Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Marc- > > I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just > > one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or > > most of us). > > I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote: > > > and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear > > and unamibiguous. > > Generality of application implies some ambiguity, at least to me. I'm > curious what you thought was the specific application of Elder Nelson's > "clear and unambiguous" words. > Then let me clarify what I mean by the two words. "General" to me doesn't mean vague, but rather refers to scope, either time-related, geography-related, whatever. "Not limited to time, place or person," let's say. "Ambiguous" to me refers to the clarity of meaning. So one can have an unambiguous but general statement. They're not easy to craft, but I believe that's how prophets prefer to express themselves. > > > It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a > > criticism of US foreign policy, > > His words can be considered any number of things -- a criticism of US > foreign policy, an endorsement of expedient and necessary political > actions, a recipe for walnut fudge. The more important question, I > think, is what Elder Nelson actually meant. Perhaps you believe he > intended to criticize US actions. I doubt it, but it's possible. But I'm > still wondering what you meant when you wrote that the Saints "still > [do] 'not get it'" after hearing his talk. I personally don't know any > Saints, in the flesh or in cyberspace, who believe that war is generally > a good thing; so what is it that you think the Saints don't get? > That not only war, but militarism, are not healthy options. Militarism is the consideration of military actions before they ought to be considered, according to the scriptures, as I read it. I think I said something similar in another response, so I'll let it go at that. > > -Marc- > > So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take > > what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word > > like "tremendous" that you're biased, > > My charge of bias was not based on a single occurrence of a term, but > rather on the whole tenor of the article and the slant they gave it. > But you didnt' say that. But thanks for clarifying your, er, general statement ;-) > > > and I don't have to listen to you? > > Naturally you don't. And if you do wish to listen to me, I am quite sure > you formulate in your mind's eye a vision of what you believe my > viewpoint (or bias) to be, in order to better understand what I write. > I happily (if admittedly, at times, somewhat impatiently) listen to you because there's something in it for me -- you help me hone my words and craft my arguments better, if nothing else. > > > And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. > > The curse of the responsible. If not me, who? > > > But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the > > article. Why do you need a URL to it again? > > To review it and see if my criticisms were justified. I don't remember > it being only a week ago, and my memory of the particulars is hazy. > It should be on the archives. If you really want me to, I'll repost it, but because it was premium material, I have to do more than post a URL (which I don't mind; a minor sin -- just in case y'all were labouring under the understandable but false assumption that I'm perfect) ;-) > > -Stephen- > > I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your > > extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily > > pacifists. > > -Marc- > > In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. > > We both know that the generally-accepted and understood meaning of the > term "pacifist" is one who rejects warfare under all circumstances. Well, all it takes to demolish a general argument is one exception. You carefully avoided that kind of argument, but, no, I did not have the "Quaker's" definition in mind; I actually had in mind the definition given in D&C (134 iirc; I'd have to look it up). "to renounce war" is definitely a pacific approach, I think we're now just arguing over connotations. After all, Elder Nelson didn't call for a jihad (or its English equivalent, a crusade). > I am > pretty sure you realized this when you wrote what you did. If you had > another, narrower definition of "pacifist" in mind, it was incumbent > upon you to define your terms. As I demonstrated, none of the dictionary > definitions reasonably applied to Latter-day Saints. > I disagree. I pointed out that in your first dictionary definition, it gave 3 meanings, and I said "renounce war" was in keeping with the first 2, but not necessarily the 3rd definition. And we can play dictionary games if you want. I have a few I could turn to, too. But to what end? If one doesn't understand what another says, the best approach is to ask, not throw a dictio
RE: [ZION] Iraq and War
-Marc- > I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just > one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or > most of us). I tend to agree with this. Interesting, then, that you wrote: > and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear > and unamibiguous. Generality of application implies some ambiguity, at least to me. I'm curious what you thought was the specific application of Elder Nelson's "clear and unambiguous" words. > It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a > criticism of US foreign policy, His words can be considered any number of things -- a criticism of US foreign policy, an endorsement of expedient and necessary political actions, a recipe for walnut fudge. The more important question, I think, is what Elder Nelson actually meant. Perhaps you believe he intended to criticize US actions. I doubt it, but it's possible. But I'm still wondering what you meant when you wrote that the Saints "still [do] 'not get it'" after hearing his talk. I personally don't know any Saints, in the flesh or in cyberspace, who believe that war is generally a good thing; so what is it that you think the Saints don't get? -Marc- > So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take > what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word > like "tremendous" that you're biased, My charge of bias was not based on a single occurrence of a term, but rather on the whole tenor of the article and the slant they gave it. > and I don't have to listen to you? Naturally you don't. And if you do wish to listen to me, I am quite sure you formulate in your mind's eye a