Jump to content

War and Peace In Our Times: Mormon Perspectives Conference


David T

Recommended Posts

Thought I'd give a heads up for those interested on this conference, organized by Loyd Ericson (who many here know as the narrator), Richard Bushman, and Patrick Mason (the upcoming Howard W. Hunter Chair at CGU)

Here's the program:

--------------------

Under the sponsorship of The LDS Council on Mormon Studies and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame

The program will address the critical issues of war and peace from a variety of Mormon perspectives. Elder Lance Wickman, former member of the First Quorum of Seventy and a Vietnam veteran, will deliver the keynote address on Friday evening, March 18.

Complimentary dinners and lunches will be provided for those who register by March 11. Register by emailing information to: ldswarpeace@gmail.com. Please include your name, email address, institution or place of residence, and whether you want dinner, lunch, or both.

Program Schedule

(Subject to Change)

Friday, March 18

Albrecht Auditorium, Claremont Graduate University, 945 Dartmouth Ave, Claremont Calif.

1:00

Link to comment

Loran Howard Blood:

Like this conservative?

http://www.concordmo...ocates-eugenics

On what basis is this individual to be considered a conservative?

Interesting, is it not, STS, that virtually all of the most eminent and influential public and academic leftist intellectuals of the "progressive" movement of the early 20th century were eugenicists.

Was Buckley a eugenicist? How about Kirk? How about Hayek?

Link to comment

Will there be any conservative/realist positions present, or will this be, assuming Ericson had a large role in creating the format, pretty much a left leaning/pacifist/anti-American gathering of like-minded scholars?

perhaps you could address one of the topics of the forum?

For instance, does the book of mormon support offensive, unprovoked first strike warfare? Or did the Nephites only fight to defend and retake what was "theirs"?

Link to comment

perhaps you could address one of the topics of the forum?

For instance, does the book of mormon support offensive, unprovoked first strike warfare? Or did the Nephites only fight to defend and retake what was "theirs"?

"Unprovoked"? That's an interesting caveat, and at least leaves room for sincere differences of perception and opinion on the matter.

I would certainly agree with the BofM's perspective of this matter, stated in those terms.

Link to comment

"Unprovoked"? That's an interesting caveat, and at least leaves room for sincere differences of perception and opinion on the matter.

I would certainly agree with the BofM's perspective of this matter, stated in those terms.

in the BoM one reads about the Lamanites preparing to attack or invade because of some silly grudge, thus ending a time of peace.

It was never the righteous Nephites who decided "Hey remember those jerks the Lamanites, to who stole the land of first inheritance, lets go beat those guys up, they said 'You father was a hampster and your mother smells of elder barry'; we do not read of the righteous Nephites doing such things. Rather we read of the righteous Nephites preparing for a defensive battle, or retaking land.

Link to comment

Loran Howard Blood:

He is a Republican, and the last even slightly progressive Republican was Eisenhower, and that only by the standard of his era. By today's conservative standard Eisenhower was a wild eyed, little red book, card carrying Commie.

Yes, it is interesting, and I already knew that. Interesting that you conveniently leave out that the Eugenics movement virtually disappeared after the atrocities of the NAZI's. Hardly what someone would call a bunch of leftists.

Link to comment
He is a Republican,

I see you can't answer the question, which I suspected was the case.

By today's conservative standard Eisenhower was a wild eyed, little red book, card carrying Commie.

How so?

Yes, it is interesting, and I already knew that.

Excellent.

Interesting that you conveniently leave out that the Eugenics movement virtually disappeared after the atrocities of the NAZI's. Hardly what someone would call a bunch of leftists.

And you seem to have forgotten Roe v. Wade, and the anti-natalist/population control mentality that has consumed the modern Left around the world since WWII, and particularly since the sixties. This is eugenics in all but name, especially as it has targeted Third World countries for much of the focus (the U.N. and its many NGO working on this issue) of its population control policies.

Indeed, much of the contemporary environmental movement could be considered eugenicist to the extent that it believes in substantial decreases, in absolute numbers, of human population and considers the human species a cancer within the earth's biosphere.

Susan B. Anthony was not the grandmother of modern feminism STS, Margaret Sanger was.

Link to comment

Loran Howard Blood:

He is a Republican, and the last even slightly progressive Republican was Eisenhower, and that only by the standard of his era. By today's conservative standard Eisenhower was a wild eyed, little red book, card carrying Commie.

Hi the sometime saint,

If only I could believe what you say...it would be so encouraging! You see the United States going the wrong way conservatively. I see the United States going the wrong way liberally. Mine is an opposite perception (of the recent Presidents) from one looking for conservatism. I haven't voted for a Republican since the first Bush beat Michael Dukakis, and that was just habit. I voted for Ron Paul (Libertarian) in '92 and haven't seen a conservative I could be enthusiastic about since Reagan. Ike wasn't a eugenicist, and this knucklehead of a 91 yr old is a liberal, like most Republicans today.

Having said all that, without having any illusions, I have a soft spot for the Kennedys. Not Teddy. Bobby and Jack. Do you ever stop to think that they were so young that if they had lived Bobby would still be in his 80's and Jack in his early 90's? Bobby believed in helping the poor with government programs. He might have eventually become disillusioned with that. I don't see him ever getting on board with the euthanasia/abortion lobby. He had been to seminary, had a big family, and I think might have been a restraint to the most radical democratic social reforms that I find so repulsive. I don't see them as conservatives at all, but they might have succeeded in helping define "progressive" a little closer to the right. In any event, I think all Americans can agree that their deaths were tragic and we could imagine that the Democratic Party would almost certainly bear their image at least through the 20th Century had they lived.

Not trying to argue sometimesaint...I just found our completely opposite perceptions interesting.

3DOP

Link to comment

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: How did this topic get so political in 3 easy steps. Sometimes and Loran you need to stop making every discussion into a political debate.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...