Bin Laden dead.

Then find data to support your position and present it.

Go fly a kite.

That's what I thought.

jvquarterback wrote:
That's what I thought.

Dude, this is an online forum, not a master's thesis, so get over yourself. I'm happy you've developed advanced reasoning and research skills.

To jvqb: I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research necessary to argue this subject on a data basis, in part because, on this and other subjects, when someone provides factual information (data) to refute your data, you act as if they hadn't given any evidence at all, and just circle back to your same old arguments as if they were the only facts involved (ie: using only data on suicide bombings, and refusing to recognize that there are other forms of agression/ terrorism used by our enemies). Chamberlain thought that all they needed to do was leave Hitler alone. Look where that got them.



From all that I have read about your stance on America's wars etc., your veiws are in direct conflict with those of the prophet and the scriptures. By your "data"-bourne logic, every righteous LDS serviceman who ever dropped a bomb on, or killed someone that you, in your infinate wisdom, deem shouldn't have been killed, is a cold blooded murderer. I disagree. I also disagree that every order that the president ever made that you disagree with made him a mass murderer.



As far as your argument that your "data" is the end-all-be-all answer to all the questions at hand, I submit my readings about Porter Rockwell. I honor him as a great man, a faithful member of the church and a courageous defender of the prophet. I'm sure you don't. At one point, I believe that I had read pretty much every book that had ever been written about Porter. One of the earliest books quoted a number of historical sources (data) that made Porter look like a cold blooded killer with no conscience, just a miss guided sense of loyalty to the Prophet. On at least one occasion, it looked, by his historically derived and quoted data, as if Joseph Smith had, by his own hand, murdered someone who had disagreed with him. A later author, who gave high honor to the first for his research and historical writings, nevertheless said that he might not have given correct interperetation to all that he reported. The second author then added the rest of the quotations and contexts (from the same historical documents). From the completed quotations etc., it became very clear that the first author's conclusions were very much different from, and even opposite to reality.



Sometimes, "data" is not the whole answer. While I understand the need for CORRECT AND COMPLETE data, I also believe that common sense and sound reasoning are necessary to properly understand and make sound judgements on this or any other subject. You have offered none of the above. I know that your answer to my post will be the same circular answer that you have made to CAFB and others who don't agree with the conclusions that your "data" gives you (much of which is just official looking opinions that agree with your viewpoint, therefore are counted as "data"). I will not waste my time trying to argue reality with you, because you will never accept it, no matter how well proven it is. You will simply ignore the evidence, as you always do, and return to your all encompassing partial data, as you always do. So, enjoy using your "advanced...research skills,' but I disagree that you have any real "reasoning skills," just overinflated arguing skills that only employ what you choose to accept as viable "data."

To BBP: Word Dude!!!!

CAFB presented no data. He only attacked the data I presented, so of course I went back to the data I presented. If he wants to present data to convince me my family is safer with the presence of US soldiers in the middle east I would be happy to review what he presents.



Re: people who do bad stuff with mitigating circumstances. I condemn evil acts, not any person. Some people are lauded as heroes when they are not (though most would be the first to tell you they are not). FWIW most (though not all) of the quotes you are referring to were said during a time when people were being conscripted (aka enslaved) by the government and forced to go to war.



As for the prophets and the scriptures, you tell me which side they were on when people were talking about sending armies after common robbers (or even armies that had previously attacked) in foreign lands.



You can keep saying this: "Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us," And though you may laugh me to scorn, I'll end with this, a declaration made by the First Presidency concerning war,



“… 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.”

bigbluepuma wrote:
To jvqb: I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research necessary to argue this subject on a data basis, in part because, on this and other subjects, when someone provides factual information (data) to refute your data, you act as if they hadn't given any evidence at all, and just circle back to your same old arguments as if they were the only facts involved (ie: using only data on suicide bombings, and refusing to recognize that there are other forms of agression/ terrorism used by our enemies). Chamberlain thought that all they needed to do was leave Hitler alone. Look where that got them.



From all that I have read about your stance on America's wars etc., your veiws are in direct conflict with those of the prophet and the scriptures. By your "data"-bourne logic, every righteous LDS serviceman who ever dropped a bomb on, or killed someone that you, in your infinate wisdom, deem shouldn't have been killed, is a cold blooded murderer. I disagree. I also disagree that every order that the president ever made that you disagree with made him a mass murderer.



As far as your argument that your "data" is the end-all-be-all answer to all the questions at hand, I submit my readings about Porter Rockwell. I honor him as a great man, a faithful member of the church and a courageous defender of the prophet. I'm sure you don't. At one point, I believe that I had read pretty much every book that had ever been written about Porter. One of the earliest books quoted a number of historical sources (data) that made Porter look like a cold blooded killer with no conscience, just a miss guided sense of loyalty to the Prophet. On at least one occasion, it looked, by his historically derived and quoted data, as if Joseph Smith had, by his own hand, murdered someone who had disagreed with him. A later author, who gave high honor to the first for his research and historical writings, nevertheless said that he might not have given correct interperetation to all that he reported. The second author then added the rest of the quotations and contexts (from the same historical documents). From the completed quotations etc., it became very clear that the first author's conclusions were very much different from, and even opposite to reality.



