Do you think that if a major world power legalizes torture that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints should speak out against such practises in General Conference?
Please support your arguments with logical, moral, reasons.
If you happen to know someone speaking in conference tomorrow, will you ask them to bring up the topic in their speech. I will be disappointed with the church if no one does.
“Certainly the BOM supports defense against direct aggression…”
For that matter the BoM supports murdering people as they sleep – take Coriantumr’s actions with Shiz.
Shiz wasn’t sleeping. He passed out because of massive blood loss. He was unconscious.
Yes, it was in the middle of battle. And neither of them were terribly righteous examples of men. However, that whole war was a very good example of what can happen to a nation when corruption takes a firm foothold. That passage of scripture is very sobering.
And I wouldn’t quite say the Book of Mormon supports it, only records it. After all, the Book of Mormon is a witness and a warning.
If you want to discuss execution of a sleeping man, carried out in the name of righteousness, don’t go to Ether; just read 1 Nephi.
Yes, that must be the one Rick was thinking of.
Refresh my memory… what happens in 1 Nephi that involves the execution of a sleeping man?
Sleeping, drunk, what’s the difference.
Ok, I’m sorry I was trolling. My bad.
nermalcat,
It’s not only not practical, it is impossible today to have the same form of gov’t today as that which they had in Book of Mormon times.
The Book of Mormon people never faced conditions that we face today. We have an enemy that glorifies death, because of the promised rewards for being a “martyr”. Even moreso if he can take some infidels down as well.
We are in a unique time and set of circumstances. The problems we face are monumental, and so diverse, that to try and simplify them with a few quotes from earlier times does them an injustice.
If we could exist in an ideal world, then the course of action that requires “torture” now, would not be required in that world.
However, we are not there.
I regret that we have to resort to this treatment to extract information, but given the alternative of watching the senseless slaughter of innocent lives, I will take what we have.
Jeff,
I was being a little tongue in cheek. Nice to have you trolling.
Ok, just to be clear, I’m not trying to get anyone going; I’m being serious here.
Larry wrote in post sixty-two:
“However, we are not there”
I would question what evidence can you provide that indicates we are in a world that “requires” torture?
I hope you aren’t saying that after reading the story of Maher Arar (see post eight).
What do you have to say about the fact that #1 torture doesn’t work and #2 that when you allow for torture to happen then as a consequence innocents like Maher are going to be tortured as well as the guilty.
Jeff,
Are you aware of the training and ideology of the terrorists?
Maher Arar’s case is not one that I have studied to any great extent so I won’t comment on it just yet.
The fact is that torture does work.
What perfect world are you imagining where innocents don’t get caught in a web?
Jeff
When Nephi killed Laban (constrained by the Spirit).
But there is also the case, during war, when Teancum killed Amalickiah. Of course that was an act of war and due to the extreme evilness of Amalikiah it was necessary to stop the slaughter of so many, to stop the war.
Jeff, you weren’t trolling :) I don’t think it is possible to do so on your own post is it?
re: 65
The training and ideology of “the terrorists” is not what really relevant to the point. The degree to which terrorists are or are not evil should be irrelevant to whether we as civilized societies succumb to being evil ourselves.
Torture is evil—even if it did work (which from the research I’ve done, I’ve come to the conclusion that it does not).
re: 66
I knew what happened in 1 Nephi; I was trying to put someone (anyone) on the defensive and I apologize. It was rude of me.
lol, ok. Oh I wouldn’t go on the defensive. I am just glad I wasn’t in Nephi’s place because I sure wouldn’t want to kill anyone.
Yeah.
Jeff,
To use an analogy, what would your response be if you knew that someone was out to kill your children, and this was known by another individual who refuses to divulge the cuprit, and was involved in the planning? In this case you do not know who the person is that is going to perform this evil act.
As well you do not have the option of fleeing or hiding the children.
How would you thwart the actions of the killer?
