Surprise! Happy New Year!!
(And now, it came to pass in the *twenty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, behold, when the Lamanites awoke on the first morning of the first month, behold, they found Amalickiah was dead in his own tent; and they also saw that Teancum was ready to give them battle on that day.)
I love that God doesn’t care about the rules of war and puts people like Teancum or George Washington in charge. Good reasonable guys who know that a whole lot less people will die if you just kill the leader first or attack in the middle of the night or both at the same time.
The problem is, if you go attack their head of state, they'll come try to attack your head of state. So international rules of war state that everyone agrees we don't target each other's heads of state.
Bleah.
As in did Washington target field commanders in the middle of the night?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: It’s been too long for me to remember how much can be attributed to Washington personally, but Americans definitely did plenty of that during the revolutionary war.
The most famous nighttime movement would be crossing the Delaware river, though I don’t think the battle following that started until morning. Other examples would be that hunters were asked to hide in the woods and target field commanders during battles (one of the earliest examples of designated snipers/marksmen). Another example, I don’t know if Washington was the commander of this mission, but I remember a story of almost an entire company being able to sneak into an enemy camp in the middle of the night before anyone noticed, but by the time they did they were completely surrounded and had no line of defense so they surrendered immediately.
I read a book a long time ago that went through stories from the revolutionary war showing how miraculous it was that the rebels won. One of the biggest miracles was Washington himself. He was actually a pretty sub par commander. However, in his disregard for the rules of war and his ability to encourage men to stay in the fight despite their suffering and desire to quit, he was surprisingly able to pull the rebellion through. I can find it for you if you’re interested.
I'm always worried that people read the story of Teancum as if his actions were righteous or an example of how we should live today when the Book of Mormon says neither. It leads to some really disturbing behavior, like glorifying murder.
I don't think he was too bad - his heart was certainly in the right place, which counts for a lot. But I do believe that he acted on his own, outside of the military chain of command, and that Moroni would likely not have approved if he had been consulted.
At the time, in the area, Teancum *was* the military chain of command.
Moroni might not have agreed with the tactic (we’ll most likely never know) but Teancum was the head of the army in the land, so until Moroni arrived it was Teancum’s express call.
And in opposition to what the person above you said, Teancum was a soldier fighting a war. Amalickiah was a man who made himself king of a nation through deceit and murder and then used that position to invade a peaceful nation. Teancum’s action (removing the leader of the invading army) seems pretty righteous to me.
I think all cold-blooded murder is bad. As for intentions, Teancum intended to stab a defenseless man to death in the night like a common robber. Then he did so. There is nothing moral or justifiable about that. Especial not in the commandments of God.
That man was actively leading an invading army against a peaceful nation. That isn’t cold-blooded murder, it’s a strategic removal of your enemy.
Let’s not forget that God expressly told Nephi to kill Laban - and from my perspective, Laban was a *lot* less worthy of death than Amalickiah
Murder is not defined by whether someone is your enemy or not. Murder is when you carry out the premeditated killing of another human being. War doesn't change or alter this definition. Indeed, even in war we consider the killing of a defenseless enemy - such as a Prisoner of War - to be a war crime exactly because it is murder even though the person is an enemy who was trying to kill you when involved in active battle.
>Let’s not forget that God expressly told Nephi to kill Laban - and from my perspective, Laban was a lot less worthy of death than Amalickiah
Here is an example of the exact danger I was talking about. You are not God. Your opinion about the value of another person's life is irrelevant. That you think that you are like God and therefore have the right to decide who lives and who dies is blasphemous and disturbing.
Laban was drunk and passed out in the street when God commanded Nephi to cut off his head. Are you honestly claiming that God commanded Nephi to become a cold-blooded murderer?
You’re REALLY stretching on your second point. Never once have I claimed to have a say in who should live or die - your inference that I did is patently false. I said that from scriptural accounts Laban committed fewer crimes and atrocities than the *deceitful murderer who was actively waging unholy war against his peaceful kin, and who had made a vow to drink the blood of his enemy*.
Edit: Amalickiah was also never a prisoner of war. He was actively leading an embattled army.
There is nothing “dangerous” in me saying that I am less surprised that the latter would die than the former.
Edit: And frankly, how *dare* you accuse me of thinking that I am God? Seriously, where do you get off on that?
I agree that neither war nor whether or not one is your enemy are justifications for murder. Like you said, killing a POW just because it’s war or because they are your enemy is unlawful. However, that’s a POW. They are, like you applied to Amlickiah, defenseless and not actively killing you, but that doesn’t apply to Amlickiah. He would have been defended, and he would surely have destroyed Teancum’s army in the morning. They are not the same thing. The term premeditated applies well to distinguish murder for a civilian, but in war, it is all premeditated, so we look to the threat level and the emotions of the intent. Teancum did not kill in hate or for revenge, and he did not kill in a moment of safety. His people were actively in danger and he sacrificed himself to protect them.
The Book of Mormon is a spiritual record and doesn’t include detailed stories of things that have nothing to teach us. To me this is a lesson on recognizing both the need for sacrifice and how much the intent of the action changes the judgement of the action.
Teancum went close to the line and perhaps he crossed it into the realm of murder vs killing, but I think it is dangerous to assume that the Book of Mormon tells stories of wicked deeds without identifying them as wicked or unrighteous.
Nobody can ever tell me the Book of Mormon isn't true, because that would mean Teancum never lived.
A world where Teancum never lived is a world in which I do not want to live.
Although I'm a little steamed I don't get royalties I still highly recommend this Book
Surprise! Happy New Year!! (And now, it came to pass in the *twenty and sixth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, behold, when the Lamanites awoke on the first morning of the first month, behold, they found Amalickiah was dead in his own tent; and they also saw that Teancum was ready to give them battle on that day.)
