I think this is it.

WWII who was worse japs or Germans thread, he made the comment that total war is the way wars should be conducted. I admittedly got a little over aggressive in denouncing that position and shouldn’t have, but this dude’s trying to justify the intentional targeting of civilians during war and argue its licit morally.

If you have a disagreement with someone, try to IM them to settle differences.

On the subject of war and religion, the Book of Mormon is packed with examples of warfare. I believe the things actually happened, and I believe the Bible and Book of Mormon are both scripture. But I think some of the examples can be interpreted as spiritual metaphores.

That being said, total war is described in the Book of Mormon, also... Link

There is also a continuous war described in the Book of Mormon that could only be described as intrigue and guerilla warfare. It is continuous war between the "Gadianton Robbers" and the righteous. And the Gadianton Robbers become so powerful, they have enough power to take-over in all-out war. It is a specific description of what takes place in the Latter-Days on the same continent: America. This time, we win, though.

So... To answer your question, there are examples, in my beliefs that includes the Bible and Book of Mormon of sanctioned total-war.

But then I also have the examples of the early Latter-Day Church that used petitioning the government and political force and political will to establish a state: Utah, and seek and receive equal representation under the law. Not an entirely bloodless avenue (Missouri, Navuoo, Moutain Meadows) but it was a generally relatively peaceful avenue to political influence, power, and equal representation once The Church was established in the West. So I have examples from scripture and examples from relatively recent history to call on in this discussion.

The fact that the Book of Mormon agrees with this cat further illustrates my point.

Do you believe that they are equal or that one is more true/reliable/accurate than the other?

It is my understanding that Mormons believe the Holy Bible is not infallible.
And that the doctrines and traditions in the Book of Mormon take final precedent over those in the Bible in that the BOM is the continuation of the Bible.

I'm not sure what Mormonism has to do with this discussion in that its focus in on Sola Scriptura and how that poster was using it to apply his false doctrine to interpret Scripture so trivially and incorrectly. Yes, total war is the subject, but the real discussion is SS.

I’m in absolute disbelief that gentleman actually thinks intentionally targeting civilian populations would be something God would condone. It’s mind blowing to me.

There are cases where it is found in scripture.

And I cited cases where political solutions without violence solved political problems. There is justification for non-violent solutions.

Good question.

LInk

There are doctrines that are clearer in the Bible than they are in the Book of Mormon and vise-versa. I would say that they work together.

The New Testament can never be interpreted to condone such action. The New Covenant allows for self-preservation and for warfare, but not genocide.

Any "Christian" who believes that is ignorant of the Word of God.

In fairness, I don’t think he advocated genocide. But he did argue that targeting civilians was necessary to hamper the enemy nations capability to produce war materiel. Our catechism clearly states however that non combatants are not to be targeted, I didn’t bother posting that because I’m sure he doesn’t care.

Genocide is a logical conclusion: If he felt that a complete elimination of the people was the only way to win the war, by his logic, it is acceptable.

St Thomas Aquinas's statements on Just War doctrine are pretty easy to understand


Principles of Just-War Theory

1. Last Resort
A just war can only be waged after all peaceful options are considered.
The use of force can only be used as a last resort.

2. Legitimate Authority
A just war is waged by a legitimate authority. A war cannot be waged by
individuals or groups that do not constitute the legitimate government.

3. Just Cause
A just war needs to be in response to a wrong suffered. Self-defense
against an attack always constitutes a just war; however, the war needs to
be fought with the objective to correct the inflicted wound.

4. Probability of Success
In order for a war to be just, there must be a rational possibility of
success. A nation cannot enter into a war with a hopeless cause.

5. Right Intention
The pirmary objective of a just war is to re-establish peace. In particular,
the peace after the war should excede the peace that would have succeeded without the use of force. The aim of the use of force must be
justice.

6. Proportionality
The violence in a just war must be proportional to the casualties suffered.
The nations involved in the war must avoid disproportionate military
action and only use the amount of force absolutely necessary.

7. Civilian Casualties
The use of force must distinguish between the militia and civilians.
Innocent citizens must never be the target of war; soldiers should always
avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are only justified when they
are unaviodable victims of a military attack on a strategic target.

You should have asked him if it is still okay to kill people for homosexuality. If he said yes, then he is a moron. If he said no, then he would have to admit that he is interpreting Scripture, which nullifies his credibility since he is suggesting that only explicit scripture is acceptable.