May I suggest that some might want to read this:
http://www.markpeters.ca/2006/10/so-now-im-child-abuser.htm and compare it to those that want to accuse the Americans of “torture” while letting the Muslim extremists go scot free.
This will illustrate what I mean by leftist-liberal elite thinking.
Larry re: 71
You analogy forces me to answer that yes, I would want to do anything in my power to coerce the individual into divulging the culprit. However, I don’t think it’s a fair analogy.
In your analogy the guilty parties are very clear cut and you eliminate the option of fleeing, hiding, or (I assume) [any other non-torture solution].
And I’m just thinking as I type here, but I propose a different analogy.
We’ll start it out the same, someone has been threatening your children. A friend of this someone has already killed your neighbours kids. You believe this someone will kill your children because his friends have killed in the past. One of X, Y, or Z might know who this someone is but all claim they don’t know.
This time you DO have the option of fleeing, hiding, or coming up with an alternate solution. Torturing X, Y, and Z is allowed. In fact, I’m feeling generous so you can even pick up W and torture him until he confesses.
How will you thwart what you believe will be the actions of the killer.
Larry re: 72
Beating your children is an unrighteous dominion of power.
I believe it was the Southern Baptists that came up with little gem of a saying and I also hope it answers the question as to whether or not parents should use corporeal punishment: “What would Jesus do?”
Jeff
re:74
You are right. What would Jesus do? It would be wise for all of us to follow that motto.
Jeff,
re: 73 Your example doesn’t work, because citizens of a nation can’t run and hide from terrorists. That is what the President is dealing with. That is what the defense forces are dealing with.
Why would you object to them trying to defend their citizens in the same manner as you would defend your children. That is the Presidents mandate.
re:74 You missed the whole point of the article. Any form of discipline is wrong.
I should point out that the U.N. is doing everything it can to destroy the concept of family.
Take that into consideration before defending their position.
This a multi-pronged attack on the family through the U.N.
Check out the backers of this proposition and see if you want to be found on their side.
As an afterthought, what are we Southern Alberta bloggers doing on a Friday night blogging, when we could be bonding playing RISK or whatever?
re: 76
“Citizens of a nation can’t run and hide from terrorists.”
Perhaps you are right, even though the statistical chance that any given citizen in the United States will actually die at the hand of a terrorist is staggeringly low, I suppose I can concede that the running and hiding part of my analogy may not transfer over correctly.
So I propose that you just ignore that running and hiding bit.
Does my analogy work now?
You asked why I would object to them (who, I assume the US government?) defending their citizens the same way I would defend my children?
I wouldn’t want to torture X,Y,Z, or even that scoundrel W even to protect my children… you know why? Because just like life, it’s a complicated situation and as it turns out none of them know who is going to kill your children and upon torture they all admit that they are they guilty parties.
Oh and in the meantime I would have lost my humanity; and that, my friend, is a far greater loss than anything the terrorists can do to me or my family.
Now I hope I haven’t enraged you into asking me if instead I want to have tea with the terrorists. I think I understand where you are coming from and I want you to try and understand my point of view.
I realize these are bad people. I realize that some of them want to do bad things to the rest of us in the world. I understand that terrorists can be a very real danger to society.
Having said that, the fact of the matter is, torture does not work. People who are tortured will say anything to make the pain stop. The investigators that use torture will not retrieve good information via torture, and in the process the tortorer becomes the bad guy.
Please read:
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1119nj1.htm
And many lurkers may not bother to read the article, so please read these two paragraphs at least, but really the whole thing is very pertinant.
re: 77
I don’t understand what you are talking about, and I’m afraid even if I did, I don’t think I would understand how that is related to the topic at hand.
re: 78
I’m up for some entertainment. 327-3033.
Hey everybody. I see no one commented on my quoting of the church spokesman who said that the church condemns inhumane treatment of anyone under any circumstance.
Well, let’s go another direction, since that’s not good enough for those who back torture.
