‘Taken’ and the responsibilities of a patriarch

The movie ‘Taken’ has a simple plot:  a retired but still vital CIA agent tries to recover his daughter, who is taken by sex slave traders during a trip to Europe.  In the process, he kills dozens of bad guys.

For a father of a teenage girl, this kind of movie provides a lot of satisfaction:  without spoiling the movie, I can probably tell you that the bad guys get it in the end.  And these bad guys are really bad:  they make their money trafficking in young, innocent women — the more innocent, the better.  Jonah Goldberg calls the movie “Patriarchal Porn” because the hero good guy (Liam Neeson, the CIA agent) has an overwhelming desire to protect his daughter, and he succeeds in demonstrating that he is the real, true manly man.

I have been struggling with two contradictory reactions to this movie:  one is that it touched a deep, core need to be the big, protecting patriarch for my family.  I have to admit a feeling of deep satisfaction as Neeson wasted all the bad guys (and, again, these guys were really BAD — sex slave traders — like Nazi BAD).

But of course we know from the Gospel that in real life there is no justification for killing 30 people to rescue your daughter from bad guys, no matter how bad.

D&C 64: 9-10 says:

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.
If that’s not clear enough, Romans 12:19 says the Lord is responsible for vengeance:  “vengeance is mine, and I will repay, sayeth the Lord.”
So, we patriarchs who are trying to be peaceable followers of Christ have two seemingly contradictory commandments:  on the one hand, we are supposed to be protectors of our families, and on the other, we are supposed to forgive and leave vengeance to the Lord.  It creates quite a conundrum for us theoreticians.
Of course in real life it is probably unlikely that I am going to need to travel to Europe and kill 30 bad guys to rescue my daughter.  A more practical scenario:  bad guy breaks into the house, I shoot him to protect my family.  Seems clear, this is justified (self-defense is justified).   But would it be justified, for example, to make the guy suffer who raped your daughter?  How about the guy who hit your daughter?  How about the guy who made fun of her at school and made her cry for two days?
Do you see what I’m getting at?  Being a patriarch is more complicated than it seems.  My response has always been to let kids work it out themselves, but if some punk ever hits my daughter, I don’t know what I’d do.  Luckily for the theoretical punk (and my daughter) it has never happened.  But if it did, would channeling Liam Neeson be the right response?
This entry was posted in General by Geoff B.. Bookmark the permalink.

About Geoff B.

Geoff B graduated from Stanford University (class of 1985) and worked in journalism for several years until about 1992, when he took up his second career in telecommunications sales. He has held many callings in the Church, but his favorite calling is father and husband. Geoff is active in martial arts and loves hiking and skiing. Geoff has five children and lives in Colorado.

8 thoughts on “‘Taken’ and the responsibilities of a patriarch

  1. I think of Christ cleansing the temple and driving out the money changers when I think of how a father ought to respond when protecting his daughter. Granted, the level and severity of the sin/offense ought to dictate and guide the response, but I like the idea of using a whip to drive out any young man who does not respect my daughter.

    When I read your post, I remember a friend of mine in college who was being bothered by a man who would not leave her alone. A mutual friend who was very big and intimidating intervened one day while in the institute building. He approached this man and told him what would happen if he ever bothered our friend again. The man cowered in his seat when told that he needed to leave the institute immediately.

    He looked up and asked, “Can I take my books?”

    “No,” came the response. “You’d better run.”

    The man got up, ran from the building and came back hours later to retrieve his books.

  2. Think of it this way. The father was peacefully trying to retrieve his daughter. He had no ill will to those who took her and, had they been the negotiating types, would not have had reason for bodily harm. But, they raised their arms at him and he had to preserve his life. If he didn’t take their lives in vengeance, then there is no sin. He can still forgive them, as they lie in a pool of their own blood.

  3. I just came across this. Since this seems to be an LDS site, you might want to look up what Joseph Smith said about defending your family. I suspect the factual quote would be censored here, but remember that he died as a Prophet in good standing, so I think that Jesus feels the same way.

    He did use violence to cleanse the Temple too.

    Joseph had an illegally concealed firearm with him in jail. He used it -firing aimed shots- to defend himself and those with him.

    Many General Authorities have spoken on this too.

    If anyone had my daughter and would not lay down their arms and release her, and enter into a covenant never again to come against us, I assure you that I would commence the work of death upon them, and I would win.

  4. The quote from Joseph is roughly as follows…

    “And man that would not fight to defend his family is a coward and a *******”.

  5. Geoff,
    Interesting post. I have not seen this movie, but my teenager Piano Man has and he thought ‘Taken’ was ” amazing, awesome, but violent”.

    As parents, we naturally want to protect our children. I think one of the best ways to protect our daughters and sons is by empowering them with defense mechanisms. We do this by teaching them to protect themselves and to stay out of and get out of abusive relationships. We should teach our girls and boys to not go with easily with an abductor. Teach them to fight and to scream. Teach them to be careful and to travel and to stay in a group. We need to teach them not to be too trusting. The reason Elizabeth Smart was so easily abducted becuase she was taught to be obedient. She was a nice good girl and her abductor knew she would be quiet when he told her to be quiet. I have had this discussion with my daughter Jie Jie. She is a nice little girl. I have told her to fight and to scream. The first time we talked she said to me, “Mama, I could not scream. That would be embarrassing and everyone would look at me”. We have had to practice and practice. She knows what to do now. As for Hong Mei, she came with the ability to fight. I pity anyone who tangles with her. 🙂

  6. I agree with the advice to fight – I have taught my girls self-defense and regularly practice with them. Be prepared!

  7. Thanks again Geoff for the reminder. I went over again with Jie Jie this afternoon on what to do in case of an attempted abduction. That girl has some sweet fightin’ moves. I pity the fool that messes with her! 🙂

    After 9/11 my older boys were scared about plane travel and terrorists. So we came up with the title of “The Fightin’ Bitin’ Bensons”. Cheesy, but it worked. It is amazing how kids can calm down and gain confidence if they think they have a plan and are in control. Be Prepared is good on so many levels.

  8. There is a substantial difference between rescuing your daughter and simple vengeance. While the actions (lots of killin’) may be the same in both instances, the motivations are completely different.

    “Patriarchal Porn.” I love it!

    I have no problem emptying a clip in someone whose immediate intentions are to kill or seriously harm my wife or kids. I would also have no problem forgiving that person and leaving justice and vengeance to the Lord – after defending my family, that is.

Comments are closed.