I like how he says that he went to a "Christian" University.

We believe prophets are fallible. They do not have to be perfect to still be true prophets.

Same with the Bible or Book of Mormon. We believe the scriptures are the word of God, through imperfect --but true-- prophets.



The final word is the living prophet, if we are going to count angels dancing on pins.

In my experience, there are doctrines that are easier taught from the Bible, and some easier taught from the Book of Mormon. And some that are taught in Latter-Day Church history.

Scripture interpretation, but sure.

It is not the first time --and will not be the last-- that doctrine has been mis-interpreted.

So the Bible is infallible, without error?

We believe the Bible is the word of God, and is scripture, and its doctrines and teachings should be followed if that is your question.

Error? We believe that since no one possesses the *original* writings of the *original* prophets and apostles, that leads to the possibility and potential probability for error in the Bible. Link

The Bible is the word of God, and is scripture, and its sacred doctrines bring souls to Christ. But it is the writings of imperfect, fallible men, and was constructed by imperfect, fallible men.

We believe the Bible is a miracle. We believe its teachings should be followed. We believe it is the word of God. But we do not have the original writings from the original prophets and apostles, we have copies of their writings.

I was just interested in a "yes" or "no", and I have received the answer; "No the Bible is not infallible, and as such, there are errors in it".

Thanks

Thank you for the link in reply to my post.  While it did not answer my question, which perhaps I did not ask clearly, the link above in your reply ValleyGunner gets me closer to understanding.

In summary, as it pertains to my question, you believe that:
1) The Bible and the Book of Mormon work together, are both reverenced as the Word of God, and help draw us closer to God.
2) The Bible as first written was inerrant, but it is no longer inerrant due to human corruption during translation, copying, etc.

That answers 2/3 of my question.  The last piece is:
3) Is the Book of Mormon inerrant or did is suffer corruption like the Bible due to translation, copying, etc?

My understanding is that Church members officially regard the Book of Mormon as the "most correct" book of scripture.

This leads me to believe that if they feel there is a conflict or unclarity between the two, then the BOM takes precedence.

If one religion quotes it's religious text as proof of something, or justification for some behavior such as all out war, then any other religion has an equal right to quote it's religious text in order to prove or justify something they want to do....such as jihad.  

I think that using any religious text as a justification or proof of anything is a slippery slope, as it opens the door for all other religions to then to the same thing...such as killing anyone who disagrees with you.

I guess in the final analysis, "Might makes right" and the victor gets to write or define the history.

See above. You have approached this from a very simplistic perspective.

Many people willfully choose not to rightly divide the word of truth to make the Bible say what they want. He sounds like one of them. Doubt he went to a Bible college. He should know there is a huge difference between the church age and God directly telling the nation of Israel to do something in the Old Testament.

I can believe he went to a "Bible college". Many of them have been found to be either echo chambers or poorly instructed. The testimonies I've heard from people who have gone to seminaries or to study theology are amazing. I personally know of one "Christian" preacher, leading his Church, who has a Masters in Theology from an accredited university, and who only took 2 (two) courses on Christianity. The rest were all about different religions, historiography, etc.

But, he can truthfully claim to have a Masters in Theology when he discusses his nonsense interpretations with others.

Honestly, who cares? “Just War” theory is just that: a theory. It largely started with Augustine and isn’t really applicable for any of us since none of us will ever be making such decisions. Even Augustine himself talked about how Christian soldiers still had to obey their superiors in an unjust war (I disagree).

It’s tilting at windmills to be concerned with and it’s not even doctrine; one can disagree with it and suffer no charge of heresy. It’s just the mental fantasies of folks who would never have to fight anyway; something I disagree with (I support Heinlein’s idea that those who declare it must be first to fight). I have no use for it. It doesn’t impact my daily spiritual reality.

I’ll take total war and a quick resolution over what we see today.

If it’s ok to bomb war factories why isn’t it ok to bomb the workers when they aren’t there, but home? Is a combatant a combatant only when combatting?

With rare exception, the false delineation of non combatants is a pre-modern reality when armies marched with self sustenance.

Ass and trash (rear with gear) will get theirs, even if not wearing a uniform.

And, if the people can go against a government for waging an unjust war, then those who don’t get theirs too for being complicit.

Sorry ‘bout Dresden (but not really).

Do you start all of your posts with who cares or just in the religion forum?

Found who cares.