One of the justifications people use is the “protection of the innocent.” I’m going to skip over the ticking-time-bomb-scenario justification, as that is unrealistic.
But let’s go to the issue of “protecting the innocent.” What is the main priority of our lives? Is it to protect life? Or is it to follow the commandments of God? I offer up Alma chapter 14 as an example of this very question.
Alma and Amulek preached in the city of Ammonihah. The leaders were very wicked and by this point had decided to burn all the books and then throw into the pit of fire the innocent people who had listened to the voice of the prophet, Alma. Alma has a chance here to “protect the innocent,” to save the lives of those who would not need to die. What does he do? let’s read Alma 14: 10-11:
It seems from this passage that Alma (and the Lord) allowed innocent people to die for the greater cause: the punishment of the wicked at Judgment Day. Did Alma lower any of his principles or standards to “protect the innocent?”
Now, the other justification for the use of torture is that torture supposedly gives you information about the movement of the enemy. The evidence against this is very strong. Torture actually procures only what the detainee thinks his captors want to hear, so the pain will stop. It tends not to be very accurate. And, couple this with a “ticking-time-bomb” scenario, you don’t have much time to verify the accuracy of what a detainee has to say before the supposed bomb goes off.
Let’s play a scenario. You are a special-ops soldier sent ahead to scout the next target. You’ve sent the coordinates back to headquarters who have approved the attack. Suddenly you are captured by the enemy who take you to their torture chamber to extract the information out of you. They know an attack is imminent, but they want to know from you just when and how the attack will occur. Do you capitulate under duress? Or do you hold out, knowing that if you hold out, you get your enemy.
Now, let’s look at scripture to see what a man of God did when he needed information about the movement of the enemy. Let’s read Alma chapter 43: 23-24:
When Captain Moroni needed information about the movement of the enemy, he did not go capture an enemy and try and forcibly extract information out of him that might not be accurate. Instead, he went to inquire of the Lord, who is the source of all knowledge and wisdom. What a brilliant idea!
Who are you going to trust more, a terrorist or the God of all earth and heaven?
Torture is evil and must be shunned. It must never be used. It is not for any civilized nation, or the people of God.
Oh and I still think we ought to listen to what the spokesman of the church said.
Good article Dan (re: 46 and 82)
I like this quote:
“Several bloggers wondered why the LDS Church has never issued a formal statement condemning torture.”
And now that we’ve read their response when asked about their stance on torture, my question is, why didn’t they (and why don’t they) actually take a proactive role in denouncing torture instead of just responding to the question.
I just want to clarify that I’ve never been under the impression that the church supported torture.
In fact that is why I’ve been so surprised at the number of people commenting in a way that seems to support torture. I expected more outrage (and I want to apologize to ltbugaf for thinking that you were being hard to get along with—in re-reading your comments, I just think you weren’t outraged because you don’t think water boarding and sleep deprivation are dangerous—which I disagree with but at least I can see why you at first seemed to me to support the torture angle).
I think if the disparity between what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches and some of the responses here is a common problem church wide, then perhaps the church should consider addressing the issue at the next available opportunity. The Christmas speeches are just around the corner.
Dan,
Please explain the relevance of courts and jails using your example.
Jeff,
My Dad has called. I will call as soon as we get off the phone.
“Oh and in the meantime I would have lost my humanity; and that, my friend, is a far greater loss than anything the terrorists can do to me or my family.”
Jeff, this is a very true statement. Larry, I think you believe that if we are against torture it means we don’t see the need for terrorists to be punished. This isn’t the case. When Jeff offered the quote “What would Jesus do?” he brought up a very important thought. Jesus Christ is our exemplar. We are supposed to strive to be like him. When we torture another human being is this the path the Saviour would take? Is this how He would have us behave towards another human being? I honestly don’t believe so.
