Posted below are individual e-mail messages, I have put them in their
cronological order, and all are invited to share what they may, and
voice their opinion as the see fit. In doing so, let us only remember
that the prophet of God whome All who read this has told us that on
this subject matter we can "share our opinions" and indeed
that was his first instruction for us to do so:
"We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we
see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning
our brothers and sisters ... on one side or the other. Political differences
never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people
may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless
of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.
"
This is funny, but some might not find it so.
Here is the URL to tons of these. On the radio this morning, Dr. Stockwell
was talking about the new National ID card legislation that has passed
and the survailance going on by the government, then he spoke of creating
a bumper sticker which would state:
"If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear."
Now, know that this is a statement given in satire, making fun of the
"trust government they love you" crowd.
I thought I would send him this link.
http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/PhotoAlbum1.html
I continue to go back to those two talks from President Hinckley (“The
times in which we live”, and “War and Peace”) and
still can’t twist them to say President Hinckley (and the Church
for that matter) are against the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
If he was against the war and wanted to remain quiet, he wouldn’t
have said anything. Why would he deceive so many by putting out talks
that are so obviously for the war on terror and for the war in Iraq
and mislead so many church members? A friend of mine who I consider
to be one of the smartest people I know (he’s spiritual too) said
that he thought both talks were obviously for the war on terror and
the war in Iraq. Just assume that we are not the source of evil while
you read the following quotes, for President Hinckley states that “God
our Eternal Father will watch over this nation”:
“The Times in Which we Live” - October 2001 General Conference
“Recently, in company with a few national religious leaders,
I was invited to the White House to meet with the president. In talking
to us he was frank and straightforward. That same evening he spoke to
the Congress and the nation in unmistakable language concerning the
resolve of America and its friends to hunt down the terrorists who were
responsible for the planning of this terrible thing and any who harbored
such.”
“Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the
president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted
and held accountable for their actions.”
“We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was
and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up
for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni
rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children,
and the cause of liberty”
“Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may
be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to
suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father will watch
over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him.”
“War and Peace” - April 2003 General Conference
“I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001.
When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had
just begun. The present war [The Iraq War] is really an outgrowth and
continuation of that conflict.”
“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. When war
raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that
“the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not
fighting for . . . power but they were fighting for their homes and
their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea,
for their rites of worship and their church.”
“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.”
If what I’m saying is right, then you are “hedging up the
way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression”
and will be held responsible for doing so based on the assumption that
our government is at the source of this evil. That’s a huge assumption
to be making - especially when misinterpreting a prophet hinges on that
assumption. My only hope is that my arguing against you when you’re
unwilling to change your opinion has driven you further into resisting
the prophet’s message.
Just letting you know honestly how I feel. I honestly fear for you
and think you’re dead wrong. Perhaps it’s not my place to
try to convince you otherwise.
Robert
I appreciate your voicing your thoughts.
The US has not always been the source of evil, and in fact is the seat
of the Restored Church of Christ, as Ezra Taft Benson stated, God will
not change his latter-day kingdom from being directed from this continent.
Even so, there are vicious and malignant things traitors within our
government have done. The Creature From Jekyll Island shows quite well
such treatury. Look at WWII, we are propagandized to think it was a
great and wonderful war faught for a righteous cause, but if we consider
two of God's Prophets on the matter, we realize it was a tragic mistake
we should not have been involved with. J. Reuben Clark stated we would
go in and it would be "just as great a mistake as in WWI."
Well, he was right. Heber J. Grant lamented our involvement and Truman
G. Madsen states that in Conference Pres. Grant said "We didn't
have to go." and his voice broke with emotion. Madsen continues
and expounds on the fact that President Grant held accountable leaders
of nations for this treatury.
When we invade Syria and or Iran within the next year, will President
Hinckley support that? I know we have hashed and re-hashed this over
and over with where Pres. Hinckley stands. I understand
I agree with Pres. Hinckley, "we who are american citizens stand
solidly with our President." He stated this after quoting the president
as talking about finding out those responsible and bringing them to
justice. That is righteous justice. Of course we stand with him on such
a thing. Notice how "we who are 'American' citizens" stand
with him, why not all of the church globally?
Again, what of Iraq?
the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better
cause, for they were not fighting for . . . power but they were fighting
for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children,
and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.”
Yes, the Nephites were fighting for a better cause. What of us in Iraq?
The traitors or as J. REuben Clark would call them "the money people"
have put Americans into Iraq, not for "liberty." Phoey. Nonesense.
Baloney. We are setting up military bases all over there around strategic
oil pipelines. Afgahnastan, same thing. The US leadership doesn't give
a damn about freedom. Right now, citizens groups are mobilizing on the
Arizona border trying to do that which the federal government refuses
to do, keep the border secure. These thousands coming accross the border
daily can be from every nation on earth and be "al quida"
members. They can come to Utah and get a drivers liscense. HELLO?!!!
INsantity? The Feds are frisking grandma's at airports, yet illegals
coming accross the border whome no one knows can obtain a drivers liscense
in the state of Utah?????
