It is better that one should perish . . .

[deacon blues]

LDS Theology has a strange relationship with the idea that "it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief. In the Bible the setting is ambiguous; Caiaphas, the wicked high priest "prophesies" this statement, which leads to a lot of questions. It could be applied, but also questioned. It was prophecy, but was it righteous?
With the Book of Mormon setting of the "Spirit" pronouncing this as doctrine, it is compelling. And has been used to justify terrible actions- both officially and unofficially.
As I've studied the Mountain Meadows Massacre recently, this doctrine hovers around the actions of that period like a wolf around a wounded deer.
Does it still affect us today?

[wtfluff]

"it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief."

Spoiler alert: In this Book of MORmON case, The entire nation does end up "dwindling in unbelief." The "Nephites" LOSE! Sorry Mr. Ghost and Elohim - your premise for having Nephi hack of Laban's head is invalid.

In the case of humanity as a whole: Isn't this premise somewhat built into human psychology? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

Quite a conundrum...

[moksha]

"It is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief."

Wasn't that line uttered by Gavrilo Princip when he assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914? Surely positive results sprang from that action.

Some novels have really good lines, like ones uttered by Sydney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities, or Gandalf the Grey in the Lord of the Rings, describing personal sacrifice for utilitarian ends or eschewing the need for bloodshed altogether. Others have lines that are tawdry excuses for homicide by an ignoble antagonist.

[Just This Guy]

Mormonism has such a conflicting ideology.

On one hand, the BOM says "it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief." Some people you just have to write off and kick out. Whereas Jesus had a parable in the New Testament about the Good Shepard leaving the 99 to go look for the 1 that was lost.

BOM: Let them die so they don't infect the group.
NT: Do everything you can to find and protect them. Eventually they will see the light and come home.

[stealthbishop]

"it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief."

In the case of humanity as a whole: Isn't this premise somewhat built into human psychology? "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?"

I believe it is. I believe that it is part of our evolutionary biology. This is the tension of the needs and life of individuals versus the needs and survival of the tribe. This is explored in countless stories including the Wrath of Khan when (spoiler alert) Spock sacrifices his life for the crew of the ship.

But as DB says in the OP, this can be used for horrible atrocities.

These are challenging human ethical and moral dilemmas that are good questions for all of us. Are there times when an individual needs to die in order to save humanity or to save a large number of people? Who decides? How much do we put the tribe at risk in order to meet the needs or save the life of one individual?

In terms of the LDS Church--I believe like many other high demand/strict religions, their default is to throw an individual under the bus if the church is threatened.

[deacon blues]

Mormonism has such a conflicting ideology.

On one hand, the BOM says "it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief." Some people you just have to write off and kick out. Whereas Jesus had a parable in the New Testament about the Good Shepard leaving the 99 to go look for the 1 that was lost.

BOM: Let them die so they don't infect the group.
NT: Do everything you can to find and protect them. Eventually they will see the light and come home.

The first is a reaction of fear, the second of confidence and love; and confidence comes from truth.
Caiaphas was afraid of losing his power and place, Jesus was not. That's according to the Gospel of John.

[A New Name]

This is a great discussion. I'll be using it as the bases for a future blog post at W&T. I'll be sure to give you all (anonymous) credit!

[Just This Guy]

Mormonism has such a conflicting ideology.

On one hand, the BOM says "it is better that one should perish than that a nation should dwindle in unbelief." Some people you just have to write off and kick out. Whereas Jesus had a parable in the New Testament about the Good Shepard leaving the 99 to go look for the 1 that was lost.

BOM: Let them die so they don't infect the group.
NT: Do everything you can to find and protect them. Eventually they will see the light and come home.

The first is a reaction of fear, the second of confidence and love; and confidence comes from truth.
Caiaphas was afraid of losing his power and place, Jesus was not. That's according to the Gospel of John.

If anything, it is an interesting view into JSjr.'s thought process even as far back at when he was writing the BOM. It seams like is drawing the line in the sand that you can take some losses for the greater good. Is this an outgrown of JSjr's Methodist upbringing, or is it early efforts to establish his power base?

[2bizE]

I think it would be better if all church leaders perished…in unbelief.

[Just This Guy]

This is a great discussion. I'll be using it as the bases for a future blog post at W&T. I'll be sure to give you all (anonymous) credit!

Return and report.