Apologetics and the Use of Torture

[_Ray A]

Another gem from "Wheat":

Runtu = the Mark Hoffman of the exmormon world.
Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:27 pm

The peace-loving Runtu is compared to a murderer.

[_rcrocket]

Bob, those were great quotes, but is there one that comes right out and says we condemn the use of torture? The reason I ask is that when the Church refused to sign that religious resolution along with the other Churches in Salt Lake City, back when this issue arose in the Iraq War, many of the apologists of the FAIR board said there were equivalent statements already in place that were equal to signing the resolution.

The Church is notorious for not jumping on the bandwagon for politically correct movements. It took years to come out against the MX missile.

Therefore, RENOUNCE WAR and PROCLAIM PEACE ... lest I
come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be
consumed before me. For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye
are not worthy of me." (D&C 98:16,17,15)

"We are dismayed by ... the unrestricted building of
arsenals of war, including huge and threatening nuclear
weaponry ... with their terrible potential for the destruction
of life ... and even civilization itself .... Our greatest
strength will come of the righteousness of the people. There
is a power in the universe over and above the arms of war.
That power is available ... we are enjoined by the word of the
Lord "to RENOUNCE WAR and PROCLAIM PEACE"." (First Presidency
Messages, Christmas 1980, Easter 1981)

"It is vain to attempt to reconcile war with true
Christianity." (Pres. David O. McKay, 1950's, Church News)

"War ... is organized and systematic murder, with ...
every other evil as a natural attendant." (Apostle Bruce R.
McConkie, Mormon Doctrine)

"I make no defense of the [Viet Nam] war from this pulpit.
There is no simple answer." (Apostle Gordon B. Hinckley,
1968, General Conference)

"...as the crowning savagery of the war [WWII], we
Americans wiped out hundreds of thousands of the civilian
population with the atom bomb in Japan, few if any of the
ordinary civilians being any more responsible for the war than
we ... [some] are saying that the bomb was a mistake. It was
more than that; it was a world tragedy .... And the worst of
this atomic bomb tragedy is that not only did the people of the
U.S. not rise up in protest against this savagery, not only did
it not shock us to read of this wholesale destruction of men,
women, children and cripples, but that it actually drew from
the nation at large a general approval of this fiendish
butchery." (Pres. J. Reuben Clark, Jr., 1945 & 1946,
with approval of and in public meetings sponsored by the
First Presidency, including General Conference)

These are quotes provided by T. Allen Lambert to me on 10/20/2000 in lds_apologetics@egroups.com.

[_Kishkumen]

If the apologists---such as Droopy, e.g.---think it's okay to beat people w/ truncheons, or rip off fingernails w/ pliers to extract information, do they also think it's okay to "brainwash" members into retaining their testimonies?

They advocate attending church don't they?
.
.
.
.
.

[_Gadianton]

BCSpace,

Your argument:

Arguing that apologists who approve of torture also likely approve of brainwashing is very much like the argument that masturbation leads to homosexuality.

Per Scratch's research, torture entails the core components of brainwashing. Droopy's belief in private militia warefare puts him well past simply being against banning guns. If Scratch's research is right, then belief in brainwashing naturally follows if not is entailed by a belief in torture.

by the way, Homosexuality and heterosexuality are the leading factors in the crime of masterbation.

[_ajax18]

I think it just depends on who is being tortured and who would support it. For instance, the civil liberties union would have no problem torturing and usurping constitutional rights for members of the KKK. But they'll vigorously defend non European inviduals from facing any kind of consequence for their actions.

There is no standard of constitutional rights or whether torture is wrong or right. It's just a standard of which camp you're with and whose interests you seek to promote and protect. This usually follows the selfish gene hypthesis. Invidiuals act in the best interest of the genes they are responsible for magnifying. It is true that fratricide does occur as a means to elevate a single member of the race as we currently see with Democratic party politicians. And while this does demonstrate a defect in loyalty amongst the white race that is possessed by other races, democratic politicians still ultimately seek their own best interest, even if is in a more narrow and tacit way than we are used to seeing.

Bottom line, torture is right or wrong relative to who is being tortured and how that correlates with the agenda of he who possesses the power to torture.