[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1]2345678910 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 17:52:38 02/27/07 Tue
Author: wanderer
Subject: Clear
In reply to: Jay 's message, "I've read that talk many times . . ." on 17:24:02 02/27/07 Tue

It seemed pretty clear at least when he quoted Elder Nelson's renouncing war and proclaiming peace and then said "HOWEVER, we all must also be mindful of another OVERRIDING RESPONSIBILITY" that he was saying the opposite of what Elder Nelson said. Wouldn't you agree?

Also, it is interesting to note that his comments did not allude to the fact that there is an obligation to fight against tyranny and oppression because Bush is a righteous and/or a blameless man. That doesn't seem to be the case for this president. Nor does he say that this war was entered into lawfully. Nor does it say that we are blameless of previous offenses on our part.

But apparently it seemed pretty clear to the majority of LDS that the overall tone of this address was one of support of "defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy", to quote President Hinckley. I believe he took a rare moment to address a current controversial issue very specifically. Perhaps any other previous general comments should be tempered with his specific comments about what appeared to be his position on the war was in April 2003. And who knows? It may have changed since then. That was four years ago and a lot has gone on during that time. Maybe he'll talk about it again this April!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Post a message:
This forum requires an account to post.
[ Create Account ]
[ Login ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.