JAnd as was mentioned, Captain Moroni. I recall what Mormon said about Captain Moroni, that if all men were like him the very gates of hell would be shaken, or something to that effect, I can’t find the scripture right now. But that’s basically it. Captain Moroni was a good example to follow, how to be as a politician and a Christian. Now, of course the modern governments cannot be the same as in Book of Mormon times, but our characters should not be so distorted that we can’t take the the examples from the Book of Mormon, seriously and to try and emulate them. This would also go for modern politicians.
Just to note, it was NermalCat (re: 53) and Dan (re: 81) who both talked about Moroni—however, I do believe we should look to good examples and follow them.
Keep in mind that the Saviour had the power to make himself seemingly disappear in the midst of his enemies until such time came for Him to carry out the atonement.
I believe as much as you do in the principles that the Book of Mormon teaches.
There is, however, no example you can cite in scripture where the enemy used the tactics terrorists use today. They fought battles on the battlefield where you fought man to man, and victories were won or lost by men at war.
Today the enemy will do everything possible to disguise his appearance in order to kill innocent people. He doesn’t have the guts to fight like a man. He hides in women’s clothing if he has to.
Those who argue against the torture of these killers serve as a balance to ensure that the torture doesn’t go to electric shock treatment and other extreme measures.
Notice the effect of the problems these terrorists have created for the Church. Travel is greatly restricted now.
Just so you know, those who are quoting sources that say the tortured never give out the truth, are only telling part of the story. It is true that some will say anything to stop the torture, but as I stated before, many, many (the figure quoted is upwards of 2000), attacks have been thwarted through intelligence gained this way.
Mary, you are right regarding Captain Moroni.
I’ve got to remember to separate paragraphs.
oops, sorry, I tend to scan when I read. Missed that, sorry that was nermalcat and Dan. I will go change that now.
Larry re: 88
“Those who argue against the torture of these killers serve as a balance…”
I agree that those who argue against torture are serving as a balance, but I want to point out that it’s not just the “torture of these killers” as you point out, but also the torturing of innocent people like Maher Arar. How many Mahers would someone in favour of using torture be in favour of in order to still feel it’s worth preventing your number, “upwards of 2000 [attacks]”. When do the horrific means stop justifying the ends?
And that’s not to say that the information wouldn’t still be available to be extracted using non-torture (the tea method for example—if you think it will work (see 31 and 51)) .
Seriously though, there are other methods for retrieving information.
I want to point you to another great read written by someone who has actually been subjected to torture. I advise reading the whole article, from the Washington Post but here are the last couple paragraphs:
Nice article, but keep in mind the the Abu Ghraib (?) prison was turned over to the Iraqis, the prisoners there pled to have the Americans remain in control. This after they had been subjected to American “torture”.
I’m not the least worried about what an 18 year old would think. If he is not training as a terrorist then he knows that whatever the Americans do, it is far less severe than what his own countrymen would do.
“Seriously though, there are other methods for retrieving information.”
Are you suggesting that the first form of intelligence gathering that the Americans use is torture, and the niceties come later?
I’m not suggesting that at all. I suppose I felt that I had to write that because of the two or three times that you asked if instead of torture one should sit down and talk it out over tea—an obvious exageration, but I took it as though you wanted to pretend there are no other effective methods.
#53 was supposed to follow # 50 by the way.
Larry: Ok Ok, even though BOM government is now impossible (the word I should have used instead of impractical I guess) it’s the underlying values I am talking about.
Yes, our enemy is different than BOM times, but I disagree that those people weren’t interested in what the Lamanites or Gadianton robbers were planning to do next.
I think the point is that selling souls and abandoning morals is worse than the death of innocents, unless you think death is the worst thing that can happen to a person.
And I disagree that a discussion on ethics is not important, because ethics are all about what is morally right. Certainly this might make swift and decisive action a little more difficult, but why is wrong to make doing the right thing a priority before taking action?
Under todays rules you may not be around to take action.
It’s nice to talk about being nice, or being patient, or being anything else. The fact of the matter is the enemy is here. he may well have access to dirty bomb material, and he doesn’t want to negotiate.
