LDS Freedom Forum

Are were likely to see the first destruction of a temple since Nauvoo?

My guess...only if a certain country and its agencies don't see enthusiastic support for more war from the LDS people, the LDS corporations and certain senators.

It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:22 pm Are were likely to see the first destruction of a temple since Nauvoo?

The Samoan temple was destroyed by a suspicious fire and rebuilt. It was actually the first LDS temple I saw up close (before Preston) from the outside. It was destroyed a couple of years later.

Also, what will come of the announced temples in Russia, China? I can't see them being built til the millennium now.

Niemand wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 2:03 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:22 pm Are were likely to see the first destruction of a temple since Nauvoo?

The Samoan temple was destroyed by a suspicious fire and rebuilt. It was actually the first LDS temple I saw up close (before Preston) from the outside. It was destroyed a couple of years later.

I didn't know that, thanks.
Why were you in Samoa?

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

Again, you simply cannot comprehend what CONVENTIONAL war is. In conventional war, governmental MILITARIES fight each other NOT people.

In conventional war, civilians and the populace stay out of the way of the military. If you aren't in the actual military (as in a governmental organization-not some "territorial defense") you stay out of the way.

This type of conventional war is how WW1 and the first part of WW2 was fought. The civilians "fraternized" with the enemy. Yes there was "underground" resistance; but it wasn't all out hell.

Now the later half of WW2 when the Nazis were losing is a different story, they used extremely evil tactics to get every single person to die fighting with them.

Unfortunately after years and years, everyone has been brainwashed into thinking the only way to fight a war is this hellscape of a guerrilla war which ultimately will leave a country destroyed for decades. Sometimes it is better to accept defeat, learn to fight another day than to leave a utterly wrecked and destroyed country for decades.

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:54 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

No sir, the Russians are currently bombing residential areas, schools and hospitals. The Russian soldiers are even confirming it. At least with "cultural" or other type buildings, there is less risk of civilians getting killed who are more likely hiding out in their homes.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

And you have to understand, Ukrainians don't have a 2nd amendment. They simply cannot wage a massive war against Russia. Sure, you might get SOME weapons smuggled in, but that's not enough to be more than an irritant to the Russians.

If you want to win and have your country somewhat intact then you let them take the country and then you fight underground. When it's your side that is blowing up bridges you've got a huge problem. Let's say you "win" . . ."win" what? You've already self inflicted massive infrastructure damage on your own country; no bridges means no transportation between towns, cities, your airports are unusable . . .so how are you even going to get the basics such as food.

Given that Ukies don't have a 2nd amendment, how in the world are they going to fight against trained military? That's just a death wish. Great, hand them an AK-47, okay sure they have all served 2 years military but what like 20 years ago? So they MIGHT remember how to use from that time . . .more likely not. And more likely given that they aren't trained and prepped they will end up doing more damage than not to each other.

For pete's sake, the Ukies weren't even ready for an invasion, they did absolutely 0 prep work for it . . .and now they are going to beat one of the best trained, most technological superior, largest militaries in the world.

Might as well be throwing rocks at them.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:54 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

No sir, the Russians are currently bombing residential areas, schools and hospitals. The Russian soldiers are even confirming it. At least with "cultural" or other type buildings, there is less risk of civilians getting killed who are more likely hiding out in their homes.

Of course they are bombing those things. . . because the Ukrainians have military targets there!!

My goodness what about this do you not get. If you place a sniper at the top of a residential building and then a tank blows the top of that residential building off that isn't the Russians fault.

In war, you take out the military targets.

If the Ukrainians didn't want residential areas and hospitals blown up then it's real simple and easy. DON'T PLACE MILITARY TARGETS THERE.

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:11 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:54 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

No sir, the Russians are currently bombing residential areas, schools and hospitals. The Russian soldiers are even confirming it. At least with "cultural" or other type buildings, there is less risk of civilians getting killed who are more likely hiding out in their homes.

Of course they are bombing those things. . . because the Ukrainians have military targets there!!

My goodness what about this do you not get. If you place a sniper at the top of a residential building and then a tank blows the top of that residential building off that isn't the Russians fault.

In war, you take out the military targets.

If the Ukrainians didn't want residential areas and hospitals blown up then it's real simple and easy. DON'T PLACE MILITARY TARGETS THERE.

The Russians are trying to encircle and capture the cities, and are bombing the cities.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:54 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

Maybe they were trying to protect it from the Russians. I guess if someone was terrorizing my neighborhood and I stood in front of my house with a gun, I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

No sir, the Russians are currently bombing residential areas, schools and hospitals. The Russian soldiers are even confirming it. At least with "cultural" or other type buildings, there is less risk of civilians getting killed who are more likely hiding out in their homes.

You are dehumanizing the Russians.

My goodness THINK for just a minute. Turn off those emotions and think.

No military has unlimited time, energy and resources. Every shell you fire off is one less shell you have. Every bullet you fire is one less bullet you have.

Every time you fire a round, use a shell, drop a bomb on a non-military target it is WASTED RESOURCES and it puts you at a tactical and strategic disadvantage. It means you have less shells, bombs, and ammunition for the actual enemy you are fighting.

