America /= US government

So you initially said the use of the atomic bomb was justified and now say that it is not part of your stewardship. I'll take that as a start.

jvquarterback wrote:
So you initially said the use of the atomic bomb was justified and now say that it is not part of your stewardship. I'll take that as a start.

I'll admit that what I learned in history made me think it was justified. What I have read about fighting in the Pacific exacerbated that feeling. However, Elder Clark's talk gave me pause to consider it in a different light. Perhaps justified, perhaps not. Either way, I'm glad I don't have to judge who gets condemned for what in wartime affairs.



I can admit I have a different view--at least room for a different view. Can you admit that Holy Cow arguments are not the way to prove your point? You can appeal to authority to support your opinion, but to do it in a way as if there is now no question on the matter is not the way to prove your point.



Many times it is not what you say, but how you say it.

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?

Fiendish butchery? Oh really?? Nothing like overdramatizing and making irrational statements to inflame to make a point. Politics 101, and it is BS.



You must not read the Book of Mormon too often, because by your definition, it is full of fiendish butchery. The Bible too. Sorry dude, but principles of religious freedom being extended often come at great cost. The costs is not just the life of the master architect behind limiting religious freedoms, but also their followers, as well as innocents. And the innocent blood cries out against the perpetrator who caused the fiasco in the first place. And sorry, that is not the USA or its military in any way shape of form, and saying so is not only intellectually dishonest, it is doctrinally incorrect. The USA and its military did not start this 'jihad'. The USA and its citizens are not out trying to kill "infidels" and to coerce religious worship on others or kill them. But God's purposes of the gospel rolling forward into certain lands more freely will definitely be forwarded by this war. You miss the big picture in all of this. Christian worship needs to be openly allowed, and people not be killed if not radical in their worship per the dominant group in power. Studies have shown that it is not religion and religious belief that causes war, but lack of religious freedom itself. Religious freedom=peace.

I think you are making a different argument Lawboy. J Reuben Clark was talking about the atomic bomb when he described its use on Japanese innocents as "fiendish butchery," but I'm fairly certain he would describe the use of any weapon used against innocents during war in a similar way. BTW are you part of a law society that bears his name? If you are I suggest you familiarize yourself with his views on war before you write something like you just did, which is entirely contrary to what he espoused. You can start here if you like: http://www.physics.byu.edu/faculty/rees/321/321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Old/jrclark-10-46.pdf. In addition the church as released official declarations by the First Presidency condemning weapons that do not discriminate between innocents and combatants and addresses the topic in the LDS serviceman's manual. Mormon and Moroni also condemn the injury of noncombatants in the Book of Mormon.



CF87, I don't think it is possible to "prove" a point. There are different ways to persuade and what you call a holy cow in this case was just another way. I tried appealing to God-given rights as well as a utilitarian argument, but when they failed I appealed to someone you might respect more than I. Hopefully it works with lawboy as well.

Individual positions on war do not fall under general law study materials. And while the guy was solid, he was just a man with an opinion like me and you, not the prophet asked to speak in God's name. Just because a church leader has an opinion on something, does not make it gospel canon. See many early writings of Bruce McConkie for details.



I suppose I defer to the prophet, and then the most recent opinions of the most recent prophets, as counseled, which is why I only referred to the Pres. Hinckley talk and the scriptures themselves. And with all due respect, the words of a man written years ago for his time and issues do not carry the same weight as the words of the modern prophet for today's issues. Terrorism and global jihad were not on the radar, while it is today, and requires a different approach. That has to be acknowledged. This war is like no other waged in our country's history. It is why using a nuke in this war would be really insane, but using tactical squads to root out specific individuals and groups is spot on, while having a presence to allow change to take root, and infrastructure to be built to allow that change to flourish.

When it comes to nuclear weapons there is no need to defer to opinion when there are official declarations made by the First Presidency in which nuclear weapons are called "a denial of the very essence of that gospel."



President Hinckley did not address attacking or injuring innocents in his talk so does that mean you are deferring to Pres Clark? If not I can find you something from President Lee also condemning violence against non-combatants. Or Mormon or Moroni.

Of course violence against non-combatants is argued against. Of course war is argued against. They are to be avoided. But you are making idealistic arguments in a world where realism and shades of gray prevail. Let's deal in reality, not theoretical positions that SHOULD prevail, but DO NOT prevail in this world, and never will until the Millennium.



