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.
>

Marc:
I don't know if you're quoting me or Mark Gregson, but I could easily have
asked
what's attributed to me, so I'll respond that it's not responsibility to
any
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
breaking
the law of gravity. If you deliberately walk off the cliff you will, in
addition,
bear *moral* responsibility for suicide.

Dan:
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
do
> 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
being
> > 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
larger
> > 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,

Marc:
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
*do*
have access to the EoM.

Dan:
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
of
> 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.
>

Marc:
What do you mean by "so far"?

Dan:
"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!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^================================================================

Reply via email to