> I am having a bit of a tough time following your logic here regarding
> Gordon B. Hinckley. Perhaps you could help me out.

Dr. Jones,

I think it is pretty clear that GBH personally approved of the invasion of Iraq:

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. (emphasis mine)

And what was that overriding principle? He goes on to say that was just war... Captain Moroni style. Of course, it was clear to many that Iraq did not justify a threat to our liberty. The fact that many - if not most - of the major war proponents predicted that we would smash Iraq's army during our invasion should only underscore the particular point that Iraq was not a threat. This was clearly not a Captain Moroni moment (even without the benefit of hindsight); but clearly GBH personally believed that it was such a moment. He didn't have to express his personal opinion that the Iraq war was justifiable to the entire Church at a General Conference session - but he did.

> For the record,
> I believe the Iraq invasion was a mistake and I believe that prophets
> are fallible.

Oh sure, prophets are fallible. That is documented throughout scripture. I don't really have a problem with GBH "getting Iraq wrong" per se. But that being said, I don't recall a talk where he said that he regretted his mistake (i.e. justifying the Iraq invasion) using the same kind of forum where he made his previous pronouncements, i.e. at the pulpit of a General Conference. Therefore I don't think his lamentation is particularly sincere.

>
> I recall you commenting on GBH's article on war and peace, expressing
> your displeasure that he did not show more courage and come out
> against the war the way that the pope did. If I recall correctly, you
> particularly objected to this line:
>
> "It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede
> or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces
> of evil and repression."
>
> In fairness to GBH, I think it is important to include the sentence
> just previous to this line:
>
> "I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible
> as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are
> legally obligated to do."
>
> So was he talking about standing in the way of government officials or
> standing in the way of soldiers who are just doing their duty? I
> think his point regarding soldiers not being held accountable is
> valid. As for his second point ("It may even be ..."), I don't think
> it is fair to characterize this as a "cowardly" statement.

I guess that depends on whether you think "legally obligated" is synonymous to "morally obligated". I'm not legally obligated to do immoral things, but I am morally obligated to speak out when others are performing immoral actions under the guise of "legality". The implication GBH is making is that I should not stand in the way of anyone (especially soldiers) that are performing something in a "legal" context, irregardless of the morality of such actions. I not only find this implication cowardly, but highly offensive as well.

> In your
> discussion on this topic you contrasted GBH's statement with the
> "courage" of the former Pope, who opposed the invasion. From what I
> understand, the former Pope opposed ALL wars. While I respect that
> position, I don't believe that a blanket opposition to all armed
> conflict is correct or necessarily more courageous by definition. I
> think war should be extremely rare and I think the Pope was correct in
> this case. But there are cases where war is justified and honorable.

There are exceptions where war is justified. And the Pope said as much at the time; but for "self-defense against an aggressor, there can be no legal or moral justification for military action" I think were the exact words. I think that it is a completely valid stance.

> GBH seemed to imply that this "may" be one of those cases, but I would
> hardly couch this as a ringing endorsement for the invasion. And of
> course, we now have the benefit of hindsight.

As I noted earlier, it was abundantly clear at the time that Iraq did not pose even a remote threat to "our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" or our liberty. The benefit of hindsight implies that this fact was discovered much later, but it wasn't.

> One may argue that "If he is truly a prophet, why didn't he foresee
> that the invasion was a mistake and speak out against it?"
> personally, I don't believe God dictates divine policy on each and
> every issue, especially political issues. I would prefer that the
> church stays neutral on political issues, as I think he has in this
> case.

Oh, I agree completely.

Further, I would prefer GBH didn't issue his "personal opinions" in a forum where he should strictly operate in a official status. It is too easy for members to conflate such personal opinions with official Church policy and doctrine. It's just not good practice.

>
> Finally, I think that questioning his "sincerity" regarding a desire
> for peace based on your frustration that he did not explicitly oppose
> the invasion is a bit presumptious.
>
> Cheers,
>
> NLJ

I don't doubt he has regret. But as I stated, I am not aware of an instance where he took the opportunity to correct the record in the same kind of forum where he made his original remarks. Isn't the first step of sincere repentance, the act of admitting error? ;)

cheers.

--rus.