Nephi’s dilemma
My brother-in-Law recently re-upped in the Marine Corps. Of the many people I have known, he is the one I would have least expected to have joined the Marines. He is gentle, mild and without guile. Nevertheless, after September 11th, he felt he could contribute and joined the Marines. Naturally, the Marine Corps were glad to have him—he speaks Spanish, Hebrew and Arabic—a Middle Eastern Studies Graduate from the “Y”.
He finished his training in time to be with the group of Marines that drove on Bagdad in the initial invasion. While he won’t talk about details, I know he was fired on and returned fire. I know after one battle, he spent the night in a trench with the bodies of Iraqis killed in the battle. He later returned for a second tour and again participated first hand in combat wherein he was fired on and returned fire. When his four years were up, he was faced with a difficult problem: to continue his commission and probably serve at least one and probably multiple additional tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, or to leave. He was actively recruited by the Central Intelligence Agency. He had money granted through the G.I. bill which would have paid for graduate studies.
The problems I watched him wrestle with seemed similar to those Nephi must have felt. My brother-in-law is a good man; a Christian man; an honorable priesthood holder. He loves his fellow man generally, and he has a special love for the peoples of the Middle East. He studied at the Jerusalem Center and was so struck that he went back after it was closed (for the student’s safety) so he could be in and around the culture he loved—not just the Jews, but the other “Brothers of the Book”.
Serving with the CIA doesn’t necessarily resolve the dilemma. At the most basic level, an officer with the CIA would be expected to recruit people to betray their country. In more covert operations, he could be expected to once again kill those he respected.
I know it pained him to look down the barrel of his gun at these people. Even in the midst of the fighting, he could not bring himself to hate the Iraqis. He knew they were fighting for their country as he was fighting for his. How can any good man face this decision? Especially without revelation commanding it. We often re-read the story of Nephi and Laban. Do we really understand what went on?
In the end, my brother-in-law extended his service with the Marines. While he has not so indicated, I know that his testimony made that decision both more difficult and more simple. Nephi only had to face that problem once—that we know of.
While I am not a psychologist, I do study conflict and the thought processes and justifications of participants in conflict. Justification is imperative—from terrorists to soldiers. The recriminations of combat are also inevitable. A professional soldier who served in many high church positions stated that it is a healthy and natural way of coping with this challenge to demonize or foster a feeling of hate for those you must kill. My brother-in-law never felt that way. How can you take life and not feel guilty? How can you fight and not be a monster? How can a good member of the church cope with this question? I am glad I have never had to face that question. I am not sure I could. I respect those that do.
This is a moving post, Craig. Frankly, I lack the tools to answer any of these questions.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/7/2005 @ 7:56 pm
No one is asked to hate the guy in his iron sights. Shooting him is quite enough.
Comment by gst — 11/7/2005 @ 11:01 pm
My father was in the military when I was a child. I remember understanding that the Russians were interested in killing him, which made me pretty angry at “Russians.” I was human; what other tools did I have for dealing with the fact that an entire country wanted to kill my dad?
In thinking about these issues, I think it’s helpful to remember that war is an inherently evil environment. Sometimes, it is a lesser evil in comparison with inaction, but that doesn’t make it not evil. When a person is immersed in an evil environment, we can’t expect her to make the same decisions that she would make in a righteous environment, any more than we could expect a blind person to pass a driving test. Furthermore, when the person is introduced into the evil environment either out of necessity or for morally justifiable reasons — two categories that include nearly all soldiers, I think — it doesn’t even make sense to assign the person any guilt whatsoever for the consequences of exposure to the evil environment.
Thanks, Craig, for a thoughtful post.
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — 11/8/2005 @ 12:51 pm
RT: …war is an inherently evil environment.
hmmmm…what do you mean by this? I’m not sure I follow you. Can something be evil and yet justifiable?
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/8/2005 @ 1:15 pm
I also see a complete difference in assigning guilt and feeling guilt. It is the standard practice to demonize an opposing force in order to have your troops be able to kill them. The problem with people like my brother in law is that he is unable to demonize these people…and yet is still able to kill them. This almost reeks of sociopathy. However, he is not only quite sane and has an active moral sense of right and wrong but is still clearly able to kill those he “loves”. Thus the dilemma to which I was referring.