vision of what you believe my viewpoint (or bias) to be, in order to better understand what I write. > And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. The curse of the responsible. If not me, who? > But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the > article. Why do you need a URL to it again? To review it and see if my criticisms were justified. I don't remember it being only a week ago, and my memory of the particulars is hazy. -Stephen- > I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your > extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily > pacifists. -Marc- > In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. We both know that the generally-accepted and understood meaning of the term "pacifist" is one who rejects warfare under all circumstances. I am pretty sure you realized this when you wrote what you did. If you had another, narrower definition of "pacifist" in mind, it was incumbent upon you to define your terms. As I demonstrated, none of the dictionary definitions reasonably applied to Latter-day Saints. > I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, > but we are members of a church whose official policy is to > proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly be said to be > a pacifist point of view. Not according to the dictionary. > As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and > therefore biased. I had not yet noticed that your dismissal of his source as "biased" was based on its "carelessness", though I know you mentioned that from the beginning. Carelessness and bias are two separate and unrelated things; if you consider his article biased because of carelessness, then that's even less defensible. > So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague > and 2nd hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources. Perhaps that they're dishonest, or perhaps that they're careless. If the former, then they're certainly biased; if the latter, then perhaps not. (Okay, we both know a truly "unbiased" viewpoint is unachievable; but there's a big difference between citing a true but unverifiable source and making something up out of whole cloth.) -Stephen- > I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting > Elder Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy. -Marc- > Well, if you insist. I've demonstrated in some detail how I > believe your're twisting Elder Nelson's and my words. Where? Not in this post, nor any other I've read. You have explained how I have mistaken your meaning (which I maintain was more due to authorship than to reader error), but you haven't even touched on how I'm supposedly twisting Elder Nelson's words. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/reg
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Marc- > > Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here. > > Life's too short, > > Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you > feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at > other times? > I'm human. I'm inconsistent. So sue me. Seriously, as I answered in another post, I don't have enough information yet, I don't believe, to address this talk directly to the Iraq situation per se. I believe that in general prophecies tend to be broader than just one issue, and it's we members who narrow them down (all of us, or most of us). > > > and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear > > and unamibiguous. > > And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq. > As I did not. It's my personal belief that his words can be considered a criticism of US foreign policy, but I'm not trying to put words into Elder Nelson's mouth. Incidentally, it's a bit ironic, because I'm not so sure there's actually going to be a war with Iraq. I think Bush's tactics are not direct here. I have an inkling of what I think he might be up to, but I can't read his mind and it's too soon to tell. Let's just say that I think he's trying to kill more than one bird with one stone, and there'll be little violence on the streets of Baghdad in the near future. > > > The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do > > with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference > > weekend) was specific and it was unbiased. > > Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and > demonstrated its tremendous bias. So, if the Economist article used emotional words, then I can take what you just wrote and say, because you used an emotional word like "tremendous" that you're biased, and I don't have to listen to you? Actually I value your input, even when I think it's biased and even when I'm arguing against it. And fwiw, I think you're giving yourself too much credit. > I think you'll have a hard time > maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm > wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing? > I actually posted the whole thing here. It was only a week ago. But wait a minute. You claim to have already critiqued the article. Why do you need a URL to it again? > > > There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and > > bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own > > minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho. > > Well, it's easy for you to claim my "critical reading skills" aren't > where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you > never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim > that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists. > In several senses of the definition you gave. Not all of them. I don't mean to imply that LDS have to be conscientious objectors, but we are members of a church whose official policy is to proclaim peace and renounce war. That can certainly be said to be a pacifist point of view. You don't have to fit ALL definitions of a word (not in English, a notoriously ambiguous language at best) to be able to use it. Else why bother even to try using words? Let's communicate in source code. > > > Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out, > > and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently. > > Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed "paying attention to the > thread", and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as > biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased. > As I've said several times, I dismissed his source as careless and therefore biased. That's an important distinction. His source said that according to the Israeli military intelligence (no citation given), Jane's (no citation given) said such-and-such. I did a