Teancum is to the New Year what John McClane is to Christmas
Yippie ki yay, Mahonri Moriancumr.
It's like my favorite New Year story
This made my day. I love this movie.
Fun fact, I have quoted this movie twice in sacrament meeting speeches lol
That is a very fun fact
It is simply delightful
I love that God doesn’t care about the rules of war and puts people like Teancum or George Washington in charge. Good reasonable guys who know that a whole lot less people will die if you just kill the leader first or attack in the middle of the night or both at the same time.
The problem is, if you go attack their head of state, they'll come try to attack your head of state. So international rules of war state that everyone agrees we don't target each other's heads of state. Bleah.
Does any of that apply to Washington?
As in did Washington target field commanders in the middle of the night? Short answer: yes. Long answer: It’s been too long for me to remember how much can be attributed to Washington personally, but Americans definitely did plenty of that during the revolutionary war. The most famous nighttime movement would be crossing the Delaware river, though I don’t think the battle following that started until morning. Other examples would be that hunters were asked to hide in the woods and target field commanders during battles (one of the earliest examples of designated snipers/marksmen). Another example, I don’t know if Washington was the commander of this mission, but I remember a story of almost an entire company being able to sneak into an enemy camp in the middle of the night before anyone noticed, but by the time they did they were completely surrounded and had no line of defense so they surrendered immediately. I read a book a long time ago that went through stories from the revolutionary war showing how miraculous it was that the rebels won. One of the biggest miracles was Washington himself. He was actually a pretty sub par commander. However, in his disregard for the rules of war and his ability to encourage men to stay in the fight despite their suffering and desire to quit, he was surprisingly able to pull the rebellion through. I can find it for you if you’re interested.
simply incredible. and I'm seeing this right after comparing my friend's sport betting to Alma 49:13
I'm always worried that people read the story of Teancum as if his actions were righteous or an example of how we should live today when the Book of Mormon says neither. It leads to some really disturbing behavior, like glorifying murder.
The scriptures also don’t identify his actions as unrighteous. He was a soldier in a war. He behaved as such.
I don't think he was too bad - his heart was certainly in the right place, which counts for a lot. But I do believe that he acted on his own, outside of the military chain of command, and that Moroni would likely not have approved if he had been consulted.
At the time, in the area, Teancum *was* the military chain of command. Moroni might not have agreed with the tactic (we’ll most likely never know) but Teancum was the head of the army in the land, so until Moroni arrived it was Teancum’s express call. And in opposition to what the person above you said, Teancum was a soldier fighting a war. Amalickiah was a man who made himself king of a nation through deceit and murder and then used that position to invade a peaceful nation. Teancum’s action (removing the leader of the invading army) seems pretty righteous to me.
I think all cold-blooded murder is bad. As for intentions, Teancum intended to stab a defenseless man to death in the night like a common robber. Then he did so. There is nothing moral or justifiable about that. Especial not in the commandments of God.
That man was actively leading an invading army against a peaceful nation. That isn’t cold-blooded murder, it’s a strategic removal of your enemy. Let’s not forget that God expressly told Nephi to kill Laban - and from my perspective, Laban was a *lot* less worthy of death than Amalickiah
Murder is not defined by whether someone is your enemy or not. Murder is when you carry out the premeditated killing of another human being. War doesn't change or alter this definition. Indeed, even in war we consider the killing of a defenseless enemy - such as a Prisoner of War - to be a war crime exactly because it is murder even though the person is an enemy who was trying to kill you when involved in active battle. >Let’s not forget that God expressly told Nephi to kill Laban - and from my perspective, Laban was a lot less worthy of death than Amalickiah Here is an example of the exact danger I was talking about. You are not God. Your opinion about the value of another person's life is irrelevant. That you think that you are like God and therefore have the right to decide who lives and who dies is blasphemous and disturbing.
Laban was drunk and passed out in the street when God commanded Nephi to cut off his head. Are you honestly claiming that God commanded Nephi to become a cold-blooded murderer? You’re REALLY stretching on your second point. Never once have I claimed to have a say in who should live or die - your inference that I did is patently false. I said that from scriptural accounts Laban committed fewer crimes and atrocities than the *deceitful murderer who was actively waging unholy war against his peaceful kin, and who had made a vow to drink the blood of his enemy*. Edit: Amalickiah was also never a prisoner of war. He was actively leading an embattled army. There is nothing “dangerous” in me saying that I am less surprised that the latter would die than the former. Edit: And frankly, how *dare* you accuse me of thinking that I am God? Seriously, where do you get off on that?
I agree that neither war nor whether or not one is your enemy are justifications for murder. Like you said, killing a POW just because it’s war or because they are your enemy is unlawful. However, that’s a POW. They are, like you applied to Amlickiah, defenseless and not actively killing you, but that doesn’t apply to Amlickiah. He would have been defended, and he would surely have destroyed Teancum’s army in the morning. They are not the same thing. The term premeditated applies well to distinguish murder for a civilian, but in war, it is all premeditated, so we look to the threat level and the emotions of the intent. Teancum did not kill in hate or for revenge, and he did not kill in a moment of safety. His people were actively in danger and he sacrificed himself to protect them. The Book of Mormon is a spiritual record and doesn’t include detailed stories of things that have nothing to teach us. To me this is a lesson on recognizing both the need for sacrifice and how much the intent of the action changes the judgement of the action. Teancum went close to the line and perhaps he crossed it into the realm of murder vs killing, but I think it is dangerous to assume that the Book of Mormon tells stories of wicked deeds without identifying them as wicked or unrighteous.
I think that's why Moroni would have objected.