Comment by Craig — 11/8/2005 @ 1:52 pm
I think I agree with gst on this — one does not need to hate another to kill. An interesting factor in this is that a firm belief in the eternal nature of the soul can make killing easier for a religious person because they see death as simply passing from this state to another. Further, it seems clear to me that God is not nearly as concerned about mortal life and death as we are here (that was in fact the subject of one of my first ever posts)
Comment by Geoff J — 11/8/2005 @ 2:12 pm
Then why the emphasis on “do not kill”. It is my opinion that the very act of killing someone becomes a severe impediment on the soul–even if the killing is justified. Hence the example of the first son of perdition was not one of rebellion against God or Adam but of Cain killing Abel–one he loved or should have loved.
Comment by Craig — 11/8/2005 @ 2:21 pm
J. Stapley, yes, something can be evil and still justifiable. All that’s required is for the evil action to be less evil than the consequences of failing to take the evil action. So it seems to me that it’s evil to fire-bomb Dresden, but it’s even more evil to stand by and let a country carry out genocide. (Actually, to the extent that the Dresden fire-bombing was avoidable, this particular example might not work. But the principle is still there.)
Craig, I agree that killing is inherently soul-scarring. Indeed, violence in general has this property, in my view. Also, it’s obviously true that there’s a difference between assigning guilt and feeling guilt. (So my comments may have been slightly off topic. Consider them as “inspired by” your post… But I think they’re relevant, because I’m not sure it’s monstrous to hate your enemy during wartime.)
Comment by RoastedTomatoes — 11/8/2005 @ 3:34 pm
Also, I think our military is abandoning or has abandoned the idea that hatred of the enemy needs to be inculcated in our fighting men in order to make them effective killers. I think that’s because they no longer need to. Hatred is a human reason to kill someone. If you can make a 19-year old conceptualize himself as a killing machine, he doesn’t need a human reason to kill.
I do think it’s preferable to have a military that thinks of killing as its craft rather than one that kills out of animus towards the enemy. I have no idea, however, which is more psychologically burdensome on the killer. It seems to me that hatred does have spiritual costs; I don’t think any spiritual liability attaches to merely doing one’s duty.
Comment by gst — 11/8/2005 @ 4:37 pm
Thank you for sharing this story, Craig. I’m glad we have people like your brother-in-law over there.
My husband was in Vietnam and he never had to shoot anyone that he was facing, although they were in firefights where people were killed. No one really knew who had shot the people. If that makes sense. He wasn’t thinking “I hate Vietnamese people” or even, “I hate this guy.” They were just firing back at the flashes, or where the shots came from.
He told me about one time when his squad or platoon was crossing a rice paddy and they were fired on from the bushes. They had an interpreter call out for the person to cease fire and surrender, but they didn’t, so they fired back. When they were through, they went into the bushes and there were women and children among a group of Viet Cong. I think I’ve shared this story before. Those guys were just devatated.
My husband didn’t hate anybody, but he was scared to death the whole time he was there and I think a lot of young boys feel the same way. They just want to survive.
Comment by annegb — 11/8/2005 @ 8:22 pm
annegb,
Good comment. I will wager (if that wasn’t forbidden), that he still pays for the possibility that he killed someone…often.
Comment by Craig — 11/8/2005 @ 8:47 pm
Surely in a war on enemy soil a soldier will ‘commit murder’ (perhaps not intentionally against innocents). I wonder if temple married soldiers will be held blameless?
D&C 132:27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.
Comment by Daylan — 11/8/2005 @ 9:59 pm
Daylan, you bring up very pertinant scripture. During WWII, the First Presidency brought up the same scriptures and others that proscribe killing in the context of war. They continued on to note that we are under the injunction of the Lord to follow the edicts of our nations and noted the following:
Soldiers are not culpable for the deaths of innocents in war if the deaths were not intentional. There are, however, many, who in war, will commit the atrocities of humanity and will be found guilty by the Lord.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/8/2005 @ 11:43 pm
I think the innocent blood shed in section 132 is that of Christ himself, not others.
The notion is that one turns so far away from Christ after that they actually assent to his murder (or would have if they had been there.)
