Church Position On The Current War On Terror

[zelder]

On another thread someone asserted that President Hinckely had given his approval of wars being fought. Are there others who believe this and how do you support your opinion? I don't see where Hinckley ever approved of recent wars or said that it is righteous.

[Duncan]

On another thread someone asserted that President Hinckely had given his approval of wars being fought. Are there others who believe this and how do you support your opinion? I don't see where Hinckley ever approved of recent wars or said that it is righteous.

He spoke about war in a General Conference talk like in '04... or something, don't remember much about the actual talk itself but I recall the aftermath, but in the strait and narrow Canadian way

[Fly Fisherman]

President Hinckley spoke in General Conference on the subject of "War and Peace" here.

Some people have interpreted that as the Church supported the Iraq war. But you decide. (He did say that that talk "governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation." )

However, it is interesting to note that a few places have quoted LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle as saying the following regarding the war in Iraq: here:

LDS Church spokesman Mark Tuttle insisted there has been "no additional statement, clarification, changed policy or announcement that

can account for" the rapid change in Utah church members' perceptions of the war. And he reiterated that the church has no official position on Iraq.

[Hayds]

I don't recall Hinckley endorsing the war. I just remember he basically said the whole 9-11 ordeal basically sucks and terrible things were ahead on that subject matter for now and it is what it is. I am paraphrasing of course, but I believe its fairly accurate.

[BCSpace]

On another thread someone asserted that President Hinckely had given his approval of wars being fought. Are there others who believe this and how do you support your opinion? I don't see where Hinckley ever approved of recent wars or said that it is righteous.

I said it and afterwards someone opposed to it gave the relevant reference. But I don't think GBH's stamp of approval was necessary for the current wars we've engaged in to be consistent with the Gospel. Such merely put some oomph and confirmation into principles already taught and it was good to see it coming directly from a modern prophet of God. Now that certainly doesn't mean I believe we've always gone about fighting the wars in the right way, but I think my version of the right way would still be significantly different from those who opppose what GBH said.

I think by and large, we don't need the Church to have a started position on specific wars. The principles are there in the scriptures and the doctrine.

[USU78]

Recognizing sadly that "That's the way the game is played" and being in favor of the way the game is played are not the same thing.

I attended the Tabernacle meeting a couple of days after 9-11, at which GBH talked.

If I recall correctly, he spoke of the "sad necessity" of armed retaliation. This was well in advance of our descent into Afghanistan and long before any decision was made regarding Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

[zelder]

Throughout the talk Hinckley discusses conflating indeas surrounding war and peace. It would seem that he himself was confused or was he simply trying to appease all sides of the issue? The paragraph in question is:

"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."

I'm left wondering what exactly he meant by "another overriding responsibility..". Was he referring to AF 12 and the responsibility to follow the government? Or was he suggesting that the war is indeed about fighting for freedom (as opposed to oil, control, profits, or some dark machiavellian machination). Personally I think he was referring to AF 12 since that is what he had just talked about.

My favorite paragraph is this:

"We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure."

Hinckley covered all the bases in that talk. Everyone can find something they like. All the people who think the war is about freedom could feel warm and fuzzy, all the people who think its evil and horribly misguided can feel justified. In the end I still dont know what Hinckly thought. Did he think the war is a good thing? Did he think the war is a bad thing but that being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law is overriding? I don't know.

[Nathair/|\]

Throughout the talk Hinckley discusses conflating indeas surrounding war and peace. It would seem that he himself was confused or was he simply trying to appease all sides of the issue? The paragraph in question is:

"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."

I'm left wondering what exactly he meant by "another overriding responsibility..". Was he referring to AF 12 and the responsibility to follow the government? Or was he suggesting that the war is indeed about fighting for freedom (as opposed to oil, control, profits, or some dark machiavellian machination). Personally I think he was referring to AF 12 since that is what he had just talked about.

My favorite paragraph is this:

"We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure."

Hinckley covered all the bases in that talk. Everyone can find something they like. All the people who think the war is about freedom could feel warm and fuzzy, all the people who think its evil and horribly misguided can feel justified. In the end I still dont know what Hinckly thought. Did he think the war is a good thing? Did he think the war is a bad thing but that being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law is overriding? I don't know.

I thought he made himself perfectly clear in succeeding paragraphs.

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.]

(Underlining for emphasis mine)

The "overriding responsibility" he was talking about is "to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression."

Yours under the oaks of context,

Nathair /|\

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On another thread someone asserted that President Hinckely had given his approval of wars being fought. Are there others who believe this and how do you support your opinion? I don't see where Hinckley ever approved of recent wars or said that it is righteous.

I don't see why he would have even comment on them. He was not a Gov't leader. Well not an earthly one.

[thesometimesaint]

If only our motives were as pure as the Nephites.

[zelder]

I thought he made himself perfectly clear in succeeding paragraphs.

