LDS Freedom Forum

Have any of you seen "Let Not Your Heart Be Troubled—A Message of Peace for LDS in Military Service" DVD?

Any thoughts?

My first thought was that they need to fulfill their contract, but we are ultimately for peace.

Have you seen the DVD?

Yes, I have it.

It confused me some. It was like neutralizing itself.

Interesting. What do you mean it neutralized itself?

It was like it supported both "sides" at the same time.

LoveChrist wrote:It was like it supported both "sides" at the same time.

We give these kids guns to go and kill other people with, not to play the clarinet with.

It makes sense that the church is pressured by parents with serving kids to put out something official to let them know that if they murder an iraqi kid by running over the top of him with a hummer, or lighting him up with a .50cal machine gun because his dad didn't understand english , or the vietnamese kid with some napalm, or so on for the last 50 years, they need peace of mind.

How else could you live with yourself? This is the classic monopoly "get out of jail free" pass.

I don't think it will count for too much in heaven thou. I am sure each are judged according to the circumstances, but not the "i was under orders" as an escape clause

AussieOi wrote: This is the classic monopoly "get out of jail free" pass.

I don't think it will count for too much in heaven thou. I am sure each are judged according to the circumstances, but not the "i was under orders" as an escape clause

How do you reconcile those two, seemingly contradictory, statements?

David O McKay basically said the same thing regarding military personal in WWII, that they would not be held accountable for the actions their government put them in.

Bircher wrote:

AussieOi wrote: This is the classic monopoly "get out of jail free" pass.

I don't think it will count for too much in heaven thou. I am sure each are judged according to the circumstances, but not the "i was under orders" as an escape clause

.

Bircher wrote: How do you reconcile those two, seemingly contradictory, statements?

Easy. One is make believe. Holding it makes you feel better, but doesn’t alter the reality of anything. It simply placates those in the game, while the game goes on.
Too many LDS are war like. They get excited by all the battles in the BofM. You see it here with the “warrior-prophet” avatars. Moroni and others would be sick of them I am sure. They press the church for a statement to ease their conscience, they get it.

Bircher wrote: David O McKay basically said the same thing regarding military personal in WWII, that they would not be held accountable for the actions their government put them in.

If that is_exactly_what he said then it is a truism, a superfluous, redundant statement. This is because no soldier can be held fully accountable for the actions their government_put_them in.

Now if you are suggesting he said “that they would not be held accountable for the actions THEY DID (because) their government put them (there) then I would suggest that it would holds little water at the last day when we are judged. How about a bit of rape perhaps? A bit of pillaging? Theft? Shall I go on? Of course there is no free pass. I believe what he would have been suggesting is that, in a legal war, where there was a real, defined enemy, that, if a soldier takes the life of the enemy under genuine perceived battle conditions (kill or be killed), then he has limited culpability, if any. But we’re off topic.

It’s a nonsense hypothetical, but do you think the church would have sent similar statements to the German Soldier in Auschwitz? Or the Easter Front, where there were no prisoners left behind? I could accept the latter, but not the former.

I ask is this DVD nation generic? Would an LDS Taliban fighter [remember the Taliban was the legally recognised government of Afghanistan while WE ARMED AND RECOGNISED THEM IN THEIR FIGHT TO BEAT THE SOVIETS, up until October 2001 when we wanted that Pipeline there] get the same reprieve. Or does it only apply to LDS in the military.

The Nazi’s hung at Nuremberg because the world said “I was following orders” is not an excuse. Neither does our own doctrine. “we are judged for our own actions, not Adams…NOR any US military orders.

I'm not on the side of "just following orders" by any stretch of the imagination.

It seemed as if you were saying the video was both a get out of jail free card as well as meaningless in the "final" judgment.

I don't see how it can be both.

This is my opinion only, but personally I think an 18-year old soldier will be judged much differently than a 50-year old retired soldier.

The reason I say that is that the 18-year old may not know really why he is in war; but if that same 18-year old comes home, finds out later that his leaders misled him, and figures out that the current leaders are doing the same thing, and then continues to support future wars out of some supposed confused "honor" I think the judgment will be much harsher.

So in relation to the video I see how it is a "get out of jail free" card for the 18-year old, but will condemn the 50-year old.

Does that make sense???