This is setting us up on purpose for a major catastrophy that the Feds
will use to come in and destroy more of our freedoms.
Robert, there are vicious, oath bound, and secret societies who have
taken control of our government and who infest the judgement seats,
and their purpose is to "take control of the society." These
false men "woo the people with sophistry," and in time will
bring down wrath and persecution upon the church. At that point, perhaps
the sleeping Elders of Israel will awaken and realize that they have
been a sleeping giant who like gulliver could have broken each string
of tyranny as it was put upon them, but they will awaken too late, to
find each string has been "woven into a rope that binds them into
bondage" just as Ezra Taft Benson prophetically stated.
This is happening. The people are asleep and blind, and the strings
of tyranny are being put upon them. I feel in step with past and the
living prophets.
In the 1930's, the First Presidency had the Deseret News put in a huge
Editorial supporting the "constitution candidate." Now, would
you not think that this was plain for the people to realize and see?
How did they vote? Did they vote in the 1936 election for the constitution
candidate? NO, the people in the state of Utah voted 70% against that
editorial as the socialist FDR was swept into office by a landslide.
How could the stupid Mormon people be so ignorant or misunderstanding
of chruch leaders on an issue? Well, it's still the same today. Most
think that "pre-emptive" invasion is good and justified, and
in doing so lack understanding, totally refuting 3 Ne 3, D&C 98,
and other prophetic statements on war. God never condones "pre-emptive"
strikes. He justifies, indeed there is an "over riding" responsibility
to defend our lives, liberty, property, religeon etc, but not by "pre-emptive
attack." There is never a time that God justifies pre-emption unless
he specifically commands it. Moroni did not go to war with his title
of liberty until God commanded him, and it most certainly was not "pre-emptive."
The sophistry with which we are wooed is powerful. Right now the rhetoric
against Iran and Syria is very familiar, spouted by the mouths of traitors,
and those who (like Bush) are members of Secret societies. Bush is an
admitted member of Skull and Bones, but refused to answer questions
about it when asked by Tim Russert on Meet The Press. Why? If it is
some benign little "boys club" then there ought not be anything
to hide. Kerry too a member? Let us awake and arise, and shake off the
chains of hell, and the sleep of hell which has us as a church laying
docile on the ground while strings of tyranny are put upon us.
I appreciate you having concern for me. It is true I am most rooted,
and my mind will not be swayed differently from what I feel to be convictions
forged through study, prayer and some fasting. I hope you don't feel
any burden upon your shoulders for my stance which I believe you might
feel your disputation with causes me to entrench and retreat further
into.
I guess I'm at odds at to what to say. We use the same passages from
President Hinckley to prove each other wrong. I'm frightened not by
terrorists, but by my vicious government--not the constitutional one--but
the one that is rising which no longer is fettered by the chains of
the Constitution. President Hinckley is right and gives us the assurance
that “God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation”,
yes, he will, even though we will lose liberties, even though the righteous
are persecuted, and the great whore will turn the multitudes against
us, God will watch over this nation. That is comforting.
I hope my response does not frustrate you. You feel that Pres. Hinckley's
talks are "obviously for the war on terror and the war in Iraq"
and yet I feel totally opposite, based on many of the same prophetic
utterances. I'm not alone in how I feel, and a good section of my address
book feels the same way, but in general terms of the populace, we are
a tiny minority.
Draft Boards have to get up to speed by the end of March, and undergo
training. When young LDS men are drafted rather than serving missions
to preach the gospel, then will people wake up and realize the foolishness
of war and the phoney conflicts of terrorist nations that we build up,
only to then fight later? How much blood will be spilled and American's
die before people realize the wickedness of this war? 9/11 was an inside
job, brought about by a vicious, oath bound and secret organization.
We must put all current events into that paradigm and grasp for "eyes
that can see" and "ears that can hear" and "hearts
that will yeild to Gods counsel." The secret combination spoken
of in Ether 8 has an objective: Overthrow the freedom of all nations,
lands, countries." It is "increasing it's evil influence and
control over America and the entire world" as BEnson stated in
1988. So did that combination disapear with the election of Bush Sr?
Clinton? Bush Jr? No, it is now more powerful than ever, yet those unfamiliar
with scripture do not see it. They are decieved and actually 'support
and build up and support' that secret combination. Is there any wonder
we are under condemnation, a scourge and judgement for not utilizing
and understanding the Book of Mormon?
Well, feel free to respond without any bad feelings, even if we disagree
most vehiminantly. I would be interested to know what you would think
of the Wednesday 4:00- 5:00 radio show on 630 AM radio or www.k-talk.com
where Joel Skousen gives his World Affairs Breif? It's most powerful
and he gives the inside intilligence through the network he has. He
unmasks what is going on, as do the Books like "None Dare Call
It Conspiracy" and "The Creature From Jekyll Island,"
and Shadows of Power, and even that which was written by his uncle "The
Naked Communist" which President David O. McKay asked the church
to read in 1959. All of this is clear and unmistakalbe and shows us
the means and methods of Satan and his "emmisaries."