search of Jane's website (I can't afford the hard copy -- their subs are hundreds of dollars a year, but I did occasionally look at it in the provincial government library, so am familiar with the publication) and found not a single reference to *any* Israeli military intelligence reference to anything. So what am I supposed to think about an article that uses vague and 2nd hand sources? At least the Economist cites its sources. > > > I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word > > to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by > > calling me a liar. > > I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be > wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying > that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as > unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say, > in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then > you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word." > You put that in quotation marks. That implies I wrote
RE: [ZION] Iraq and War
-Marc- > Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here. > Life's too short, Not that I necessarily disagree with the above, but if that's how you feel, why are you so willing to engage in "point-by-point games" at other times? > and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear > and unamibiguous. And he clearly, unambiguously did not mention Iraq. > The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do > with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference > weekend) was specific and it was unbiased. Seems I recently critiqued an Economist article you referenced and demonstrated its tremendous bias. I think you'll have a hard time maintaining that the Economist's articles are unbiased. But maybe I'm wrong. Can you give a URL to the specific article you're citing? > There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and > bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own > minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho. Well, it's easy for you to claim my "critical reading skills" aren't where they should be. You certainly might be right. But I notice you never bothered responding to my dismantling of your extraordinary claim that Latter-day Saints are necessarily pacifists. > Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out, > and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently. Apparently that's not the case. I was indeed "paying attention to the thread", and it looked to me like you were dismissing his sources as biased and proclaiming your own to be unbiased. > I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word > to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by > calling me a liar. I don't believe Dan was calling you a liar, though of course I could be wrong. That would be out of character for Dan. I think he was applying that term to those who author slanted news articles and present them as unbiased. And fwiw, I don't think it's particularly gentlemanly to say, in effect, "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you can't see that then you're blind as a bat, but I'll give you the last word." > I'm off this thread. Elder Nelson's words are very clear, and > if you want to twist them so as to make yourself feel more > comfortable, fine. I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting Elder Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Stephen, I'm not going to engage in point-by-point games here. Life's too short, and Elder Nelson's words were, as far as I'm concerned, very clear and unamibiguous. Dan, in the course of his discussion, which wasn't just about Elder Nelson's talk, has used two sources. I criticized the first one for being vague and undependable and demonstrated why -- the vague, 2nd-hand that the author in his source used in a referernce to Jane's couldn't be found in a search on Jane's site. The Economist article, which I used (not having anything to do with Elder Nelson's talk -- this occurred before conference weekend) was specific and it was unbiased. There seems to be some confusion between using emotional words and bias which it seems you and Dan both need to clarify in your own minds to improve your critical reading skills, imho. But you take your information from where you wish. Anyone paying attention to the thread could have figured this out, and seen that Dan and I were interpreting data differently. That's all. I thought I could ease myself out of this by leaving the last word to Dan and he abused what was meant to be a gentlemanly gesture by calling me a liar. I suppose that's not "biased". I'm off this thread. Elder Nelson's words are very clear, and if you want to twist them so as to make yourself feel more comfortable, fine. Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Marc- > > Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the > > Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can > > still, with all due respect, "not get it" after hearing this talk. > > And I have a difficult time seeing why people are so eager to twist an > apostle's words into supporting their political tastes, rather than try > to glean the truth and wisdom he was teaching. I suppose we both should > work on our ability to understand. > > > He said "as a CHURCH we should renounce war" and emphasized that > > it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who would be the > > peacemakers in the region. > > And therefore...? > > > There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. > > >From The American Heritage Dictionary (1985): > > 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be > settled peacefully. > 2a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving > disputes. > b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in > military action. > > #1 does partially apply to Saints, of course, but it is so obvious that > even the most hawk-like Saint agrees that disputes *should* be settled > peacefully. Disputes involving aggression by enemies against you > obviously *cannot* be settled peacefully. Both parts of definition 2 are > anti-Mormon. > >From Merriam-Webster's online (www.m-w.com): > > Main Entry: pac·i·fism > Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m > Function: noun > Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific > Date: 1902 > 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling > disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or > religious grounds > 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance > > Neither of these definitions describes the Church's position. > > The definion at www.dictionary.com is word-for-word identical to that of > the American Heritage definition quoted above. > > So you're wrong, Marc. Mormons are *not* pacifist, or at least they > should not be. Quite the contrary. > > Stephen > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Iraq and War
