DiscussMormonism.com

This article from yesterday which explains that right-wing Christianity correlates with the approval of torture made ponder the question, to what extent do Mopologists approve of torture?

We've seen from the "waterboarding" thread over at MAD, that most apologists either approve of borderline torture outright or invoke apologetic definitional games to make physical coercion methods they like to not be torture.

Well, we know that conservative Christianity typically promotes the use of torture. We know the the LDS church is trying extra hard to fit in with conservative christianity, therefore will hold the same positions and then some. What I mean is, it's like joining a gang where one needs to caricature their violence in order to show how *willing* they are to take up the cause. So Mormons, for instance, are extra hard on gays so that they look like they fit in.

Now add to the mix the justifying power of apologetics. Apologists don't think the church has ever done anything wrong, and the knowledgable ones know better, so they are accustomed to taking whatever bad situation they are dealt, and finding ways to make it look either perfectly normal or inspired by God.

While the standard partison Mormon will likely accept torture almost blindly, the apologist will have a deep intellectual conversion to application of torture.

I believe that most apologists will not only feel OK with torturing terrorists, but will strongly be open to the possibility of torturing critics, homosexuals, and anyone who stands in their way if it were to be a viable option.

Gadianton wrote:[url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/religion.torture/index.html]
I believe that most apologists will not only feel OK with torturing terrorists, but will strongly be open to the possibility of torturing critics, homosexuals, and anyone who stands in their way if it were to be a viable option.

You're just making crap up out of nothing.

All who conspired to torture should be prosecuted. Those who endorse torture and participate in it are guilty of unChristian conduct.

I see torture of a male combatant no different than using rape to torture a female combatant. Why should one be justified and not the other?

Would a Court of Love be considered torture or freedom? I suppose it depends on the person standing in the spotlight.

rcrocket wrote:You're just making crap up out of nothing.

What part am I making up out of nothing?

by the way, here is a snippet btween two apologists at MAD using the Book of Mormon to justify torture:

ERay wrote:Which is he larger sin, enhanced interrogation of one person or allowing hundreds or thousands of others to be killed and maimed? Think about it don't just answer with your preconceived self rightiousness.

Response:

JFuller wrote:"It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief." 1 Nephi 4:13. It seems to me God has set the standard. One man or many? Ray has it right.

harmony wrote:Would a Court of Love be considered torture or freedom? I suppose it depends on the person standing in the spotlight.

By any reasonable definition, I don't think a Court of Love could be considered torture.

Gadianton wrote:

harmony wrote:Would a Court of Love be considered torture or freedom? I suppose it depends on the person standing in the spotlight.

By any reasonable definition, I don't think a Court of Love could be considered torture.

I wonder if Lavina would agree with you.

Harmony, for this discussion, we need to be consistent in our definitions, and we are talking about *torture* here. Not sacrament meeting which I'd call torture, or listening to country music (with apologies, KA).

Gadianton wrote:Harmony, for this discussion, we need to be consistent in our definitions, and we are talking about *torture* here. Not sacrament meeting which I'd call torture, or listening to country music (with apologies, KA).

So put up a definition, Gad. Because I consider country music to be soothing and dancable, while I consider metal to be torturous both of the notes themselves and my poor eardrums in particular.

My point, obscure though it was, is that one man's torture is another man's justifiable discipline.

Gadianton wrote:by the way, here is a snippet btween two apologists at MAD using the Book of Mormon to justify torture:

ERay wrote:Which is he larger sin, enhanced interrogation of one person or allowing hundreds or thousands of others to be killed and maimed? Think about it don't just answer with your preconceived self rightiousness.

Well, they are morons. I can't imagine for an instant that a church leader would be called upon to endorse torture. The First Presidency for quite some time went on the record in opposition to the war which became the Second World War.

I think there are probably anti-Mormons on this board who endorse torture. Should I thus conclude that all non-Mormons endorse torture?

I think that, yes, the Mopologists certainly do approve of torture. They have long applied a "means to an ends" kind of philosophy, and they are, overwhelmingly, bent on revenge, so yes---I think that they absolutely do approve, especially Bill Hamblin.