Stephen Beecroft wrote:
> > Nowhere in here is found an explicit or implicit condemnation of
> > the US actions against Iraq.
> > Something neither John nor I said, incidentally.
> Sure you did. You wrote, regarding your criticisms of US actions against
> "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.
Exactly. Nowhere there is the word "Iraq" to be found. Thank you for proving my
> John also wrote:
> "I felt that [Elder Nelson's general conference address] should
> throw a bucket of cold water on some of those saints who are in
> favor of a war with Iraq. [...] 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.
Okay. I have a hard enough time keeping track of my own memory without worrying
about John's ;-) Can I plea-bargain?
> To which you replied:
> I don't mean to belabour the point, but I'm sometimes amazed at
> the things you and I agree on.
> If I've somehow mistaken your meaning, please clarify. Honestly, I'm not
> trying to mess up your words.
One doesn't have to agree with a word-for-word expression to be said to be in
agreement with one's statement. I think that's obvious, and not to see this is
nit-picking. This is a discussion, not predicate calculus. On another list we're
talking about the nature of prophecy, and I used this thread as an example of a
general authority prophesying (because that is, in effect, what Elder Nelson has
done), and *members* twisting either specific references (which are often meant
to be taken in a more general sense than is often supposed, imo) or coincidences
of timing, as meaning certain concrete things.
It's an easy trap to fall into. I am anti-militaristic and anti-imperialistic --
a position I call being anti-Assyrian, to borrow the typology that Parry, Ludlow,
Gileadi and others have used -- and have made no bones about it. Therefore I see
Elder Nelson's talk as supporting my point of view. I have to learn to be open to
what I am calling, not out of derision, but simply because I don't have another
word to use, the "hawks'" side. I could be wrong. So I've tried to make a
graceful exit out of the thread (less successfully, obviously, in Dan's case,
whose response was absolutely uncalled for, imo -- ladies and gentleman can learn
to agree to disagree without impugning one another's character; look at the
progress John and I have made in this regard over the past year or so as an
Why? Because I think I've contributed all I can on it -- I'm waiting for the
November Ensign to come out, and also the Church News' in between to see if
there's any further clarifications. Until then, I, as a person, decide to align
myself the way Hugh Nibley did when he wrote an anti-war letter to the editor of
the Provo Herald at the height of the Vietnam Era, in which he, too, urged the
Saints (but not speaking as a GA, of course) to renounce war
Others have to make their own decision.
> /// 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."
Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís 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: firstname.lastname@example.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!