-Marc- > Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the > Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can > still, with all due respect, "not get it" after hearing this talk. And I have a difficult time seeing why people are so eager to twist an apostle's words into supporting their political tastes, rather than try to glean the truth and wisdom he was teaching. I suppose we both should work on our ability to understand. > He said "as a CHURCH we should renounce war" and emphasized that > it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who would be the > peacemakers in the region. And therefore...? > There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. >From The American Heritage Dictionary (1985): 1. The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully. 2a. Opposition to war or violence as a means of resolving disputes. b. Such opposition demonstrated by refusal to participate in military action. #1 does partially apply to Saints, of course, but it is so obvious that even the most hawk-like Saint agrees that disputes *should* be settled peacefully. Disputes involving aggression by enemies against you obviously *cannot* be settled peacefully. Both parts of definition 2 are anti-Mormon. >From Merriam-Webster's online (www.m-w.com): Main Entry: pac·i·fism Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m Function: noun Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific Date: 1902 1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance Neither of these definitions describes the Church's position. The definion at www.dictionary.com is word-for-word identical to that of the American Heritage definition quoted above. So you're wrong, Marc. Mormons are *not* pacifist, or at least they should not be. Quite the contrary. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
September 11th was a defining moment in history, it showed that America could be attacked within her own borders; it didn't need an ICBM as has been the thinking. It would be tragic that when (not if) it happens again; and what could be the outcome (will cities not buildings lay waste)? Lastely, could it have been prevented? Will the thinking of no war still be present? Vic --- "Marc A. Schindler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the Ensign. I mysel= >f have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, = >"not >get it" after hearing this talk. He said "as a CHURCH we should renounce wa= >r" and emphasized that it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who= > would >be the peacemakers in the region. I think it's pretty hard to wriggle out o= >f that one. And to your BoM reading I hope you add some selective D&C read= >ing, >too, especially a revelation given at the height of persecution of the Sain= >ts. > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Within the first chapters of the Book of Mormon it talks about Nephi chop= >ping off the head of Laban. >> >> Toward the end of the Book of Mormon it talks about Mormon and Moroni war= >ring against the Lamanites. >> >> In between, there is bloodshed and it gives me the impression as long as = >one is fighting for ones homeland and ones family, than war becomes accepta= >ble. >> >> Osama and is band of terrorists are warring against the U.S. >> >> It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the sam= >e. >> > >I've foreborn specific comment on your questions -- I have a general questi= >on at the end -- but it seems to some people to be only a matter of time be= >fore >N. Korea wars against the U.S., so why isn't the US government amassing arm= >aments in that area? Also, if you're concerned about military dictatorships= > with >WMD, why continue to give billions every year to Pakistan, which *already h= >as* nuclear weapons -- tested ones, ready to use. Seems to me you should bo= >mb >Pakistan back to the stone age before you worry about Iraq. > >> >> Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response? >> >> As LDS, and with what the contents of the Book of Mormon says, in all hon= >esty; is there such a thing as a pacifist Mormon? >> > >There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. And for what it's worth, I think a= >lmost every one of your implied assumptions in your question is wrong. > >> >> Vic > >But perhaps I've been too shy in expressing my opinion ;-) > >-- >Marc A. Schindler >Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland > >"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and= > falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." >--Michelangelo Buonarroti > >Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the auth= >or solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the author=92s >employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associ= >ated. > >///= >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// >///= >// > >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= >=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D _ Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. ---> http://www.DCemail.com ---> A Washington Online Community Member ---> http://www.DCpages.com _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Except for the problem of western militarism. Gary Smith wrote: > There is an easy solution to the Iraq problem. Instead of invading, just > drop a major 20,000 ton bomb on one of his presidential compounds and > flatten it. Then tell Saddam that every week we'll flatten another > compound until he agrees to let inspectors visit everywhere. Either way, > the problem will eventually go away > > K'aya K'ama, > Gerald/gary Smithgszion1 @juno.comhttp://www > .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html > "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." - > Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > > > GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! > > Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! > > Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: > > http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. > > / > /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > / > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
