DiscussMormonism.com

hagoth7 wrote: Mormon said he saw their day (apparently meaning the 19th century). And he also compiled and wrote part of the record. Based on what he saw, did he intentionally choose and write passages that would resonate with a 19th-century audience? ...

Or is it more likely that the Book of Mormon was written by somebody in the 19th century US, who naturally reflected the preoccupations of his place and time? Hard one, that!

I note that there appears to be no US Supreme Court ruling that gives countenance to the notion that it is legitimate for a government to kill people who refuse to sign up to a statement of support for the policy of that government for the time being, even in time of war. Captain Moroni seems to be out there on his own so far as they are concerned.

Hi again Chap,

Chap wrote:

hagoth7 wrote: Mormon said he saw their day (apparently meaning the 19th century). And he also compiled and wrote part of the record. Based on what he saw, did he intentionally choose and write passages that would resonate with a 19th-century audience? ...

Or is it more likely that the Book of Mormon was written by somebody in the 19th century US, who naturally reflected the preoccupations of his place and time? Hard one, that!

It's not hard at all if you understand the context of what I was implying. How could Joseph have incorporated the implications of an 1866 court ruling into the Book of Mormon? (When the court made its 1866 ruling, 22 years had passed since Joseph's death, and 36 years had passed since the Book of Mormon had first gone into circulation.)

Also, there is additional worthwhile context. There are curious things that line up with contents in the Book of Mormon in nations far beyond US boundaries, and in a time decades after the first publication of the Book of Mormon. For example, the senior paper I wrote in college was in response to a question suggested by my (non-LDS) professor, which basically asked, "why did so many people from this region of Europe join the LDS church?" After studying things out, my conclusion was that there were a number of unique cultural factors in that European region, that didn't come into play until a specific generation, that made the Book of Mormon message much more compelling for them than it was for other regions and for later generations. Joseph would have had no reasonable way of knowing, in the late 1820's, what the culture of those foreign nations was going to be like decades later (and years after his death), when missionaries were finally sent across the Atlantic to that region.

Chap wrote:I note that there appears to be no US Supreme Court ruling that gives countenance to the notion that it is legitimate for a government to kill people who refuse to sign up to a statement of support for the policy of that government for the time being, even in time of war. Captain Moroni seems to be out there on his own so far as they are concerned.

The government policy? You mean survival?

I think you're overlooking a number of things. As military commander, Captain Moroni had the right, given to him by the judges of his nation, to do a number of things, apparently including conscript citizens into the army for the survival of their own nation. By definition, those conscripts were then subject to military justice.

A few thoughts on that matter:

In the United States' Uniform Code of Military Justice, mutiny, sedition, related charges, and their potential consequences are laid out quite clearly:
Art. 94. (§ 894.) 2004 Mutiny or Sedition.
(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who—
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;
(2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition;
(3) fails to do his utmost to prevent and suppress a mutiny or sedition being committed in his presence, or fails to take all reasonable means to inform his superior commissioned officer or commanding officer of a mutiny or sedition which he knows or has reason to believe is taking place, is guilty of a failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition.
(b) A person who is found guilty of attempted mutiny, mutiny, sedition, or failure to suppress or report a mutiny or sedition shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

"Many military codes of justice proscribe cowardice in combat as a crime punishable by death. Acts of cowardice have long been punishable by military law, which defines a wide range of cowardly offenses including desertion in face of the enemy and surrendering to the enemy against orders. The punishment for such acts is typically severe, ranging from corporal punishment to the death sentence."

In this context, consider and compare what was happening in the war chapters in question, with what is still on the U.S. military law books today.
If a free nation like the U.S. was on the brink of collapse, both from insurgents within, and invasion from without, and if conscription (required enlistment) became a matter of fact for the nation's survival, do you think court-martials for mutiny and/or cowardice would tend to be more harsh, or more lenient?

I'm curious. What's your take on the American Civil War? In your opinion, was President Lincoln wrong in his decision to preserve the Union and send troop to retake Fort Sumter and put down the Confederates, a decision that led to the death of over half a million soldiers? Or should he have allowed the Confederates to peacefully separate from the Union, thereby allowing the continuation of slavery for millions of people? Lincoln's orders caused many more deaths than Captain Moroni's. In your opinion, was Lincoln even more of a tyrant than some people here are saying Captain Moroni was?

Meanwhile, President Buchanan had said on December 3, 1860: "The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force." In your opinion, was Buchanan right? Should Congress just have simply shrugged their shoulders and allowed slavery to go on for millions of American residents for who knows how many more generations?

A solution to America's Gordian knot, in my humble opinion, would have been provided by Joseph Smith's 1844 platform (the peaceful redemption of all slaves with government funds from the sale of federal lands). If that portion of his platform had been received by the American people, the whole contentious issue of slavery could have been resolved without half a million lives being lost. But then again, when Joseph published his desire and intention to free the slaves, he likely signed his own death warrant. (Elijah Lovejoy's demise seven years earlier, also in Illinois and only 200 miles to the south, gave a pretty clear indication of what he could expect.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Parish_Lovejoy

Actually, Smith wanted to send the blacks to Mexico after using them for canon fodder against the British. He was for receiving Texas as a State, because it was for slavery:

"On the annexation of Texas, some object. The anti-Mormons are good fellows. I say it in anticipation they will repent. {page 23}[They] Object to Texas on account of slavery. Tis the very reason why she should be received.

