Dan R Allen wrote:

> Marc:
> Do you argue, then, that they also bear responsibility for their choices?
> Dan:
> Of course. But to who do they bear that responsibility, the UN, France?
> Neither are capable of making that judgement.

I don't know if you're quoting me or Mark Gregson, but I could easily have
what's attributed to me, so I'll respond that it's not responsibility to
particular foreign body that's the point, it's responsibility for the
consequences. If you fall of a cliff you will bear the consequences of
the law of gravity. If you deliberately walk off the cliff you will, in
bear *moral* responsibility for suicide.

I believe that it was you asking a question based on a comment that I made
to Mark.

Responsibility for an action taken implies a "to". You bear the
responsibility of attempting suicide _to_ both yourself, and God. Breaking
your neck is the consequence of the act of _choosing_ to ignore the effects
of gravity.
A significant consequence of making war is the loss of life and it's
effects on the survivors. A nation's responsibility for making that choice
is to it's own citizens first, and all others second.

> > Mark:
> > In the case of Australia and New Zealand or anything similar, I would
> as
> > the Brethren suggested in a First Presidency letter or statement (that
> was
> > the one produced around WWII):  if I thought the weaker country was
> > unjustly attacked and if the weaker country asked me for help, then I
> would
> > be justified in helping.  I would not be justified in inciting the
> > country to anger in the first place.
> >
> > Dan:
> > While I agree in principle, how do we go about determining what
> "unjustly"
> > is?
> >
> Marc:
> There have been a number of 1P statements and other commentary by the
> brethren on
> what constitutes a moral war and what doesn't. Start with "War and Peace"
> and
> "War and the Military" articles in the EoM.
> In the case of a Western hemisphere country, there's also the additional
> Promise
> of Ether (which also, like any OT covenant, has a corresponding curse for
> not
> following the covenant).
> Dan:
> First, I don't have access to the EoM,

I posted the articles from the EoM and a 1P statement as well, a week or
two ago,
here. Also, if you have a public or university library nearby you probably
have access to the EoM.

I meant that I don't have _ready_ access, ie, I can't get to it from here
at work, and I didn't remember you posting the relevant articles.

> and second, while I agree that most
> wars that we have fought were not "righteous" according to the criteria
> the BoM, the UN and like-minded countries and individuals don't have the
> moral authority to make that judgement. The living prophet has both the
> authority and responsibility to make that call, and so far he has been
> neutral, if not supportive.

What do you mean by "so far"?

"So far" it appears that he does not feel that the US government has acted
irresponsibly in this regard. I added the "so far" because obviously that
can change.

///  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!

Reply via email to