So if you are in a Russia battalion, you know you have LIMITED resources to use in battle. If you waste your resources blowing up hospitals "just because" you are more likely to be killed by the enemy b/c you have less resources to hit the enemy with. It simply is not to your advantage to do what you claim they are doing. To do that puts you at higher risk of death.

HOWEVER, if you are out-resourced and fighting a losing war it IS to your advantage to place your military assets in civilians areas . . .b/c what you want is more resources and the way to get more resources is to convince people to give you more resources and you do that by making the other guy out to be so despicably evil.

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:16 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:11 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:08 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:54 pm
As soon as you place a military vehicle in a residential area, a hospital, in front of a opera house that location automatically becomes a target; i.e. the building will most likely be damaged or destroyed. This type of thinking is exactly what I mean when Westerners are so completely utterly naive when it comes to war. In war, you take out the military targets period. Placing military targets on the steps of cultural/medical/residential areas is cowardly and dishonorable.

Of course when that military target does get taken out (as they always do), then those who placed the target there can wail and moan and get the world all worked up about the "enemy attacking civilians and committing war crimes".

Russia is trying to wage a conventional war. Conventional war is where you only attack military targets. The West over the past 20 years has waged total war and people simply cannot process (like you have done) what conventional war looks like.

No sir, the Russians are currently bombing residential areas, schools and hospitals. The Russian soldiers are even confirming it. At least with "cultural" or other type buildings, there is less risk of civilians getting killed who are more likely hiding out in their homes.

Of course they are bombing those things. . . because the Ukrainians have military targets there!!

My goodness what about this do you not get. If you place a sniper at the top of a residential building and then a tank blows the top of that residential building off that isn't the Russians fault.

In war, you take out the military targets.

If the Ukrainians didn't want residential areas and hospitals blown up then it's real simple and easy. DON'T PLACE MILITARY TARGETS THERE.

The Russians are trying to encircle and capture the cities, and are bombing the cities.

Yes, they are and why are they doing that?

Because the Ukrainian military made the conscious decision to put their military assets in the middle of the cities, in residential areas, etc. They retreated into the city centers to specifically make the Russians HAVE TO BOMB them in their own cities.

The Russians aren't shelling the cities "just because". They actually aren't bombing them, they are shelling them-big difference. They are shelling them b/c that's where the military targets are located.

The Russians would much rather have the Ukrainian military who are outgunned, outmanned, etc. surrender-but they won't surrender they will fight until everyone is dead. Which is exactly what some other group of military miscreants did 80 years ago.

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 4:01 pm

Sarah wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 3:24 pm

spiritMan wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:36 pm It's possible, but the Temple is in a relatively safe area in Kiev. It's on the outskirts and not located in a dense area.

But given the Ukies penchant for placing military vehicles on the steps of cultural locations (they placed a military truck on the steps of the Odessa Opera House), who knows . . .

I would be accused of using my innocent children inside as a shield.

Again, you simply cannot comprehend what CONVENTIONAL war is. In conventional war, governmental MILITARIES fight each other NOT people.

In conventional war, civilians and the populace stay out of the way of the military. If you aren't in the actual military (as in a governmental organization-not some "territorial defense") you stay out of the way.

This type of conventional war is how WW1 and the first part of WW2 was fought. The civilians "fraternized" with the enemy. Yes there was "underground" resistance; but it wasn't all out hell.

Now the later half of WW2 when the Nazis were losing is a different story, they used extremely evil tactics to get every single person to die fighting with them.

Unfortunately after years and years, everyone has been brainwashed into thinking the only way to fight a war is this hellscape of a guerrilla war which ultimately will leave a country destroyed for decades. Sometimes it is better to accept defeat, learn to fight another day than to leave a utterly wrecked and destroyed country for decades.

Try telling the residents of London that the bombs which fell on them, destroying their homes and killing thousands in the first half of WWII, "wasn't all out hell".

I guess thats the trouble with war...once the killing starts the line between right and wrong gets all scrambled.

Rules of war, Geneva convention, honor vs dishonor conventional or guerrilla...it all kind of means $#!% once the bullets start flying.

tribrac wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 5:17 pm I guess thats the trouble with war...once the killing starts the line between right and wrong gets all scrambled.

Rules of war, Geneva convention, honor vs dishonor conventional or guerrilla...it all kind of means poo poo once the bullets start flying.

That's exactly right. Which is why you work for a diplomatic solution; that's why Zelenksy was an idiot.

And too many Western softies don't understand what war is . . .

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 2:25 pm

Niemand wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 2:03 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑March 12th, 2022, 1:22 pm Are were likely to see the first destruction of a temple since Nauvoo?

The Samoan temple was destroyed by a suspicious fire and rebuilt. It was actually the first LDS temple I saw up close (before Preston) from the outside. It was destroyed a couple of years later.

I didn't know that, thanks.
Why were you in Samoa?

I was there in the mid nineties. It burnt down in 2003 according to the church website. I don't know if it was deliberate or not.