Should the world avoid and frown on war. Absolutely. But in order to avoid war at all costs, should the world bury its head in the sand concerning great evils going on around them? Should we allow those who profess evil, teach hatred, oppress liberty and freedom, to flourish in their respective sphere? I think not. I think a duty is conferred upon people to step up and stop those individuals, to promote freedom, liberty, religious right, and to put an end to wickedness. If you want to split hairs about methods, feel free. Not sure anyone is arguing for nuclear war in the battle with terrorists, that argument is pure misdirection.

jvquarterback wrote:
When it comes to nuclear weapons there is no need to defer to opinion when there are official declarations made by the First Presidency in which nuclear weapons are called "a denial of the very essence of that gospel."

And once again, jvquarterback provides only a fraction of a single sentence, ripped from its context and tries to square-peg it into his unteneble position.



The entire article, and even just the paragraph from whence you have torn that statement reveals that geography has a lot to do with the statement, and it is a far cry from calling nuclear weapons a "denial of the very essence of that gospel.":

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.

JV,an inquiry. I take it you are libertarian, and perhaps a John Bircher? It seems that might be your perspective. Just curious.

When President Hinckley said military in uniform are not responsible for what the are legally obligated to do, he places a limit on what individuals get a pass on during war. Killing non-combatants is one of those things they do not get a pass on. This is (or at least in the past has been) directly addressed in the LDS serviceman's manual.



Snocythe,you can deny all you like, but nuclear weapons are condemned by the First Presidency,

"First, by way of general observation we 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. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent."



Or are you going to say I've taken that out of context? Or that the only place nuclear weapons are a "denial of the very essence of the gospel" is in Salt Lake City? Or that if you don't have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons you don't have to heed the First Presidency's warning?



FYI I'm not a member of the John Birch Society. I am for refraining from compulsion (except in defense) in all its forms. If you consider that a libertarian then I won't deny it.

jvquarterback wrote:
Snocythe can deny all he likes, but nuclear weapons are condemned by the First Presidency,

"First, by way of general observation we 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. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent."



Or are you going to say I've taken that out of context?

Yes, I am. Yes you have taken it out of context.



The statement is that they deplore the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. Followed by the statement that there are already plenty of nuclear weapons. What I don't see is an indictment of nuclear weapons in general or a call for disarmament. What I see is a call to end the absurd stockpiling. They don't say "we condemn nuclear weapons" as you (once again) assert without thought of context, but they say, in essence, "we deplore the arms race."

Lawboy wrote:
Of course violence against non-combatants is argued against. Of course war is argued against. They are to be avoided. But you are making idealistic arguments in a world where realism and shades of gray prevail. Let's deal in reality, not theoretical positions that SHOULD prevail, but DO NOT prevail in this world, and never will until the Millennium.



Should the world avoid and frown on war. Absolutely. But in order to avoid war at all costs, should the world bury its head in the sand concerning great evils going on around them? Should we allow those who profess evil, teach hatred, oppress liberty and freedom, to flourish in their respective sphere? I think not. I think a duty is conferred upon people to step up and stop those individuals, to promote freedom, liberty, religious right, and to put an end to wickedness. If you want to split hairs about methods, feel free. Not sure anyone is arguing for nuclear war in the battle with terrorists, that argument is pure misdirection.

+1

jvquarterback wrote:
and addresses the topic in the LDS serviceman's manual.

What is the LDS serviceman's manual? I've searched the LDS military relations site and can't find anything like that.

The only one I have seen is one my father made me read when I was considering a commission. He said it was given to him at the tail end of Vietnam, I'm sure you can ask around. I'll have to ask him if he still has it. He also asked me to read a bunch of stuff J Reuben Clark, Harold B Lee, and Ezra Taft Benson had to say about the military and war. After reading I opted not to take the commission.

snoscythe wrote:

Snocythe can deny all he likes, but nuclear weapons are condemned by the First Presidency,

"First, by way of general observation we 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. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent."



Or are you going to say I've taken that out of context?Or that the only place nuclear weapons are a "denial of the very essence of the gospel" is in Salt Lake City? Or that if you don't have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons you don't have to heed the First Presidency's warning?

Yes, I am. Yes you have taken it out of context.



The statement is that they deplore the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. Followed by the statement that there are already plenty of nuclear weapons. What I don't see is an indictment of nuclear weapons in general or a call for disarmament. What I see is a call to end the absurd stockpiling. They don't say "we condemn nuclear weapons" as you (once again) assert without thought of context, but they say, in essence, "we deplore the arms race."

