Bin Laden dead.

Lawboy wrote:
Boise,



THE USSR was a political-economic machine, not a religious one. If was also a sovereign nation, not a militaristic one in place to simply create chaos. I do not think the 2 are comparable in that respect. The Soviets wanted to show their style of governing was better (see Kruschev comments on crushing US--he meant economically, not literally), the radicals want to simply destroy the USA, infidels, and forcefully impose sharia law on the world--by death is necessary, which means no religious freedom. It has to be stopped.



And while war is hell, which I agree completely, it is often used to further the Lord's plan. The Bible and book of Mormon are filled with examples of this. There are multiple ways this will happen, but as the scriptures tell us, war is one of them, and will be the ultimate decider in this as well. This is all just leading up to that, as prophesied in scripture. These are not random events. They are foreseen events leading to a great war as prophesied in scripture.

War is prophesied to be sure. And out of the evil of war, the gospel moves forward. I know the USSR was political and not a religious but the reality is that a miracle happened that brought the Iron Curtain down. And the Lamanites hated the Nephites with as much passion as radical Islamism seems to hate the West...and another miracle happened. In the end my one point is that we ought not and must not justify a nation choosing to go to war on the grounds of religious freedom. The Lord's will and plan will go forward. He does not need nations to wage war to fulfill those purposes

President Hinckley reiterated the church's position on war, (ie that they never endorse it unless God commands them to). He said individuals who have entered in to a contract with governments to fight in the armed forces will not be held responsible for doing what they are legally responsible to do (note he does not distinguish between Iraqi, Afghani or US military).



In one sentence he speaks about a mother in America and her son and in the next he speaks about mothers and their children where the fighting is actually taking place.



Anyone who states that President Hinckley's talk supports only one side is delusional. Pres Hinckley said, "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."



If you were living in Iraq, who would you view as the greater threat to your family and a greater tyrant and oppressor; The one who had suppressed rebellions which resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand people or the one whose secretary of state admitted to killing 500,000 Iraqi children? Tough choice right?



I was very surprised at the beginning of the talk when Pres Hinckley was talking about empires I thought he might directly criticize the US (which he didn't) as much of the criticism directed at the US at that time on the part of other nations was regarding the imperialist nature of the US. Since you are so sure of Pres Hinckley's support of the US, to what was he referring when he spoke of empires and our propensity to "glorify the great empires?"

I am only sure that Pres. Hinckley talk supported the US because we did not instigate the war, we are not the oppressors of freedom in the war, and we are fighting for the freedoms of all. And as I said previously, the USA has made mistakes and is not perfect, and that is clear as it is a government led by imperfect people. But do not mistake that fact for the real issue at play here: The war against radical global jihad, and oppressive governmental regimes, the US is in the right. When freedom and liberty is pursued, and oppression is combatted, you are in the right.

The line about empires was setting up his point about abuse of powers and the current (Iraq) war:



"In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle."



You should try to explain away these statements if you really think he was coming out against the US involvment:



"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."

Lawboy wrote:
I am only sure that Pres. Hinckley talk supported the US because we did not instigate the war, we are not the oppressors of freedom in the war, and we are fighting for the freedoms of all. And as I said previously, the USA has made mistakes and is not perfect, and that is clear as it is a government led by imperfect people. But do not mistake that fact for the real issue at play here: The war against radical global jihad, and oppressive governmental regimes, the US is in the right. When freedom and liberty is pursued, and oppression is combatted, you are in the right.

Do yuo think President Kinckley was justifying the Iraq war? We did instigate that war. I did not read President's talk as endorsing the US instigating that war specifically....

I think Saddam did plenty to irritate the US over the years. Plots to assassinate the USA President (GB Sr.) pretty much fall under initiating the conflict. IT is a Gadianton robber tactic.

Lawboy wrote:
I think Saddam did plenty to irritate the US over the years. Plots to assassinate the USA President (GB Sr.) pretty much fall under initiating the conflict. IT is a Gadianton robber tactic.

Was Saddam evil? Absolutely. Am I glad he's dead? Yes. Was Saddam's presence in Iraq in 2003 justification for the US to initiate war then? No. Did President Hinckley endorse the US waging war against Iraq in 2003? I do not think so. Did he justify soldiers following orders? Yes. Are we gonna persuade the other? I doubt it, but I must confess that I see your side better and so I thank you for sharing

snoscythe wrote:
The line about empires was setting up his point about abuse of powers and the current (Iraq) war:



"In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle."



You should try to explain away these statements if you really think he was coming out against the US involvment:



"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."

It was very clear to me that Pres. Hinckley was supporting the overthrow of evil and repression in Iraq. As I read the portions you provide sno, I just cannot understand how anyone could think or would think that the Prophet was straddling the issue or even mildly condemning the US' actions.

CougarPeasant wrote:

It was very clear to me that Pres. Hinckley was supporting the overthrow of evil and repression in Iraq. As I read the portions you provide sno, I just cannot understand how anyone could think or would think that the Prophet was straddling the issue or even mildly condemning the US' actions.

