Apologetics and the Use of Torture

[_karl61]

"The First Presidency for quite some time went on the record in opposition to the war which became the Second World War."

In other words leave the Germans alone -

[_harmony]

The First Presidency for quite some time went on the record in opposition to the war which became the Second World War.

They went on record as being in opposition... in Germany? I thought they were neutral in Germany. Perhaps I am mistaken on that.

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

We haven't defined torture yet. What do you think is torture?

[_bcspace]

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?

Because torture can produce victory or vital information in war and rape is simply about violence for it's own sake. Torture can be applied to those who deserve it for their actions or intransigence and rape is done to those who don't deserve it.

God causing or allowing famines and pestilence etc. to produce a result (such as humbling or repentence) by definition is torture. Therefore you are against God in principle.

All those recommend prosecution for those who set up the waterboarding of Islamic terrorists are traitors to God and country, especially if they are LDS.

[_bcspace]

We haven't defined torture yet. What do you think is torture?

I don't mind calling all levels of discomfort torture. I do certainly think there are lines that shouldn't be crossed as far as getting information/confessions is concerned and waterboarding is below that line.

As for punishment for crime, if the punishment fits the crime, it is appropriate. So if someone dismembered someone alive, the same should be done to them, etc.

[_rcrocket]

Yes, the Church was against WWII:

" ... we have not forgotten that on Sinai, God commanded
"Thou shalt not kill;" nor that in this dispensation the Lord
has repeatedly reiterated that command. ... Thus the Church
is, and must be, against war ... It cannot regard war as a
righteous means of settling international disputes; these
should and could be settled ... by peaceful negotiations and
adjustments." (First Presidency, April, 1942 [WWII], official
statement in General Conference)

The Church condemned the dropping of the atom bomb:

The arms race in general and nuclear weapons in specific
are condemned. The United States bears primary responsibility
for the arms race, nuclear weapons, and the cold war. The U.S.
will pay the penalty for such sin.
("Sometime our children will have it [atom bomb] turned
against them .... When that time comes they will have no moral
weapon against it ... [neither] physical weapon to combat it
... for we ... will have cursed humanity by its first use ...."
[Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., 1945, draft of editorial
for Deseret News, written two days after Hiroshima;
published version changed the "will" to "can".])

The Church condemns acts of terror committed in war:

"Whoever chooses to make war must break most of the Ten
Commandments," including murder (killing innocent people),
lying (bearing false witness in various accusations, atrocity
stories, concealments, deceptions, etc.), coveting and
stealing, often rape, increase of taking the Lord's name in
vain, and breaking the Sabbath." ....
"It is vengeance that sustains the savagery of war in the
Book of Mormon." ...
"The great lesson of the Book of Mormon is never to seek a
military solution."
(Hugh Nibley)

Torture is evil and those who endorse it are the same.

[_rcrocket]

What do you think is torture?

For purposes of the opening post, what Judge Bybee endorsed. I think that is self-apparent.

[_Dwight Frye]

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.

Torture = enhanced interrogation

I love it. Almost as good as horse=tapir.

[_bcspace]

Yes, the Church was against WWII:

There is nothing in that ragged quote that puts the Church against WWII. However, we do know that the Church was for the Iraq War....

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.
Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign, May 2003, 78

Here, Hinckley correctly recognizes the threat of not acting in that situation.

The Church condemned the dropping of the atom bomb:

The Church did nothing of the sort. Non doctrinal work = personal opinion.

[_bcspace]

I believe that most apologists will not only feel OK with torturing terrorists,

No problem there.

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.

An error in correlation. Yours is the same logic that says masturbation leads to homosexuality.

[_Gadianton]

For Rcrocket who thinks I'm making this all up, listen to some more from the apologists:

Torturing people is both a sin and a crime.

How so?

Ecc 3
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven

(there is a time and a season for torture. Godly moral relativism dictates it)

Remeber he sent out a proclimation to the whole land to have all of the kingmen killed if they wouldn't stand up for liberty or freedom

Do you really want to give your sympathy to those who would gladly bring such terror and anguish again?

As a Mormon, as a Christian, and as an American, to save this country from another 9/11, and especially from another attack potentially far more destructive and deadly, I personally, would be willing, at least I think I would, to go well beyond waterboarding, if necessary, to extract the information necessary to stop such an atrocity. In my world, it would be unfathomably immoral not to.

Read it and weap, rcrocket.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208647991