Sometimes, "data" is not the whole answer. While I understand the need for CORRECT AND COMPLETE data, I also believe that common sense and sound reasoning are necessary to properly understand and make sound judgements on this or any other subject. You have offered none of the above. I know that your answer to my post will be the same circular answer that you have made to CAFB and others who don't agree with the conclusions that your "data" gives you (much of which is just official looking opinions that agree with your viewpoint, therefore are counted as "data"). I will not waste my time trying to argue reality with you, because you will never accept it, no matter how well proven it is. You will simply ignore the evidence, as you always do, and return to your all encompassing partial data, as you always do. So, enjoy using your "advanced...research skills,' but I disagree that you have any real "reasoning skills," just overinflated arguing skills that only employ what you choose to accept as viable "data."

I wish I could give this post one thousand karma points.

jvquarterback wrote:
...a declaration made by the First Presidency concerning war,



“… 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.”

What does that mean to you?

No offensive (including pre-emptive) war. No sending troops anywhere in the world unless attacked or commanded by God to do so.



Here is the full talk by President Lee who is quoting a First Presidency declaration given during WWII. It also addresses the individual responsibilities of soldiers at war who are "innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign whom he had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist."

urroner wrote:

...a declaration made by the First Presidency concerning war,



“… 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.”

What does that mean to you?

I encourage anyone who reads that brief except to read the entire statement by the First Presidency rather than the part convenient to jvquarterback's argument. You'll find the global message to be much different that these two sentences under the heading "Separation of Church and State." It's always interesting to run down quotes people use on forums without linking to the full message. Funny what some context can do for you:



http://www.latterdayconservative.com/articles/war-first-presidency/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think President Lee gives plenty of context. Thankfully I beat you to the reference or people might believe your implication that I've taken the prophets out of context. The words are entirely in context and I also invite everyone to read the full text you cited (it is actually under the heading Church Membership and Army Service) as well as what President Lee said, lest you believe snocythe's assertion that I have somehow altered the meaning of their words.

jvquarterback wrote:
I think President Lee gives plenty of context. Thankfully I beat you to the reference or people might believe your implication that I've taken the prophets out of context. The words are entirely in context and I also invite everyone to read the full text you cited (it is actually under the heading Church Membership and Army Service) as well as what President Lee said, lest you believe snocythe's assertion that I have somehow altered the meaning of their words.

Yeah, NOW there's a link to President Lee's talk....along with this little caveat "Last edited by jvquarterback on Tue May 10, 2011 3:12 pm, edited 4 times in total." In other words--edited half an hour after I noted your failure to cite and mere minutes before you responded with this disingenuous attempt. I wonder why that was edited this late in the game????? You wonder why people don't take you seriously--part of it might involve your propensity to go back and revise and edit your posts days later in the debate when you get caught on something.



You would do well to reread the second sentence of President Lee's talk before you use it to establish whether war is right or wrong: "We do not wish to enter into a controversy as to the rightness or wrongness of war, but to set at rest the torments of those who have loved ones engaged in the ugly conflicts of war."

I'm sure what I wrote is cached with the timing of each edit. If you wish to check you should have access as you are one of the webmasters. If you haven't noticed, I edit many of my posts, mostly to take out anything that is an ad hominem attack. But it isn't like you didn't call me a liar two posts ago so this is nothing new.



President Lee was speaking at a service for men who died in Vietnam. He said those men were "innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign whom he had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist.” It was a memorial service for those men so I'm sure he did not wish to bring up controversy. That does not mean we cannot learn about the rightness or wrongness of war from what he had to say.



There is no controversy as to the rightness or wrongness of war. There are only two reasons it can be justified:

1) God commands it.

2) You are defending yourself (family, home, religion, freedom).



You seem to relish defending other reasons for war and your arguments put me and my family in danger.

You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

You are the one arguing for war, don't you think the burden falls on you?

jvquarterback wrote:
You are the one arguing for war, don't you think the burden falls on you?

The arguments t o that end have been made ad nauseum. When they were made, you started quoting prophets without context in an effort to insinuate that no war is righteous. Only now that you have been exposed for your disingenuity on that point are you now circling back to those initial grounds.

snoscythe wrote:
You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

i can understand Aghanistan, but i do not see how the war in Iraq fits in? There were no weapons of mass destruction--zero--Iraq with the no fly zones and embargo etc etc was not a threat to us our families or our freedoms in any way that I can discern. We fought and occupied a country for reasons that proved to be false.

jvquarterback wrote:
CAFB presented no data. He only attacked the data I presented, so of course I went back to the data I presented. If he wants to present data to convince me my family is safer with the presence of US soldiers in the middle east I would be happy to review what he presents.

Oh, I'm sorry...I thought this was an online forum. I didn't know that I was defending my master's thesis.



I don't remember attacking anything...just expressing an opinion.



I don't remember expressing that I thought you were safer with troops in the Middle East...just that it is in the national interest to do so.



But I'm fully confident that you'll spend your time researching exactly what was said, maybe throw in a Church quote here or there, to add data to your conclusions. Congrats. You win.

BoiseBYU wrote:

You have yet to persuade anyone that Iraq and Afghanistan are not fought to defend ourselves, our families, our faith, and our freedoms.

i can understand Aghanistan, but i do not see how the war in Iraq fits in? There were no weapons of mass destruction--zero--Iraq with the no fly zones and embargo etc etc was not a threat to us our families or our freedoms in any way that I can discern. We fought and occupied a country for reasons that proved to be false.

Agree 100%. No data though...