So let me get this straight. You are trying to say the First Presidency is only condemning vast arsenals of nuclear weapons and that as long as those smaller arsenals are not kept in Utah, there is nothing wrong with them. Is that correct? Other than being a pathetic argument I think some of the people on this board will disagree with you as they believe that even the possibility of a single nuclear weapon in a desert on the other side of the world constituted the reason to kill 500,000 people there. By your reasoning if Saddam Hussein only had a small nuclear arsenal and that arsenal didn't sit beneath church headquarters he was living by the words of the prophets.

jvquarterback wrote:

jvquarterback wrote:
Snocythe can deny all he likes, but nuclear weapons are condemned by the First Presidency,

"First, by way of general observation we 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. We are advised that there is already enough such weaponry to destroy in large measure our civilization, with consequent suffering and misery of incalculable extent."



Or are you going to say I've taken that out of context?Or that the only place nuclear weapons are a "denial of the very essence of the gospel" is in Salt Lake City? Or that if you don't have a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons you don't have to heed the First Presidency's warning?

Yes, I am. Yes you have taken it out of context.



The statement is that they deplore the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry. Followed by the statement that there are already plenty of nuclear weapons. What I don't see is an indictment of nuclear weapons in general or a call for disarmament. What I see is a call to end the absurd stockpiling. They don't say "we condemn nuclear weapons" as you (once again) assert without thought of context, but they say, in essence, "we deplore the arms race."

So let me get this straight. You are trying to say the First Presidency is only condemning vast arsenals of nuclear weapons and that as long as those smaller arsenals are not kept in Utah, there is nothing wrong with them. Is that correct?

No, that is not at all what I said. I simply said this particular message was not condemning nuclear weapons in general as you claim despite the clear scope of their remarks, but was a statement against the arms race that was the current concern. You asked me if you took it out of context, and you absolutely did. If they wanted to make an anti-nuclear statement, it would have been very simple to just state: "we deplore nuclear weaponry" instead of "we deplore in particular the building of vast arsenals of nuclear weaponry." You cannot honestly take the latter as a doctrinal statement of the former.

By your reasoning if Saddam Hussein only had a small nuclear arsenal and that arsenal didn't sit beneath church headquarters he was living by the words of the prophets.

President Hinckley made his position on Iraq abundantly clear:

"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."



"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."

Iraq was not an arms race between two nations that already had arsenals threatening the annihalation of the planet--it was an isolated battle against evil and repression. Your two points are inapposite. There is nothing wrong with assembling weapons in times of peace to fend off your enemies in the future--the Nephites in the Book of Mormon would assemble their arsenals and reinforce their defenses in times of righteousness and peace. What the First Presidency's statement appears to indicate is that building arsenals to the point of mutually assured destruction swings the pendulum too far.



I am done with this debate jvquarterback. I answered your question "did I take it out of context?", and when I answered "yes." You have not refuted that answer, but instead made some ill-reasoned attempt to draw parallels between inapposite situations to make a broad attack on a specific statement. That's what the First Presidency was saying at that point in time about those specific events. You can't get around the printed words, and it's bitten you a number of times and you have tried to strain words beyond their plain meaning and as you have ripped isolated statements from the context that clearly gives them some other meaning. Just give it a rest and let it die.

Nuclear weapons are an abomination. They are "a denial of the very essence of that gospel," whether they are located in Utah, Japan or elsewhere. Nice try dodging that one. But if you really believe nuclear weapons are only a denial of the very gospel when located in Utah, what sad, pathetic argument makes you believe they are not when located anywhere else?



Next, I'll hedge up the way against any governemnt whose secretary of state admits the embargoes they imposed resulted in the death of 500,000 Iraqi children and that the "price was worth it."



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4&feature=player_detailpage



You seem so sure about the superiority of the US government, but the US has caused far more death and devastation in Iraq than Saddam Hussein ever did. President Hinckley condemned both the US and Iraqi governments in his talk because both governments were taking away the lives and liberties of the Iraqi people



I agree with President Hinckley that we are a freedom loving people, but let's not pretend that the US government represents our love of freedom in Iraq or anywhere else or that President Hinckley was in any way supporting the US government in killing the 500,000 Iraqi children before his statement or the 500,000 Iraqis civilians killed since his statement.

I think everyone has had a chance to state something on the matter. I thought 5-6 pages ago people had agreed that no one is changing the others opinion...but then it kept going...Lets move on.