ourselves.
Can you provide scripture that supports tearing up established POW rules of war in favor of less humane treatment just because 911 happened and these guys don’t wear a uniform?
This issue is a little complicated. Why should we enforce the Lord’s rules of war on this secular state and not, for example, the Word of Wisdom or the laws of chastity or tithing? I believe such revelation is advice for the world, but mandatory when the people of God have established a polity (which we have not yet, and may not until the return of the Lord).
Furthermore, the prisoners of Guantanamo are more like Gadianton robbers than prisoners of war.
What I don’t see more people realizing is that a large number of these people who are released from Guantanamo return to their old lives and become terrorist masterminds. It annoyed me to read, when I was in Pakistan a short while ago, that one of the most significant terrorist leaders in Pakistan was someone who was imprisoned in and released from Guantanamo.
And for that matter we offered the terrorists plenty of opportunities to avoid war. We told them to lay down their weapons of war and surrender Osama, but they did neither (and, as far as the Taliban is concerned, continue to fight).
Muslihoon: “Why should we enforce the Lord’s rules of war on this secular state and not, for example, the Word of Wisdom…”
Enforce is not my choice in words, I prefer to use support.
The WoW was given to JS when he inquired due to concern about tobacco use.
Revelation pertaining to war was given to Joseph Smith, Nephi, Joseph, and Jacob, Isaac, Abraham, and all ancient prophets.
“I believe such revelation is advice for the world, but mandatory when the people of God have established a polity (which we have not yet, and may not until the return of the Lord).”
So until then we should ignore the Lord’s advice for the world?
It was also specifically offered as advice for the saints regarding the persecution they suffered in Missouri. Was this persecution not terrorism?
“…a large number of these people who are released from Guantanamo return to their old lives and become terrorist masterminds.”
So, when the Lord said if they repent we shall forgive them even seventy times seven and if they trespass without repenting we shall forgive him three times. He actually wanted this to apply through out the history of man except for the current “war on terror”?
Also, please provide support for your assertion of large numbers.
Btw, you guys can drop “secular nation” from your argument, the revelation applies to “any nation, kindred, tongue, or people”.
Howard,
You are taking a revelation which was given to the church to explain how they should react to unlawful religious persecution while continuing to fulfill their obligations as good citizens and you are trying to use it to enforce moral requirements on a secular nations foreign and criminal policy.
If we follow your reading of the scriptures though, I see two implications:
1. America has never been justified in any of it’s wars that it has taken part in, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and World War II.
2. Anytime a criminal says they are sorry we have to let them out of prison. Even if a serial-killer murders someone, get’s caught, claims repentance, and then repeats the process up to 489 times you still have to let them off the hook.
I don’t believe that that is what God intended when he provided the revelation to Joseph.
Given that our secular nation does not follow these instructions when making wars we cannot expect God to fight our battles for us, but neither are we under moral condemnation if the cause is just.
Did you read Geoff’s full comment? For a while I was wondering if your post was a clever joke because he specifically stated the following:
And then you went ahead and provided an example.
FWIW, I think you are seriously misinterpreting those verses causing you to take positions that would have unfortunate practical consequences. But this gives me no reason to doubt your good standing or worthiness in the church. I just wouldn’t support you for any political office since I think your foreign and criminal justice policies would be disastrous.
Aluwid: “Given that our secular nation does not follow these instructions when making wars we cannot expect God to fight our battles for us, but neither are we under moral condemnation if the cause is just.”
Well said. I agree.
I believe we should support the humane treatment of prisoners. They are under our control and pose no danger. They are no longer combatants.
Experts testify that torture is counter productive, so what’s the point of continuing such evil practices.
Further, by treating enemy prisoners poorly we invite the same treatment of our own military once they are taken prisoner.
Yes I read Geoff’s full comment. No, I did not provide an example. I do not claim that Geoff is “not a true follower of Christ”, nor do I question his righteousness. These issues have nothing to do with my question.
I simply asked how he reconciles this position with the gospel.
“I think you are seriously misinterpreting those verses…I think your foreign and criminal justice policies would be disastrous.”
I am reading these verses plainly. They are not my policies; they are the Lord’s.
Please provide your exegesis of D&C 98.
Howard,
You don’t find that question even slightly ironic given the text of Geoff’s post?
I’ll just go with the CES version:
http://www.ldsces.org/inst_manuals/dc-in/dc-in-091.htm#98
No message about prisoners of war there.
How dare anybody question my righteousness! I want to double Guantanamo!
Ok, I’ll go back to reading the scriptures now.
Hi Geoff
Aluwid,
From the first paragraph of your exegesis:
Oops! Well, as you can see I still have more to learn about html tags.
Howard,
Are you saying that you believe retaliation is the underlying motivation behind those that support the usage of Guatanemo?
I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…
Remember that the Nephites under Captain Moroni held prisoners also.
I published the following on Green Mormon Achitect, but wanted to share my two bits here also.
I’m going to say that it appears people are talking past each other and addressing in essence the straw men on the other side.
