America /= US government

JV someone who rights a wrong done to them may well have "justice" on their side. However they do not have mercy on their side and will be eternally foreclosed fro the highest degree of glory because they NEED mercy. But by taking justice in their own hands do not qualify for it



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

jvquarterback wrote:



Decloug, as long as both you and you employer entered into a voluntary agreement neither can expect more than was volunteered from the other.

Believe me I think that unions were a joke to begin with as well.



But this line above surprises me. You stated that Cam's dad was justified in taking money from boosters, you even supported him taking the money. But his son did enter a voluntary agreement when he signed up to play NCAA football that such "transactions" wouldn't occur. Are you saying that if my dad felt I wasn't getting paid enough he could steal from my employer?

declocoug wrote:

Decloug, as long as both you and you employer entered into a voluntary agreement neither can expect more than was volunteered from the other.

But this line above surprises me. You stated that Cam's dad was justified in taking money from boosters, you even supported him taking the money. But his son did enter a voluntary agreement when he signed up to play NCAA football that such "transactions" wouldn't occur. Are you saying that if my dad felt I wasn't getting paid enough he could steal from my employer?

I dispute that all contracts between the Newtons and the NCAA and Auburn University (and especially Mississippi State) are voluntary. If you check the other thread you'll see that my main argument is that the tax incentives and tax support received by Auburn and other colleges constitute an attack on other employers who would like to employ college-age athletes which amounts to stealing from Cameron Newton. Cameron Newton (or a representative) then is justified in taking his money back using equal (or lesser) force (which in this case is deceit) as that used upon him.



Cameron Newton cannot be held accountable for what anyone around him does (including his father and any boosters). Cecil Newton is not bound by any contract his son signs. So what I am saying is that you would not be justified in forcibly preventing your father and a friend of the owner of the company from entering into their own contract, even if some clause in the contract you signed said so. And neither would it be just to hold you accountable for what your father does.



ABYUFAN, again I agree that we need more than justice. My point in the other threads (and this one) is that we shouldn't slam people (Cameron Newton included) for exercising justice. Rather than try to snuff out the light they have, and rail against them for trying to obtain justice, we should show them a greater light.

Finally tracked this down. I thought President Clark wrote it in a book but it looks like it was during conference:



President J. Reuben Clark

General Conference October 1946



TRAGEDY OF USE OF ATOM BOMB



Now do not forget that all of the nations had prepared before World War II to use aircraft; they had already used submarines in World War I; and we in this area know we were prepared to use poison gases. Then as the crowning savagery of the war, we Americans wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilian population with the atom bomb in Japan, few if any of the ordinary civilians being any more responsible for the war than were we, and perhaps most of them no more aiding Japan in the war than we were aiding America. Military men are now saying that the atom bomb was a mistake. It was more than that: it was a world tragedy. Thus we have lost all that we gained during the years from Grotius (1625) to 1912. 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 generl approval of this fiendish butchery.

.....

PROTEST AGAINST SAVAGE METHODS



Thus we in America are now deliberately searching out and developing the most savage, murderous means of exterminating peoples that Satan can plant in our minds. We do it not only shamelessly, but with a boast. God will not forgive us for this.



Here's a link for the entire article: http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/rees/321/321%20Old/jrclark-10-46.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I LOL'd to see someone who opposed going into Iraq a second time on WMD fears post this talk. I guess you want to have your cake and eat it too?



That might explain why you left out the next paragraph:

If we are to avoid extermination, if the world is not to be wiped out, we must find some way to curb the fiendish ingenuity of men who have apparently no fear of God, man, or the devil, and who are willing to plot and plan and invent instrumentalities that will wipe out all the flesh of the earth. And, as one American citizen of one hundred thirty millions, as one in one billion population of the world, I protest with all of the energy I possess against this fiendish activity, and as an American citizen, I call upon our government and its agencies to see that these unholy experimentations are stopped, and that somehow we get into the minds of our war-minded general staff and its satellites, and into the general staffs of all the world, a proper respect for human life.

Then LOL about this, because the same prophet said it:



“… the Church is and must be against war. The Church itself cannot wage war unless and until the Lord shall issue new commands. It cannot regard war as a righteous means of settling international disputes; these should and could be settled—the nations agreeing—by peaceful negotiations and adjustments.”



You know President Clark was talking primarily about stopping the production of WMD in the US, right? And he was more concerned about putting thoughts in peoples minds rather than bullets.

You over simplify. President Clark was speaking about an ideal. "should and could be"....but what about instances where the other side of the debate refuses to engage in that process?



That silly Archangel Michael getting into a war in Heaven. It "should have and could have" been worked out in another way. Right? But it wasn't.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12).



But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).



In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.



When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.



“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).



The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).



And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.



“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).



It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.



When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).



This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.



-President Hinckley, May 2003---speaking in response to questions about the war in Iraq

Yes, we are to love peace. As President Clark taught, we are to avoid hate and delight in the deaths of others, and we are to eschew war. But the scriptures and the modern prophets are clear that this does not mean that no war is ever justified or righteous.

I agree with your last paragraph. When we are attacked and are defending ourselves or when God commands us to take up arms we are in the right. The actions of the US government over the last ten years meet neither of those criteria.

Wrong, Jv. You can not blanket all actions of the last 10 years. You may have issues with Iraq specifically, but what was done in Afghanistan, and Pakistan falls in line with defense, and handling things as the BoM teaches. The evil was pursued, the evil was found, the evil was eradicated. Captain Moroni had it right.

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.

jvquarterback wrote:
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.

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.

jvquarterback wrote:
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?

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-and-judging?lang=eng&query=Judgment+Judging

Cougarfan87 wrote:

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.

jvquarterback wrote:

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/approaching-mormon-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.

Cougarfan87 wrote:
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-and-judging?lang=eng&query=Judgment+Judging

Touche' 87, touche'.

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).

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."

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.