It was absolutely clear. He was being sensitive o war related questions, but was clear in his point that evil and repression had to be stopped. The Church has always supported that position.

Who doesn't support the position that evil should be suppressed? Especially on this forum. I didn't read anyone stating otherwise.



Hind-sight is 20/20, we all know that. As I've said before, I was all for the wars in the middle east right after 9-11. I loved President Hinckley's comments at that time. Still do because I believe that combating evil and repression is a good thing. I just think the USA's approach to these wars is all wrong. Too much wasted money. Too much collateral damage done to the innocent citizens in those countries.



Lawboy, it would be nice if the USA could wave a magic wand or drop a few bombs and evil regimes and persons could be removed, but we both know it doesn't happen like that. The USA can't afford to be involved in the revolution process that must happen in these countries. At least not the involvement that we have seen the USA take (full scale invasions). And what about all the other world atrocities? Why is the middle east getting all our attention but Africa, Asia, South America and others can get away with evil and repressive acts?

CougarPeasant wrote:
It was very clear to me that Pres. Hinckley was supporting the overthrow of evil and repression in Iraq.

Precisely, which is why he was speaking out against multiple governments including the one that caused the death of an estimated 567,000 Iraqi children by instituting embargoes against medications and vaccines. The same government that attacked 7 water purification plants and two dams along the Euphrates resulting in rampant cholera and typhoid outbreaks (before 9/11 mind you). Now before you ask how Saddam Hussein's government could have done such a thing "to his own people", think again, the government that caused those deaths by taking away the liberty of the Iraqi people to trade freely with the world has its headquarters on a plot of land measuring 61.4 square miles between Maryland and Virginia.



You ask how anyone could think President Hinckley could be rebuking the US government? Because the US government was the cause of much of the "evil and oppression" in Iraq.



President Hinckley condemns the Iraqi government, Al Qaeda and every government or group in the world that robs men of their God-given liberty, including the one that takes yours.



Now don't get me wrong, I don't hold the American people responsible for the madness of the government that rules over them any more than I blame Iraqis or Saudis or anyone else for the actions of their rulers, but this blind faith in a government that has committed these things is just silly.

jvquarterback, just give it up and admit that you're wrong. Your dad is wrong. You have probably gotten to the point where more than half the people on this site have you on ignore, which is too bad because your recruiting posts are actually quite useful. Just learn to play another note on your piano, please.

This is kind of funny if you're into the irony deal.



Snocythe takes explicit First Presidency quotes and says they don't mean what they say and then he tries to read his own ideas into what President Hinckley said when President Hinckley said nothing indicating he felt US government actions were warranted.



I'm up for locking this thread too if you all will admit the US government caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, just like the secretary of state did. I guess you can agree with her too if you think "the price was worth it." For some reason I don't think President Hinckley would agree with you though. You know because that quote about defending liberty wherever it is in jeopardy gets in the way. Maybe not though because Snocythe would say President Hinckley said wherever and not whoever, so as long as it's the US government infringing on liberty everything is OK.



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

jvquarterback wrote:
This is kind of funny if you're into the irony deal.



Snocythe takes explicit First Presidency quotes and says they don't mean what they say and then he tries to read his own ideas into what President Hinckley said when President Hinckley said nothing indicating he felt US government actions were warranted.

It is funny, because you have it completely backwards. Where did the First Presidency give an explicit quote against any nuclear weapons as you continue to claim? I've yet to see this "explicit" quote you are referring to. But still you claim it is "explicit," but you have yet to explain how the 1st Presidency in calling for an end to the nuclear arms race meant what you have read into it. You just keep relapsing to a quote in another address by just one of the three, but somehow didn't make it into the First Presidency statement. Maybe because it wasn't the official church position like the First Presidency message? It's your Holy Cow argument, but it is not what you insist on claiming it is.



As for President Hinckley, he was pretty clear (though not explicit.....which I have enough common sense to not claim) about where his personal feelings were on Iraq, unless you want to stretch the limits of reasonable interpretation and pretend that he was taking an anti-US government position as you continue to slobber about. He clearly said something that indicated he felt the US actions were warranted when he spoke about the right to dissent against the action, and then followed that with a big "however." If he hadn't used the word however in that context, your position that he could be talking to either side would be tenable, but there is no way you can with any sense of intellectual honest read that paragraph, ending with "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." It seems pretty clear to me that President Hinckley's personal feelings weren't governed and his personal loyalties weren't dictated by those dissenting against the war and US involvement in Iraq, but rather by the however.



Unless you want to cut the word "however" out of there and pretend that the one sentence in the address revealing his personal feelings did not occur in the context it did, your position in simply unfounded. But then again, you do seem to insist on divorcing the words of the Church leaders from their context and plain meaning to suit your personal logic.



These threads were dead for weeks until you suddenly decided to reply to posts that were months old. You haven't raised any new points, and you aren't offering anything new, much less persuasive. As Hawkwing suggested, do yourself a favor and just let it die.