America /= US government

[Cougarfan87]

Bringing individuals responsible for murder to justice is certainly a good thing. Snocythe seems to enjoy setting up strawmen and tried to bait me out of the argument at hand (and unfortunately I allowed him to successfully bait me here).

I should have prefaced the quote above by President Clark by stating it was in reply to what was written by some people in this thread that the use of the atomic bomb in Japan was warranted. Unless you believe, as snocythe, that I've somehow taken President Clark's quote out of context, such "fiendish butchery" certainly was not. I looked for the quote while the topic was being actively debated but it took me 3 months to finally track it down.

Let's see if any of them come forward and say they were wrong about dropping the atomic bomb. You could make a list of the people who said it was warranted and track them down if you like since it apparently makes you feel good to hear people say they were wrong.

I am one who said it was not wrong, and frankly I resent the "holy cow" argument you are trying to present--that is, a leader of the church said it, so it cannot be argued with. Sno has shown you how the context makes a difference. Are we to eschew the evils of war? Absolutely. Are we to pursue peace as much as possible? Without question. Was it wrong to drop the bomb on Japan? Well, that is obviously debatable. You have one leader of the church saying it was, but I am pretty confident there would be others that would be on the other side of the argument based on the circumstances at the time. Remember, a single church leader's OPINION given at ONE TIME is not the doctrine of the church. Only those principles taught over and over again by the bretheren are considered doctrinal. So, please dispense with the Holy Cow arguments and stick to arguing the meat of the matter--not what one person's opinion about the meat.

I will agree with J. Reuben Clark that those who cheered the death of the innocent Japanese or the death of anyone as a result of war are acting improperly. We will not be held guiltless for so doing without repentance. Remember how the Nephites mourned that they had to send so many of their bretheren to their graves unprepared for the final judgment? We should be so concerned for our fellowman and love our enemies, even when at times it requires taking their lives to secure the lives of our families. There is no cause for celebration in doing so, only in ending the savagry of warfare and restoring peace.

[jvquarterback]

So if you are counting Lawboy, that is one person who won't say they are wrong about their support of "fiendish butchery." Five more to go who explicitly said they supported dropping bombs on innocents (and two more who only implied their support). Are you checking them off your list?

BTW CF87, which of the talks in conference this time around did you decide were only opinion? Just trying to figure out which ones I can ignore.

[Cougarfan87]

So if you are counting Lawboy, that is one person who won't say they are wrong about their support of "fiendish butchery." Five more to go who explicitly said they supported dropping bombs on innocents (and two more who only implied their support). Are you checking them off your list?

BTW CF87, which of the talks in conference this time around did you decide were only opinion? Just trying to figure out which ones I can ignore.

Best policy is not to ignore any of them. Then again, best policy is also not quoting someone who was obviously expressing his opinions as doctrine. Face it, you got caught pulling to old Holy Cow argument that members of the church are notorious for. Taking every opinion of church leaders as doctrine leads to Mormon mythology which is not at all based in doctrine.

For example, what is the official doctrine concerning Blacks and the Priesthood? Church leaders have had plenty to say on the matter--some as direct as saying if Blacks ever held the Priesthood, you would know the church had gone astray (Brigham Young). McKonkie also made several comments on the issue and then later humbly retracted them saying that "we had now received revelation on the matter." Official doctrine is "we have no idea." Leaders of the church have disagreed on subjects such as evolution before (Joseph F. Smith against, James E. Talmage for).

So, since you are obviously so enlightened, which counsel of the bretheren should I ignore knowing that we are not the church that believes in the infallibility of its leaders and at times they share their opinion from the pulpit?

[Cougarfan87]

Follow up post just to make myself clear. We have never been promised that our church leaders would be perfect or would not make mistakes. In fact, read D&C 1:24-28 carefully and you will see that God's chosen ones sometimes make mistakes.We have only been promised that the leaders would not lead us into apostasy. There are many mistakes that can be made short of leading the church into apostasy. The best answer is to follow the Lord's counsel through his leaders.

So what part of J. Rueben Clark's counsel am I not following? I did not cheer the death of innocent Japanese nor any human life. I do not advocate dropping bombs on innocent people, developing other weapons of mass destruction, etc. I find the horrors of war to be disgusting. However, I am not so quick to rush to judgment on President Truman's decision to drop the bomb--especially after reading accounts of fighting in the Pacific. It's not my place to judge. I am just wondering when it became yours.

For another brother's counsel, see Dallin Oaks' talk on Judging and Judgment. Caution, there may be opinion in there, but it's worth following. http://lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not ... nt+Judging

[jvquarterback]

So what part of J. Rueben Clark's counsel am I not following?

"And the worst of this atomic bomb tragedy is not that not only did the people of the United States not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men, women, and children, and cripples, but that it actually drew from the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish butchery."

From what I can tell you are 1) not rising up in protest against the savagery of he atomic bomb, 2) not shocked by its use and 3) generally approve of its use. I could be wrong about what you think, and would be happy if I was.

BTW, I would have gone for your argument about one person's opinion, but this was given from the pulpit during conference by a member of the First Presidency and was not corrected.

Re: Judgement. We should protest the savagery of the use of the atomic bomb. I think that protest means criticizing Truman (an intermediate judgement). I was in the Marriott Center for Elder Oaks talk that day. A great talk.