Comment by Geoff J — 11/9/2005 @ 12:52 am
Geoff,
That was my understanding of that scripture as well. Nevertheless, Murder, or the shedding of innocent blood, is one of two sins for which there can be no forgiveness on this world…
That is not to say that I equate killing on the battlefield to murder…The brethren have been specific about that. However, regardless of the guilt assigned or not assigned by the Church and the Lord God, I believe that a personal struggle must ensue when a worthy man or woman takes the life of one of their fellow man.
Comment by Craig — 11/9/2005 @ 9:13 am
Craig: I believe that a personal struggle must ensue when a worthy man or woman takes the life of one of their fellow man.
Hmmm, I suppose I should admit at this point that I just don’t agree with you. Our scriptures are full of prophets that took the lives of other people in battles or otherwise and yet they show no record of any internal struggles associated with it. I think there is a massive difference between killing and murder and it has entirely to do with the situation and the justice and motivations of the event. I for one think that I would have no qualms killing someone that was on the verge of killing or seriously harming me or my wife or children if that was the only viable choice I had to protect my family. In such an extreme situation I don’t think I would be racked with some kind of personal struggle or guilt afterwards either. There are much more important things in this universe than mortal life.
This near worship of mortal life is a doctrine of men I think. The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God is not as obsessed with mortal lives as we are. He is almost exclusively concerned with souls, and the injunction to not murder is a protection for souls of the murderers mostly. Killing in wars is an awful part of our mortal probation, but not necessarily as awful for those that must kill in war as you want to make it out to be.
Comment by Geoff J — 11/9/2005 @ 10:18 am
I guess I didn’t make my point clear enough. I can accept that in war, on a battlefield, enemy against enemy, one can be justified in killing another. (It’s a him or me thing).
What about obeying an order to toss a gernade into a house (which you were told contains insurgents, but you believe to be only occupied with innocents) only to find you have killed women and children?
How about obeying an order to drop a bomb from 10,000 feet that you know will kill thousands of innocents and maybe a couple insurgents?
Yes I also would defend my wife and children (to the death) and not at feel bad about it. [Although I’d like to think I could eventually have the courage of the anti-nephi-lehites].
But defending is way different than going on the offense and killing innocents.
And yes the prophets did have qualms about killing others (at least Nephi killing Laben and Mormon going into the land of the lamanites).
Comment by Daylan — 11/9/2005 @ 9:24 pm
Daylan, I think those are agonizing decisions our troops have to make all the time.
Comment by annegb — 11/10/2005 @ 3:49 am
We lived in southern California during the Watts riots. As we lived a distance from Watts we had been attending a ward social. The mood was eerily somber and after a short time we were told that we were to go carefully to our homes and not to go out. The ride home was very surreal. It seemed that every car we passed could be dangerous. We got to the house and watched television for some news of resolution to the anger. There were reports that the Mormon Temple was a target. We heard rumors of marauders a few blocks away who were firing shots into the stores. We could imagine rioters coming into our very neighborhood. We thought we could hear shots. We could hear sirens. In our terror It was the closest thing imaginable to war. In its way it was war. My husband stayed awake all night in a chair facing the window with his deer rifle on his lap.
Alma 46 :12 “……and he rent his coat; and took a piece thereof, and he wrote upon it-In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives and our children.” This was a rallying cry to war, to kill.
Would he, who is also a very gentle man, have shot his deer rifle in defense of us? Would you? Would I? There would be no dilemma.
Comment by jns — 11/10/2005 @ 9:48 pm
jns, this fits in quite will with the other post and in the terms you present it, I think most of us would concur. I do.
Comment by J. Stapley — 11/10/2005 @ 10:03 pm
I do not think that I would struggle too much about defending my family if I were put in a situation where it was either kill or be killed.
But after all is said and done, would I feel guilt? I would undoubtedly say yes. I don’t care how much me killing another person is justified, I know for a surity that I would feel bad about it.
I agree with Geoff regarding death and how God views it. Those who often say things like “A just God wouldn’t let them suffer or die like this.”, don’t see things from an eternal perspective. God is all knowing. He knows that suffering and death are only temporary. He knows that we are eternal beings and death to him means only a change in existence.
On the other hand, I think the scriptures are clear that we are to regard life as sacred.
Comment by Ian M. Cook — 11/17/2005 @ 3:52 pm