Bryce, Hugh and Green all agree that we are stewards and need to take care of the earth. HOW we take care of the earth and the DEGREE to which we change our lives and the specific measures we choose are in contention. There are valid disagreements whether some of the changes in the environment derive from man’s actions or from the planet.
I recently heard that 99% of the species that ever lived on the earth are extinct. It makes me wonder how much an impact the little creatures that live on the surface actually affect the earth.
On the other hand we live in such a fragile biosphere with very little atmosphere on this huge rock with extremely preferential temperatures for life and a chemical make-up that allows for incredible diversity, maybe we do need to do more.
Aluwid: “Are you saying that you believe retaliation is the underlying motivation behind those that support the usage of Guatanemo? “
No.
Your exegesis implies that saints would absorb a 911 attack just as they absorbed the mob attacks without a counter attack. As a result, there would be no POWs in Gitmo.
“I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…”
Please explain how inhumane treatment of POWs is “common-sense” and humane treatment of POWs would result any less “national self-defense”.
Are you expanding your compliant from Gitmo to the War in Afghanistan and the War on Terror in general? This statement makes it sound like you are.
At this point you’re leaving D&C 98. Are you dropping it as your counterexample to how Captain Moroni dealt with his Lamanite (and Nephite apostate) prisoners? If you agree that the motivation behind Gitmo is not retaliation then I don’t know how else you are using that section to condemn Gitmo unless you are stating that America should not ever have been involved in any of their past Wars (Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War II, etc) and as such all military actions we currently take or have ever taken including any handling of prisoners of war would be wrong.
Going down the inhumane vs humane path won’t be productive since it will probably come down to a disagreement on where the line lies between the two. Also keep in mind that one can support Gitmo while wanting some of it’s policies (including interrogation policies) to be tweaked.
“Are you expanding your compliant from Gitmo to..?”
Aluwid, you seem to be missing the main point. It is a gospel point, how we treat one another. We are commanded to love one another and treat our neighbors like ourselves. When the Lord lays out the laws of; retaliation, war and forgiveness He is clearly specifying how we are to treat people we disagree with.
Our government ignored the Lord’s law and in the heat of the moment went to war. But that bad start does excuse the continued abuse of POWs.
Those prisoners are no longer combatants. They are under our control and isolated, no longer posing a strategic or tactical threat to anyone.
Imo D&C 98 and the gospel suggest that their continued abuse is indefensible before the Lord.
Aluwid: “Going down the inhumane vs humane path won’t be productive since it will probably come down to a disagreement…”
Let’s try this. After 911 our government abandoned WWII standards for the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo. If you believe that this was the correct decision, please explain why this was necessary and why you believe it is justified.
Aluwid: “At this point you’re leaving D&C 98.”
This is just an attempt to divert away from my question.
I was simply addressing YOUR statement; “I always thought of it as common-sense national self-defense…”
I will now re-ask you to explain how Gitmo treatment of POWs is “common-sense” and WWII standards for treatment of POWs would result any less “national self-defense”. Please answer.
It may have happened, but the point is that the politically correct position in the Bloggernacle is to never, ever question somebody’s righteousness when they question the Church’s position on, for example, same-sex marriage, but it is completely okay and indeed expected to question somebody’s righteousness when they support the Iraq war.
As I just said over at BCC, I just found out what it takes to have your righteousness questioned by the conservative Mormons online: Enjoying the most recent Batman movie – I’m not kidding.
Howard,
These aren’t POWs. In WWII days we were alot less sensitive to collateral damage and I suspect that such illegal combatants would have been executed as spies rather than held as we do today. The comparison isn’t between Gitmo detainees and WWII POW’s, the comparison is between Gitmo detainees and executed WWII illegal combatants. I’ll leave it to you to decide if this is progress or not.
Without a uniform they are free to perform attacks and then drop their weapons and easily blend into the civilian landscape. This gives us a few choices:
1. Execute suspected illegal combatants on the spot
2. Let them go if we don’t actually catch them holding a weapon
3. Detain them until we can determine their guilt
Option 1 is what would have probably been followed in the past but is rejected now due to the collateral damage of false positives.
Option 2 puts our military in the unfair position of repeatedly letting their enemies go. Knowing full well that the man they are releasing could be putting a bullet through their head tomorrow. It’s easy for us to demand this while sitting in the comfort of our homes, not so easy if we’re the ones getting shot at.
Option 3 is the best choice, but it introduces complications since now we need to worry about how we prove their guilt or innocence and what standards we have to follow in holding them.
These questions are being worked out through the legal process and there are arguments on both sides which I can’t give justice to so I won’t bother trying. Either way it is going to become a moot point since both Senator Obama and Senator McCain intend to change President Bush’s policy regarding Gitmo.
I just hope they don’t try to push this all into the criminal justice system. Our soldiers are not police men and trying to make them act as such would divert their focus and result in more troop deaths. If this happens I suspect that many troops will unofficially just go with option #1 which I think would be an unfortunate development but a rational decision on their part given the irrational policy imposed on them.
Ivan, I didn’t see DK, and there is a whole list of movies I won’t see because of the glorification of violence and/or sex, but I also recognize that some people can see them and be OK with it. Different strokes for different folks.