The reason for caring to try and have a moral and virtuous society. Which the West USED to strive for. There are times when wars are required & a moral code is needed because we are flawed humans. Soldiers do NOT have to follow unjust or immoral orders.

Yes, Dresden was immoral, so was any attack on urban civilian centers. So, were concentration camps, etc...

I would say I agree with about 95% of what you have ever posted, but I don't agree with this one.

Christ would care, and he would not agree with total war.

Yeah, I do. That’s why I started the thread.

Why?

Any why should I care about something I will literally never make a decision on? And to whit the father of the theory says that should I be a party to such a government I should obey?

No, the thread is about sola scriptura and personal interpretation.

Just War Theory is an Augustinian fabrication, much like his Massa Damnata theory of predestination due to misreading Romans.

It’s about both, and how when your biblical interpretations are divorced from the legitimate interpreting authority (the church) you can justify anything you want. St. Augustine, as a doctor of the church, carries a lot more weight with his opinions than you do. And while we may be free to disagree, it’s pretty hubristic to do so.

Concur.  In its essence, this is a matter of whether the end justifies the means, to which I say, no if speaking in absolutes.  Here's a good read from Charles Rice on the topic.

Multiple Saints have disagreed with Augustine, including St. Thomas Aquinas on certain things, so if I follow them am I hubristic? If I follow St. Francis de Sales or St. Alphonsous Liguori on anti-Augustinian interpretations, do I err?

Where exactly can you demonstrate the Church has subscribed to Augustine’s theory on this topic? And how, in any conceivable manner, does it get applied?

Should I tread Iraqi soil again (I refuse)? Should I smile in the face of insurgents’ support (I refuse)? Should I obey a false president and wear a mask (I refuse)? Should I do anything but resist? I refuse anything any government has to say anymore, for they are false.

Anyway, who cares?

Why do you? You won’t be making decisions to conduct a war, Dale.

*pocket sand*

Thanks, abnk!!! I had a short book to read. So, I will add this on to my nightly reading.

In between ARFcom of course.

Why, as in why do I not agree with you?
Because, as you well know, God's True Church says that you are in error for your thought. As such, you are sinning against God's will:

2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."109

2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.

"Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide."

And why should you care about "something I will literally never make a decision on?"

Because this is a religious forum where a question was posted, people are discussing, and you VOLUNTARILY chose to participate in. Whether the question is one you will ever have to face is not the point. Many hypotheticals are discussed in Theology and here.

I don't see anything in this statement I can disagree with.



I don't see anything in this statement I can disagree with, either. I will clarify a little bit...

We don't actually have the *original* writings of the *original* prophets and apostles from the Bible. And I think we are worried about something that got left out and lost as we are worried about "translation" errors per se. Without the original writings, maybe there are translation errors. But the real fear is something that was intended to be added but discarded and lost.

We believe the Bible is the word of God, we do not believe the Bible has been totally "corrupted" per se. We believe it is scripture, and the word of God.

We also believe the Book of Mormon. But the ultimate authority on doctrine is not the Bible or Book of Mormon, even though they contain revelation. The ultimate authority on interpretation and revelation is the living Prophet, the living Church.

Link




I do not believe the term "corrupted" in reference to the Bible is 100% correct, but yes, the Book of Mormon did not suffer from the types things that affected the Bible.

We don't have the *original* writings that make up the Bible. Be cool to find them like the Dead Sea Scrolls. But we do not have them.

We *do* have much of the Prophet Joseph Smiths original notes and writings of the Book of Mormon. We have copies of the originally printed Book of Mormon. We have much of Smiths notes to the printer. So, an argument could be made that since we have Smith original notes, and those original writings, it is easier to verify and corroborate the words written in the Book of Mormon.

But... The ultimate source of revelation in The Church of Jesus Christ is not the Bible or Book of Mormon, it is the living Prophet, the living Church.

We have copies of the original Book of Mormon, and we have many of Smiths notes to the printer. We have most of his notes from the printing of the Book of Mormon. It would be easy to compare, verify, and authenticate any changes to the Book of Mormon. We do not have that luxury with the Bible. If something was left-out or lost originally, we would never know.

So what you wrote is probably about right. I would add some nuance. We have Smiths original writings, which allows us to compare any changes to Smiths original words. And that makes it more correct, and easier to verify. But we do not believe that it is the "only correct" book of scripture.

We do believe in and read and study the Bible as a source of knowledge of God. We do believe the Bible is scripture.




