Obama and Mormonism

[_asbestosman]

The Book of Mormon is very clear on preemptive war.

No, it isn't. It is clear that in that one particular case they were not to engage in a preemptive war. See Heleman 2:9,10 for a possible counter-example.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The False Gods We Worship

Pretty much. Come back, Ray! ;)

[_bcspace]

I'll take that as a yes. I disagree with your reading of Hinckley, but that's another matter. The Book of Mormon is very clear on preemptive war.

Yes. Principally, the Book of Mormon is all for it. For example.....

Alma 43:46-47
Alma 48:14-15, 23-25

So, if a person next to me utters threats against me and raises a sword against me, but I slay him first with my sword, is that wrong?

If a person, one hundred yards away, utters threats against me, raises his sword and runs towards me; if I slay him with a bow and arrow, even though I have a sword at my side, is that wrong?

Therefore, I'd say you know nothing of the Bush Doctrine except what Michael Moore tells you and you know little of LDS scripture on the subject.

Ray A: BC remembers Church history in the ways it can be seen to confirm his views. It is called wresting. Presentism. You already know, I don't need to explain it to you.

[taps the sign] Gospel hobbyism

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The Book of Mormon is very clear on preemptive war.

No, it isn't. It is clear that in that one particular case they were not to engage in a preemptive war. See Heleman 2:9,10 for a possible counter-example.

That has nothing to do with preemptive war.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'll take that as a yes. I disagree with your reading of Hinckley, but that's another matter. The Book of Mormon is very clear on preemptive war.

Yes. Principally, the Book of Mormon is all for it. For example.....

Alma 43:46-47
Alma 48:14-15, 23-25

So, if a person next to me utters threats against me and raises a sword against me, but I slay him first with my sword, is that wrong?

If a person, one hundred yards away, utters threats against me, raises his sword and runs towards me; if I slay him with a bow and arrow, even though I have a sword at my side, is that wrong?

Therefore, I'd say you know nothing of the Bush Doctrine except what Michael Moore tells you and you know little of LDS scripture on the subject.

Ray A: BC remembers Church history in the ways it can be seen to confirm his views. It is called wresting. Presentism. You already know, I don't need to explain it to you.

[taps the sign] Gospel hobbyism

4 And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.
5 But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed.
(Book of Mormon | Mormon 4:4 - 5)

[_bcspace]

That has nothing to do with preemptive war.

It has everything to do with it. A pre-emptive strike can prevent a war. Part of the Bush doctrine.

[_asbestosman]

No, it isn't. It is clear that in that one particular case they were not to engage in a preemptive war. See Heleman 2:9,10 for a possible counter-example.

That has nothing to do with preemptive war.

They killed before they were attacked but after learning their intent. What is missing from this that's in the Bush doctrine? WMD, or merely scale?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

That has nothing to do with preemptive war.

It has everything to do with it. A pre-emptive strike can prevent a war. Part of the Bush doctrine.

A preemptive strike begins a war.

[_bcspace]

Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives.
Alma 48:14

See my examples above and answer whether or not they are right or wrong.

[_Ray A]

Part of the Bush doctrine.

Which you worship.