Honestly, I don’t see what the church’s appeal would be to someone who wasn’t white or Midwestern. Our religious philosophy means we draw from the same pool of people as the Quakers, maybe the Methodists, and perhaps even the Unitarian-Universalists. All of them are bigger and more famous than we are.

When I hear that our church is big in Haiti, I’m amused. What is it about our church that appeals to Haitians? Maybe that we aren’t some voudou/santeria/Catholic cult?

Honestly, I wish there was more diversity among church members. But I always took the “whiteness” as a given. Its a reflection of our Midwestern roots.

That’s what diplomacy is all about.

I respect the sincerity of the pacifist position and the integrity of those who hold it, especially when people are holding that position when they believe their own welfare and safety is what is under attack. (Within the Restoration, F. Henry Edwards’ willingness to accept execution rather than fight in WWI is an archtype of such personal integrity.) But I do conclude, for myself, that Christian realism (with a healthy levening of prophetic insight to bias my “calculations” of the likely consequences of my choices) is a better fit both to my personal sense of the Spirit, my personality type, my academic skill set, my family history, etc.

I certainly believe that Jesus must be the Scriptural standard. But I don’t think it’s possible to distinguish between Christian realism, just war, and pacifism as most consistent with Jesus’ teaching until you look at those teachings OUTSIDE the framework that applied under Roman dominance of a Jewish and then Christian community in captivity. Under the situation that existed then, all three theories suggest Jesus’ actions would be the same in regard to the use of violence.

But of course, I’m the crazy guy who thinks we make ALL choices somewhere or other in spacetime and that every human spirit is tied to and formed by the collective choices of all of our physical copies, so what do I know.

By the way, don’t stop your own blog. You have important things to keep saying that we need to hear.

And while there are clearly many instances of the Bible or BoM or D&C promoting violence – I do draw a distinction between these books “in general” and Jesus in particular. Jesus said to love your neighbor – so other parts of the Bible that espouse violence, I would say, yes, is not sound advice. I don’t know why that would be circular.

And moreover, my understanding of Jesus’ teachings of love are not limited to the Bible or any book, but are metaphorical in many instances to my own personal revelation about the nature of God and man. The biblical Jesus is just my chosen medium for inspiration.

I’ve given you my opinion – how about giving me yours so that I can try to knock it down, rather than me just defending my ideas?

There are always many options. I am also well aware of another quote from the Foundation series: “Violence is the last resort of the incompetent.”

But if I am to accept the notion of non-violence as the mainstream form of Christianity in issues such as war and peace (to return to the issue of Joseph Smith’s and subsequent RLDS leaders’ attitudes toward racial injustice) in ending slavery, then I must accept the notion that violence is never the best remaining choice.

I see no evidence that Jesus ever taught this. I base that not on my great scholarship, but my simple observation that neither Christian realism nor just war theory could have survived as Christian schools of thought were there unambiguous situations in Jesus’ life in which the three theories taught DIFFERENT behaviors and Jesus chose non-violence over the theory that predicted differently.

Indeed, you seem to note many cases in the Bible and Book of Mormon that seem to argue the opposing view, and there are similar Sections in the D&C. You’ve made clear that in your opinion those interpretations should not be considered, but to me your argument seems circular: Jesus was a pacifist, so those scriptures can’t be scriptural, so therefore Jesus must be a pacifist.

As I’ve said – I believe the 2 options are violence or non-violence, and violence (you are correct in interperting) is an immoral thing. Therefore – one should choose non-violence. However, non-violence in itself is not an act, it is the absence of a bad choice (IMO). Appeasement (as you describe it) may have been a bad choice as well – but there are always other ways to respond non-violently.

By calling it a “temptation”, you certainly do appear to be calling the choice to do violence an immoral act in all cases and the choice to do non-violence a moral act in all cases.

By equating non-violence to love, and violence to non-love, moral life does become simple, but my reading of the last one hundred years is that it is a moral strategy of questionable universality. What we chose to do with Hitler throughout the West was appease him. It wasn’t hypothetical at all. It happened.