>There is an easy solution to the Iraq problem. Instead of invading, just >drop a major 20,000 ton bomb on one of his presidential compounds and >flatten it. Then tell Saddam that every week we'll flatten another >compound until he agrees to let inspectors visit everywhere. Either way, >the problem will eventually go away That's kind of what I was thinking. But I recommend bunker buster bombs first and then slam it with a tactical nuclear bomb. Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Just read over Elder Nelson's talk when it comes out in the Ensign. I myself have a difficult time seeing how people can still, with all due respect, "not get it" after hearing this talk. He said "as a CHURCH we should renounce war" and emphasized that it would be the descendants of Ishmael and Jacob who would be the peacemakers in the region. I think it's pretty hard to wriggle out of that one. And to your BoM reading I hope you add some selective D&C reading, too, especially a revelation given at the height of persecution of the Saints. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Within the first chapters of the Book of Mormon it talks about Nephi chopping off >the head of Laban. > > Toward the end of the Book of Mormon it talks about Mormon and Moroni warring >against the Lamanites. > > In between, there is bloodshed and it gives me the impression as long as one is >fighting for ones homeland and ones family, than war becomes acceptable. > > Osama and is band of terrorists are warring against the U.S. > > It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the same. > I've foreborn specific comment on your questions -- I have a general question at the end -- but it seems to some people to be only a matter of time before N. Korea wars against the U.S., so why isn't the US government amassing armaments in that area? Also, if you're concerned about military dictatorships with WMD, why continue to give billions every year to Pakistan, which *already has* nuclear weapons -- tested ones, ready to use. Seems to me you should bomb Pakistan back to the stone age before you worry about Iraq. > > Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response? > > As LDS, and with what the contents of the Book of Mormon says, in all honesty; is >there such a thing as a pacifist Mormon? > There can be nothing BUT a pacifist LDS. And for what it's worth, I think almost every one of your implied assumptions in your question is wrong. > > Vic But perhaps I've been too shy in expressing my opinion ;-) -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
>It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the same. > >Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response? Saddam is a stupid idiot. I don't think he is any threat to the USA. I think America needs to mind there own business and let the other countries fight it out. But, if Saddam should be found to have attacked American soil or property, then I am all for firing a nuclear bomb right down his throat. Then the scripture will be fulfilled: "Babylon is no more". Paul O [EMAIL PROTECTED] GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and War
Within the first chapters of the Book of Mormon it talks about Nephi chopping off the head of Laban. Toward the end of the Book of Mormon it talks about Mormon and Moroni warring against the Lamanites. In between, there is bloodshed and it gives me the impression as long as one is fighting for ones homeland and ones family, than war becomes acceptable. Osama and is band of terrorists are warring against the U.S. It appears to me that is only a matter of time before Saddam does the same. Should a nation sit back and let it happen or should there be a response? As LDS, and with what the contents of the Book of Mormon says, in all honesty; is there such a thing as a pacifist Mormon? Vic _ Washington DC's Largest FREE Email service. ---> http://www.DCemail.com ---> A Washington Online Community Member ---> http://www.DCpages.com _ Select your own custom email address for FREE! Get [EMAIL PROTECTED] w/No Ads, 6MB, POP & more! http://www.everyone.net/selectmail?campaign=tag / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and war
I don't mean to belabour the point, but I'm sometimes amazed at the things you and I agree on. This could be bad for your reputation, you know "John W. Redelfs" wrote: > > I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those saints who are >in favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church we have to remain neutral and >our members have to obey the laws of the land even if that means fighting in a war. >But as individuals we don't have to be so circumspect. On a personal level we are to >oppose war and be peacemakers. > > I thought Elder Nelson's remarks would put to rest the recent thread on war vs. >peace with Iraq. We'll see if anyone was listening. > > John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland "The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark." --Michelangelo Buonarroti Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
Re: [ZION] Iraq and war
At 03:48 PM 10/5/02 -0600 Marc A. Schindler favored us with: >Elder Russell M. Nelson's talk -- did you notice his emphasis on how >Ishmael and Jacob's cooperation following their father's death should >serve as an example, that their present-day descendants should emerge as >peacemakers in the region? > >What think ye? I felt that it should throw a bucket of cold water on some of those saints who are in favor of a war with Iraq. He said that as a Church we have to remain neutral and our members have to obey the laws of the land even if that means fighting in a war. But as individuals we don't have to be so circumspect. On a personal level we are to oppose war and be peacemakers. I thought Elder Nelson's remarks would put to rest the recent thread on war vs. peace with Iraq. We'll see if anyone was listening. John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] * For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. (Ephesians 6:12) * "All my opinions are tentative pending further data." --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Iraq and war
Actually, I do agree that this is a big mistake. Since probably at most only 1/2 of your armed forces are fighting forces, when the Mexican army reaches your border with the US, you may really miss those 2,000. Jon Marc A. Schindler wrote: Canada ready to send 2 000 troops along with US forces to Iraq (this is about the same that was committed in the Afghan conflict). Big mistake, imo. But you probably already knew that. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