"Houston says, 'Gentleman, if you refuse to receive us we must go to the British' and the first thing they will do will be to set the negroes and indians [against us] and they will use us up. British officers running all over Texas to pick a quarrel with us[. It would be] more honorable for us [as a nation] to receive them and set the negroes free [u]and use the negro and indians against our foes.[/u]

[p.457] "Don't let Texas go lest our Mother and the daughters of the land will laugh us {page 24} in the teeth. If these things are not so God never spoke by any prophet since the world began. I have been [ ] south, [if the south] held the balance of power &c. by annexing Texas[, this could still be remedied]. I can do away [with] this evil [and] liberate [the slaves in] 2 or 3 states and if that was not sufficient, call in Canada.

Send the negroes to Texas [and] from Texas to Mexico where all colors are alike. Notice was given for the Relief Society to meet Saturday 2 P.M. to adopt "the voice of Innocence from Nauvoo"

/Joseph stated the Mormon Zion has endured all animus.[- - - - - - - - - -]/ Scott H. Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, p.457, March 7, 1844.

With this policy, Smith would have been in little danger. He was NEVER for amalgamation, or for setting the blacks free to roam about the United States, he was for freeing them and booting them from the Union.

hagoth7 wrote:As military commander, Captain Moroni had the right, given to him by the judges of his nation, to do a number of things, apparently including conscript citizens into the army for the survival of their own nation. By definition, those conscripts were then subject to military justice.

Wow! That's really cool!

You conscript the entire population into the army, then if they don't do exactly what you say, you can have then executed for disobeying orders, including a refusal to sign up to your 'Covenant of Liberty' (or the 'Motherhood and Apple Pie Act' or whatever catchy name you can think of for a statement of your government's policy). Clearly there's no way any reasonable person could have a problem with simply abolishing all distinctions between civilians and soldiers so as to get the right to kill people who disagree with you.

Look, if that enables you to go on feeling good about your story-book hero, you should go with that. Here's a picture of him for you to salute:

Chap wrote:Wow! That's really cool!...Look, if that enables you to go on feeling good about your story-book hero, you should go with that.

I have essentially asked if you're holding Captain Moroni to a double standard here. So far, you haven't answered my question.

You make a clear objection to the thousands who died under Captain Moroni.
Yet not a peep about the hundreds of thousands who died under Abraham Lincoln.
Was President Lincoln right or wrong to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men to preserve the Union and to free millions of men, women and children?

hagoth7 wrote:

Chap wrote:Wow! That's really cool!...Look, if that enables you to go on feeling good about your story-book hero, you should go with that.

I have essentially asked if you're holding Captain Moroni to a double standard here. So far, you haven't answered my question.

You make a clear objection to the thousands who died under Captain Moroni.
Yet not a peep about the hundreds of thousands who died under Abraham Lincoln.
Was President Lincoln right or wrong to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men to preserve the Union and to free millions of men, women and children?

Lincoln did not conscript everybody into the army, and then demand on pain of death that they should sign a statement of support for his policies.

According to you, the fictional character 'Captain Moroni' did just that. And you are cool with that. Thanks for making yourself clear.

hagoth7 wrote:

Chap wrote:Wow! That's really cool!...Look, if that enables you to go on feeling good about your story-book hero, you should go with that.

I have essentially asked if you're holding Captain Moroni to a double standard here. So far, you haven't answered my question.

You make a clear objection to the thousands who died under Captain Moroni.
Yet not a peep about the hundreds of thousands who died under Abraham Lincoln.
Was President Lincoln right or wrong to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men to preserve the Union and to free millions of men, women and children?

Moroni lost.
Despite having God on his side.

Hagoth, thank you for your earlier response. Now, another question.

You state,

hagoth7 wrote:It's not hard at all if you understand the context of what I was implying. How could Joseph have incorporated the implications of an 1866 court ruling into the Book of Mormon? (When the court made its 1866 ruling, 22 years had passed since Joseph's death, and 36 years had passed since the Book of Mormon had first gone into circulation.)

It's probably just my brain not fully firing on all cylinders this morning (hey, it takes a few hours) but it looks like you are alluding to law that already existed prior to Smith's time. Per your link:

Article 1, Section 9 states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

- and -

On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.

My interpretation was that you are using the exclusion within Article 1, Section 9 as proof that Moroni was implementing something that would later be a possibility under US law (ending up being incorporated within the Constitution), but then you are asking, "How could Joseph Smith have known?", in relation to the later SC ruling of 1866 that asserts an unconstitutional act. The latter does not seem to connect to the statement you are making, and the former was already law before Smith was involved with the Book of Mormon (and therefore already existed as a frame of reference). Am I reading you wrong? Please shed a little more light on this if you are so inclined.