DiscussMormonism.com

hagoth7 wrote:

malkie wrote:If McVeigh had refused to sign a paper saying that he would never again oppose the government, should he have been put to death?

Do you mean after all the innocent lives he took? Whether he signed a paper would not have absolved him of all that. After all that, I think the government was justified in removing him from the population, whether that meant executing him or imprisoning him for life, whichever the courts found most just.

Chap wrote:

Alma 46:
34 Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them.
35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

Not enter into covenant to support government policies? Death.

hagoth7 wrote:As you probably know, in 1798, while the U.S. was having an undeclared naval war with France, Congress and President passed a law making it illegal to speak critically of the federal government. That didn't go over well with people who were proponents of free speech, and is in part what helped Thomas Jefferson win the next election. And the law was allowed to expire.

But if America had instead been closer to the brink of collapse or imminent danger (real or otherwise), civil liberties would likely have been allowed to be restricted even more, and for a longer period of time, if the Patriot Act and its like are any indication. In 1863, Lincoln and Congress suspended habeus corpus throughout the country. Andrew Jackson did something similar in New Orleans 51 years earlier. In WWII, people were imprisoned enmasse just for being descendants from another country.
Civil liberties are sometimes treated differently during times of war.

What is of interest is what was said in the Supreme Court trial after the Civil War:

"In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke
to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it
was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As
necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

Despite that argument, the court found that martial law had been inappropriate, since secular courts were still available.

The next point is interesting:

"Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course."
(http://www.eastconn.org/tah/AndrewJacksonMartialLaw.pdf)

Whether individuals agree with that conclusion or not, that is what the Supreme Court ruled.

Based on what I've read in Alma, Moroni's government frequently didn't have the time or resources to try and imprison every dissenter. So he apparently enacted martial law, when necessary. Swift and harsh at times, yes. But consider the above. I'm curious. What are you suggesting he should have done instead?

I have a question wrote:"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defence of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself....

just me wrote:Yes, Chap, thank you. That was what I was referring to. Let's not pretend that Moroni was other than what he was. A murderer.

Freedom or death. What a choice! I'm sure Satan's plan was way different. Way. And worse. Way worse than being murdered. Somehow.

mackay11 wrote:

just me wrote:Yes, Chap, thank you. That was what I was referring to. Let's not pretend that Moroni was other than what he was. A murderer.

Freedom or death. What a choice! I'm sure Satan's plan was way different. Way. And worse. Way worse than being murdered. Somehow.

No, Captain Moroni wasn't a murderer... He was made up.

Essay 17
Of Superstition.
1 IT were better to haue no Opinion of God at all; then such an Opinion, as is vnworthy of him: For the one is Vnbeleefe, the other is Contumely: And certainly Superstition is the Reproach of the Deity. Plutarch saith well to that purpose: Surely ( saith he ) I had rather, a great deale, Men should say, there was no such Man, at all, as Plutarch; then that they should say, that there was one Plutarch, that would eat his Children, as soon as they were borne, as the Poets speake of Saturne.

hagoth7 wrote:Based on what I've read in Alma, Moroni's government frequently didn't have the time or resources to try and imprison every dissenter. So he apparently enacted martial law, when necessary.

Chap wrote:But guess what? Even though I find your position contrary to what many people would see as 'the cause of freedom', I won't have you executed.

fetchface wrote:I love how the Vikings had just a miniscule presence in the Americas, yet pretty much every settlement we dig up has a bloomery and slag piles. Even if we never found a single American Viking sword, we would know they were smelting, and would know precisely what they were smelting.

We are still waiting to find native American bloomeries that show evidence of steel smelting. But most apologists have given up on waiting for that evidence and have redefined 'sword' to mean some stone weapon and 'rust' to mean something ridiculous. It would be funny but it is just kind of sad the lengths that people will go to in order to avoid coming to a conclusion that is pretty obvious.

I have a question wrote:So what you're saying is that the behaviours within the Book of Mormon vis a vis martial law seem to mimic what was going on around Joseph Smith during the period the Book of Mormon was produced?

canpakes wrote:

hagoth7 wrote:Based on what I've read in Alma, Moroni's government frequently didn't have the time or resources to try and imprison every dissenter. So he apparently enacted martial law, when necessary.

Can you explain the underlined portion? Maybe refer back to what you are using to make that assumption?