[Cougarfan87]

From what I can tell you are 1) not rising up in protest against the savagery of he atomic bomb, 2) not shocked by its use and 3) generally approve of its use. I could be wrong about what you think, and would be happy if I was.

BTW, I would have gone for your argument about one person's opinion, but this was given from the pulpit during conference by a member of the First Presidency and was not corrected.

Re: Judgement. We should protest the savagery of the use of the atomic bomb. I think that protest means criticizing Truman (an intermediate judgement). I was in the Marriott Center for Elder Oaks talk that day. A great talk.

Several problems with your argument.

1. You are taking Elder Clark's talk way too literally. Did the LDS church rise up in opposition thereafter? Did we become the face of protests against nuclear proliferation? Am I to be condemned for a talkthat happened about 32 years before I was born?

The answer to all of these is no, because it was not official church doctrine--which is why your Holy Cow argument is off base. It doesn't matter that it was a first presidency member speaking in conference.

From the church's website:

"Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. "

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approac ... n-doctrine

Note, there was no declaration from the First Presidency with the Quorum of the Twelve--hence, not official church doctrine. More likely a "personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole church."

2nd, if you read the talk I posted, you failed to understand it. To break it down in its most simple form:
1- We are never to cast final judgment
2- We may cast intermediate judgment if a couple of conditions are met. A. We have the relevant facts to make the judgment. B. It is within our STEWARDSHIP to do so.

You and I fail on both counts.

All of this is a side issue to the fact that I called you on making a Holy Cow argument, which is a logical flaw in any argument--It makes people scared to discuss a topic because they do not want to offend the Holy Cow, even when the Holy Cow may be just sharing a personal, though well-considered opinion.

[BOID]

Follow up post just to make myself clear. We have never been promised that our church leaders would be perfect or would not make mistakes. In fact, read D&C 1:24-28 carefully and you will see that God's chosen ones sometimes make mistakes.We have only been promised that the leaders would not lead us into apostasy. There are many mistakes that can be made short of leading the church into apostasy. The best answer is to follow the Lord's counsel through his leaders.

So what part of J. Rueben Clark's counsel am I not following? I did not cheer the death of innocent Japanese nor any human life. I do not advocate dropping bombs on innocent people, developing other weapons of mass destruction, etc. I find the horrors of war to be disgusting. However, I am not so quick to rush to judgment on President Truman's decision to drop the bomb--especially after reading accounts of fighting in the Pacific. It's not my place to judge. I am just wondering when it became yours. For another brother's counsel, see Dallin Oaks' talk on Judging and Judgment. Caution, there may be opinion in there, but it's worth following. http://lds.org/ensign/1999/08/judge-not ... nt+Judging

Touche' 87, touche'.

[jvquarterback]

Someone in the First Presidency said in conference what you admit was a well-thought-out opinion, but then you state we cannot make a similar judgment. Would you say President Clark was also missing relevant facts and/or lacked stewardship or was it a well-thought-out opinion/judgment? You can't have it both ways.

What relevant facts are we missing? If we are missing any such facts, then that is the fault of the US government and you should demand whatever facts you need to make your decision, particularly if you believe in the principle of government for the people by the people, in which case, you will want to reconsider whether it is within your stewardship.

So to answer your question when it became my place to judge the wrongness of the use of nuclear bombs against innocents: When my money was taken from me by a government (purporting to represent me) that planned to use that money to build weapons to kill innocent people.

Killing innocent people is wrong (hopefully you'll agree that this is doctrine). The majority of people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were innocent (opinion). Do you dispute either? They happen to be supported by President Clark, but even if they weren't that doesn't make them any less true. At least posting President Clark's talk made you think about your position that killing innocents is ok. BTW, if you would like the official church doctrine of killing non-combatants it happens to be addressed in the LDS serviceman's manual (if it hasn't changed since the early 80s).

[jvquarterback]

Found this official First Presidency statement for those who are interested:

In 1981, the First Presidency said in response to basing a nuclear weapons system in Utah and Nevada:

"[W]e repeat our warnings against the terrifying arms race in which the nations of the earth are presently engaged. We deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry.

...

Our fathers came to this western area to establish a base from which to carry the gospel of peace to the peoples of the earth. It is ironic, and a denial of the very essence of that gospel, that in this same general area there should be constructed a mammoth weapons system potentially capable of destroying much of civilization."

[Cougarfan87]

JVQB,

You are missing the whole point. You attempted a Holy Cow argument. I called you on it and explained why it doesn't work (not official doctrine, leaders sometimes make mistakes, share opinion, etc.) so you can't say that you have proven your case simply because you find a talk from a church leader that you believe supports your opinion.

We actually agree on quite a bit, but you are letting your sticking to the Holy Cow argument get in the way of seeing that.

Don't want innocents killed? Check.
Abhor the use of nuclear weapons? Check.
Abhor the invention of weapons that kill indiscriminantly? Check.
Wish we were in more of a defensive military posture turning our swords into plowshares? Check.

Our only real point of disagreement--willing to judge another for actions that occurred 33 years before I was born even though I don't have all the facts, its not within my stewardship, and what I feel one way or another cannot change the fact that it happened? Nope. We can agree to disagree on that point.