(Underlining for emphasis mine)

The "overriding responsibility" he was talking about is "to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression."

Yours under the oaks of context,

Nathair /|\

All I can say is that I'm glad he stated it as his personal feelings rather than a church position. I have never been able to believe that any of the war on terror has been about protecting or preserving freedom. Its has always been a painful irony for me since we were giving up our freedom and liberties with things like the patriot act in the name of preserving freedom and liberty. At the time we invaded Iraq I knew nothing about all the gut churning anomalies surrounding 9-11 and I still could not comprehend how it was just to invade. After learning about the Pat Tillman murder (or perhaps political assination) and the more recent "kill teams" in Afghanistan I yearn and pray with all my heart that God will stop this horror.

I revere Hinckley as a good man and prophet but I suppose if he could be easily decieved about things like salamander letters he could be decieved about other things as well.

[ELF1024]

All I can say is that I'm glad he stated it as his personal feelings rather than a church position. I have never been able to believe that any of the war on terror has been about protecting or preserving freedom. Its has always been a painful irony for me since we were giving up our freedom and liberties with things like the patriot act in the name of preserving freedom and liberty. At the time we invaded Iraq I knew nothing about all the gut churning anomalies surrounding 9-11 and I still could not comprehend how it was just to invade. After learning about the Pat Tillman murder (or perhaps political assination) and the more recent "kill teams" in Afghanistan I yearn and pray with all my heart that God will stop this horror.

I revere Hinckley as a good man and prophet but I suppose if he could be easily decieved about things like salamander letters he could be decieved about other things as well.

/facepalm

**walks off**

[ELF1024]

People seem to forget that 2,977 innocent people died on an otherwise peaceful September Day.

As for Iraq, did Saddam support Al Qaeda? No.

Did Saddam and Iraq under Saddam support terrorism? Yes, that was been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Did Saddam gas the Kurds? Yes.

Did Saddam rape and kill many of his own people? Yes

Saddam had it coming. I don't care who you are, Saddam deserved what he got in spades, as did his sons.

Have we lost far too many souls in the GWOT? Yes.

[Calm]

but I suppose if he could be easily decieved about things like salamander letters he could be decieved about other things as well.

It's easy to claim that others are deceived when we are so certain of our own positions that are often quite uninformed and even ignorant at times......

[zelder]

Was 9-11 a terrible event? yes!

Was Saddam a bad guy? yes!

Is it just to fight for freedom? yes!

Should we fight against terror? yes!

Is the US war on terror achieving freedom and bringing peace to the world? No, not for anybody, not in Iraq, not in the US and not in Afghanistan.

Have we been lied to about 9-11?, yes!

Were we lied to about WMD and other things? yes!

Did US soldiers rape and kill innocent people in Iraq?, yes!

Is Iraq a free and peaceful country now?, No!

After 10 years in Afghanistan, is it free and peaceful, NO!

Does the world like us more now or hate us more for our actions oversees? They hate us more which is likely to fuel more terrorism.

We have to stop this insanity!

http://rethinkafghan....com/videos.php

[zelder]

It's easy to claim that others are deceived when we are so certain of our own positions that are often quite uninformed and even ignorant at times......

Did I say anything ignorant or false?

Since 9-11 are we more free or less free?

We know there are anomolies surrounding 9-11, not the least of which is building 7 coming down in classic implosion fashion with Silverstein admitting on tape that they DECIDED to PULL IT

We all know the military lied about Tillmans death and with three 5.56 bullet holes to the forehead from point blank range we know it was more than "friendly fire"

The kill teams are very very real. Some of the perps are on trial right now for it. The only thing we don't know is how wide spead it is because the pentagon and white house have a good track record of telling lies. (and they are withholding 4,000 photos and videos of the horror and murder from the public)

[ELF1024]

Did I say anything ignorant or false?

I wasn't going to go there, but since you asked, YES.

[Mark Beesley]

All I can say is that I'm glad he stated it as his personal feelings rather than a church position. I have never been able to believe that any of the war on terror has been about protecting or preserving freedom. Its has always been a painful irony for me since we were giving up our freedom and liberties with things like the patriot act in the name of preserving freedom and liberty. At the time we invaded Iraq I knew nothing about all the gut churning anomalies surrounding 9-11 and I still could not comprehend how it was just to invade. After learning about the Pat Tillman murder (or perhaps political assination) and the more recent "kill teams" in Afghanistan I yearn and pray with all my heart that God will stop this horror.

I revere Hinckley as a good man and prophet but I suppose if he could be easily decieved about things like salamander letters he could be decieved about other things as well.

I like the following quote from someone's signature on this Board:

The Pope is held to be infallible, but few Cathoics believe it. The LDS Prophet is held to be fallible, but few LDS believe it.

(Deceived might be a bit harsh with regard to the war question. He simply had a opinion that I think was misguided.)

[Nathair/|\]

Did I say anything ignorant or false?