The ultimate authority on interpretation and revelation in The Church is the living prophet, technically.

There are doctrines that are taught clearer in the Bible, comparatively. And if there is a contradiction or question on a teaching found within the Bible, and there are some, the clarifier is the living prophet.

If there is a question of corroboration between the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the answer will come from the living prophet.

I believe that the Bible and the Book of Mormon compliment and endorse each other in their testimony of the living Church and the living Christ.

Nope nope nope.

That’s bait.

Yup

Sometimes a question, as I read it, requires more contemplation, questioning, and examination and forces a thoughtful answer that is deeper and more nuanced than a simple "yes" or "no."

We believe the Bible is the word of God, and the words it contains should be followed... That makes it appear that the answer should be, "Yes." But that is not entirely what we believe, although it is an accurate statement on its own. Because we have the door open doctrinally that maybe there were parts of the Bible that were intended for inclusion, but were lost. That makes the answer a Yes and a No. We believe the Bible is the word of God, we believe it brings those who read it closer to Christ, we believe it is scripture, and should be read, understood, and followed. We also believe it may be missing information.

I saw your question,  and did the best I could to give a forthright answer.

Sometime a genuine and forthright answer, especially on the subject of religion, requires a thoughtful and deliberate answer. Absolute "Yes" and "no"  answers sometimes to not contain all the required information to correctly answer a question, especially on the subject of religious questions.

I understand now.  Thank you for explaining.

While separate from my original question, "the living prophet" is Dr. Nelson?

There was no nuance needed with this question. It is either infallible or it is not. The rest is merely an attempt to distract from what you know is an unpopular opinion. You are obviously free to believe what you want as it has no bearing on my beliefs or Christian Theology as a whole. Therefore, just responding concisely to the question rather than temporizing or deflecting is more than sufficient.

Again, thank you for your answer.

No problem.

Yes, Nelson. Link

Got it.  Thanks again.  Apologies to OP for my tangential questions.

The question required an explanation. An explanation was given.



My goal is truth.

Weaklings, anti-religionists, and democrats aim for popularity as a goal. My goal is truth. I think it is your goal too.

And, "lets look at the original Greek and Hebrew" in resolving questions about Biblical interpretation is a common statement and belief among my Bible believing friends. Go to the earliest writings, go to the earliest Christian teachings. Go back to the originals as much as we can. "Go to the original Greek and Hebrew." That is a common belief and statement among Bible-believers.

The problem if our goal is truth and we address the difficult reality: We do not actually have the *original* writings of the *original* prophets and apostles.

You might not like or appreciate my answer. Meh. Meh. I have no problem with you. We are allies against anti-religionists and kill-the-child abortion supporters. But your question forced an answer with an explanation, especially considering the belief that the *original* Greek and Hebrew writings are the ultimate interpretation source of the Bible. And the *original* writings of the *original* prophets and apostles don't actually exist. Anywhere.




Same to you. Positive dialogue and addressing difficult questions is something seekers of truth look forward to. Confronting the brutal reality (or "embracing the suck") is something warriors of truth and light engage in.

Truth seekers are not scared to over-turn the rock to see what is at the other side. Truth does not fear questions. Seekers of truth do not fear asking open questions and they do not fear the answers to their questions for truth.




Giving a detailed answer was the truthful route to responding to the question. Your question was profound. Your question was deep. It forced study, it forced research, it forced details and explanation.

The answer to differences of interpretation of the Bible is answered by Bible-believers: "go to the original Greek or Hebrew." It would be temporizing or deflecting to insinuate, connotate, or intimate that we actually possess the actual *original* writings of the *original* prophets and apostles. That would be temporizing or deflecting. A detailed, thorough answer was the truthful route.

Always seek the truthful route in defending and explaining truth.




No problem. You know I will answer the questions you ask.

Anytime. Np.

I'm not sure about this.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the advancement of Christian tenets is better served when focusing on the Truth, rather than seeking what can only be, in all sincerity, a symbolic effort to present a facade of equivalent doctrines.

I believe this is only more divisive to all parties involved, and degrades the integrity of Christianity and the other religions as well.

This is really the problem.  It's one thing to hold a personal opinion on a point where the totality scripture is slient.  It is quite another matter to refute the scripture because of personal desire or comfort.

But such is the way of man, to pervert all truth God has granted to him in pursuit of his own vanity.  Yet vanity it is.