(I find it difficult to understand the idea that being nice to killers is more important than the sanctity of life.
I suppose for some, abortion is abhorent, but once you are alive anything goes, including exercising the least amount of effort to keep people from being slaughtered carte blanche.)
He simply wants to kill and maim. If that’s your idea of a worthy opponent, then so be it. As for me, I want vermin removed from my neck of the woods and those of my friends, and whatever means that is required to ensure that is accomplished is fine with me, even to the stage of American “torture”.
As for ethics, it is simply rhetoric when applied to the world stage.
Jeff,
#83
The church rarely gets involved in political issues. Frankly I like the way they do it; they don’t instruct us in all things, letting us to make our choices based on what they’ve said in the past.
Larry
#84:
I’m not sure I understand what you are asking for.
#88:
Um, yes there are plenty of examples. Read Moroni 8. Read Ether. The Gadianton Robbers themselves used the tactic of hiding among civilians and killing innocents, yet the Nephites never employed torture on them.
I’m not sure why this is important. The church doesn’t complain about this, nor recommends we lower our standards to supposedly lower restrictions in travel.
Can you please show me that. I didn’t see it earlier in your posts. That figure is rather questionable.
Interestingly, the BOM message repeated over and over towards the people of the promised land is that if the nation is righteous, they will be protected by God and prosper and if they are evil they will not be protected. So, for those who believe in the BOM it would seem that seeking protection from God would be the best strategy. Therefore, deciding what is righteous is very important when deciding whether the end justifies the means.
Also, my dictionary defines ethics as a set of moral principals, so how is a discussion on ethics irrelevant to making a moral choice?
Of course saying please and having tea won’t help either. I’m not a passivist who will just roll over and die without defending myself or others. But I think defensive actions (including killings) are separate from inhumane actions.
Dan,
If you use the example of Alma and Amulek watching as an example of the proper behaviour in war, then you must be consistent when it comes to murderers etc.
Their victims will bear witness against them at the judgement, therefore we shouldn’t do anything to them here.
As for the rest of your questions to my responses, if your only point is to question w/o doing research, then I’ll leave you in ignorance.
Jeff,
Again, I repeat, ethical discussions are simply rhetoric. Moral behaviour is doing the right thing. Even though it appears that I am on the dark side, I believe in the sanctity of life. Therefore, when faced with an enemy determined to kill at any cost, w/o any concern for consequences, I whole heartedly approve the steps necessary to stop him in his tracks, by whatever means possible.
Larry said: “I find it difficult to understand the idea that being nice to killers is more important than the sanctity of life.”
Agreed. We are authorized to kill in defense of life and liberty, IF that is the only option. Justified war involves much bloodshed. None of those things are what I would define as being “nice”.
The idea of evil guys getting away with evil stuff makes me angry too. But the existence of good and evil means there are rules to the game. Just because the enemy plays dirty doesn’t necessarily mean we should too, even if our actions are only just a wee bit evil compared to theirs.
We are dealing with unarmed prisoners in this discussion, who are generally unable to kill anyone themselves. Even if they are evil and privy to evil plans, so are prisoners who associate with mobs, gangs and drug dealers, which groups are responsible for countless murders every year. I would be more afraid of the murderer down the street than international terrorists.
In cases where no other strategy works (as you claim is the case with terrorists)would you also suggest that the local police torture each and every prisoner suspected to associate with mobs, gangs or drug rings to find out where the ringleader is and what they are planning?
Larry. Yes, moral behavior is doing the right thing. But if the definition of ethics is “a set of moral principals” than how is talk of ethics nothing but rhetoric?
re: 100
“I whole heartedly approve the steps necessary to stop him in his tracks, by whatever means possible.”
I hope you remember that it’s not just those that are guilty of terrorism/those related to terrorism that are going to be tortured because of this new law. Picking up a few “innocents” in their “web” (re: 65), to me is repulsive.