> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

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.)

> I've demonstrated in some detail how I believe you're twisting
> Elder Nelson's words. Please return the courtesy.

> 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.


///  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