Since 9-11 are we more free or less free?

We know there are anomolies surrounding 9-11, not the least of which is building 7 coming down in classic implosion fashion with Silverstein admitting on tape that they DECIDED to PULL IT

We all know the military lied about Tillmans death and with three 5.56 bullet holes to the forehead from point blank range we know it was more than "friendly fire"

The kill teams are very very real. Some of the perps in on trial right now for it. The only thing we don't know is how wide spead it is because the pentagon and whilte house have a good track record of telling lies.

Is Iraq more or less free now than a decade ago?

If a building is damaged to the point where, if left to it's own devices, it will collapse and cause further destruction and loss of life, doesn't it make more sense to implode it in a safe manner?

If we had not taken military action, how likely is it that there would have been further terrorist action of similar magnitude against us?

We druids are naturally peaceful people, but when Rome invaded, who was it who organized the resistance?

Yours under the oaks of just self defense,

Nathair /|\

[Calm]

Did I say anything ignorant or false?

Yes.

http://en.fairmormon...on_to_forgeries

Note that President Gordon B. Hinckley first saw the Salamander Letter on this date, but refused its purchase. He wrote soon thereafter:

We have nothing to hide. Our enemies will try to make much of this letter, but any fair-minded individual who will read it in terms of the time it was written and the language of the day will not see it as detrimental to the history of those events connected with the restoration of the gospel.^[2] Thus, President Hinckley was aware that the letter could be used as a weapon against the Church, but he did not move to buy it, and did nothing to prevent it passing into other hands.

The Church News published the full text of the Salamander Letter. The First Presidency included a statement, quoting President Hinckley:

No one, of course, can be certain that Martin Harris wrote the document. However, at this point we accept the judgment of the examiner that there is no indication that it is a forgery. This does not preclude the possibility that it may have been forged at a time when the Church had many enemies. It is, however, an interesting document of the times.^[5]

As most of you know, recently there have been great stirrings over two old letters. One was purportedly written in 1825 by Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell. If it is genuine, it is the oldest known product of Joseph Smith’s handwriting. It concerns the employment of Joseph by Mr. Stowell, who was engaged in a mining operation looking for old coins and precious metals. The other carries the date of October 23, 1830, and was purportedly written by Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps. I acquired for the Church both of these letters, the first by purchase. The second was given to the Church by its generous owner. I am, of course, familiar with both letters, having held them in my hands and having read them in their original form. It was I, also, who made the decision to make them public. Copies were issued to the media, and both have received wide publicity. I knew there would be a great fuss. Scholars have pored over them, discussed them, written about them, differed in their opinions, and even argued about them. I am glad we have them. They are interesting documents of whose authenticity we are not certain and may never be.

So just how was Pres. Hinckley "easily decieved about things like salamander letters"?

[USU78]

Throughout the talk Hinckley discusses conflating indeas surrounding war and peace.

This makes no sense. Did you really mean to say that GBH discussed confusing one thing with another . . . or did you mean to say that he conflates (confuses) different ideas? If you meant the latter, I couldn't disagree more. If you meant the former, I don't get what you're getting at.

It would seem that he himself was confused or was he simply trying to appease all sides of the issue?

Where in the name of Aunt Lottie's Laundry are you talking about? There is nothing incoherent in either his conference address or the more spontaneous one in the Tabernacle a couple of days after 9-11. Sad recognition of the human condition and the inevitability of war. I see nothing of confusion or appeasement.

The Church plainly takes no sides, though Church members plainly may take sides on such issues. This is inevitable. It is also right.

[ELF1024]

Is Iraq a free and peaceful country now?, No!

Peaceful enough to get their Orchestra going again...

URL

Iraqi Philharmonic Performs In Baghdad

The Iraqi Philharmonic Orchestra has renewed its activities after years of interruption, performing recently in front of an enthusiastic audience in Baghdad.

The orchestra was created in the 1940s, drawing on musicians from the professors and students of the Institute of Fine Arts.

Conductor Muhammad Amin Izzat said that the orchestra, one of the oldest in the Middle East, was able to renew its work since 1989 and to present musical pieces from different eras.

The musical instruments of the orchestra were looted in 2003 and some of its members were kidnapped or killed during the years of sectarian violence in 2006-2007.

Source: Iraqhurr.org, May 1, 2011

[zelder]

I like the following quote from someone's signature on this Board:

The Pope is held to be infallible, but few Cathoics believe it. The LDS Prophet is held to be fallible, but few LDS believe it.

(Deceived might be a bit harsh with regard to the war question. He simply had a opinion that I think was misguided.)

I think you are right.

[thesometimesaint]

ELF1024:

Peace is more than just the absence of war.

As the Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) said, Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.

[ELF1024]

ELF1024:

Peace is more than just the absence of war.

As the Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677) said, Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice.

In which case, there are very few places on Earth that qualify... perhaps only 134 small places.