Well, talk to you later,
Shaun
Shaun,
I could be completely wrong, I know. I could be blinded and sleeping.
And we both agree that there is corruption in our own and other governments.
But I can’t ignore what seems to me to be an obvious message in
President Hinckley’s talks.
The whole point of the “War and Peace” talk is the seeming
discrepancy between war and peace! He’s saying “modern revelation
states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace”
- so how could we ever support this war on terror and the war in Iraq?
And he answers that we can do it if the war is for freedom and family,
etc. He then says that the current situation is just that - us fighting
for freedom and families and the freedom of the Iraqis: “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.” He also says that we must fight against
this terrorism wherever it is - we must go hunt it down and fight it:
“It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and
brought down.” He is for the war on terror. He says the current
Iraq war is an outgrowth of the war on terror: “The present war
is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict.” He
says we must ferret out terror and fight against it where it is - pre-emptively
- oh wait, it’s NOT pre-emptive! They already attacked us. He
says that we are fighting like Moroni and the Nephites and are justified
in doing so.
My main point here is that if you really just look objectively at president
Hinckley’s two talks about this it is obvious that he is FOR the
war against terrorism and FOR ferreting them out and hunting them down
right now and FOR the war in Iraq since it’s simply an outgrowth
and continuation of the war on terror. And I don’t care how many
other people agree with you on your mailing list - that’s arm
of the flesh/praise of the world all the way.
Please post my two messages to your list - I think it’s healthy
to get opposing viewpoints.
Robert
I believe Pres. Hinckley is for the war on terror as you state only
so long as it's tactics stay within the realms the Lord has set, namely
that we "fight not for power" but for our wives, our rights,
religion etc. Why then are we in Iraq? Bush himself if you remember
stated on TV months after the invasion that "there is not evidence"
that Saddam was behind or had links to 9/11. So, Saddam a corrupt dictator?
yes. So is China, who we are supporting and building up. Last night
on the Radio, Joel Skousen went through the massive build up of nuclear
armaments by the Soviets and Chinese, all aided and supported by out
gadianton infested government. He spoke of the underground bunkers being
built up right now in Russia, also ones here in the US, and even top
dog gadiantons now retired are building their own, clearly, they are
preparing for something, a massive strike upon America. This is not
new information, but most can't accept and believe it. It will fulfill
prophesy when it happens. Right now our government is facilitating and
planning such an abomination. This is the terrorism that we should and
at that time will have to fight against, and as Reed Benson stated,
when the Nuclear bombs begin dropping on this nation, then maybe the
LDS people will begin to pick up and read some of those old Ensigns.
Yes, we have a lot to fight against. There will be some valient men
who will be in battle against the forces of evil, and Pres. Hinckley
states that the Lord will hold us accountable if we interfere and hinder
them in that fight. You think I'm doing that, but I feel I'm on the
right side of the fight, wanting to expose teh secret combinations and
how they work.
The whole thing is beyond belief for me that you don't see the whole
thing. Donald Rumsfeld is shown in a Frontline Documentary as setting
up a commision to bring about and manufacture evidence against Iraq
so that we could go in and invade. Insiders in the CIA and other organizations
who have some humanity have resigned, and protested most severely the
hijacking of our government by the Trotskyite Neocons.
I will post your messages.
This is to my Address Book
By Request, my good Friend Robert asks that I send this to those of
you on my list. Robert and I are friends who can discuss beliefs we
hold and yet disagree. He does not agree with me on my stance with the
War on Terror, or the War in Iraq. You can read through and send me
your comments, I will forward anything you give to him. We both welcome
your commentary, but please let us remember in this to move forward
with the counsel of our Living Prophet who stated to us about the Iraq
War and conflict:
"We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we
see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning
our brothers and sisters ... on one side or the other. Political differences
never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people
may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless
of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.
"
Again, this is the second of two postings [what Robert initially wrote
at the first of the page] from my friend Robert who is in disagreement
with me on my severe hostility to the Bush Administration, which I most
sincerely believe is filled and overflowing with secret combinations
and whom I believe was behind the attacks of Sept 11. Perhaps more accurately
stated, our disagreement as noted in our correspondence occurs over
our different interpretations of the Words of the Living Prophet on
the matter. Robert is not alone on this, as I have uncles who feel the
same way as he does, and one now living in Madagascar feels I'm misinterpreting
the Prophet, when he has been in town we have long discussions on the
matter. I have let Robert know that I do have those who agree with me
however, and I think he would gladly hear from you on why you believe
as you do. As for those of you who feel I'm off my rocker, don't feel
bad to let me know what you think, even though you may disagree with
me.
I can see where you're both coming from on this subject. I believe
that your friend Robert is ignorant to a lot of important facts. Although
I do see where he is coming from on those two talks that Pres. Hinckley
gave. If you remember, I asked the same question
a while back; that it seemed that he was for the war on terror and the
war in iraq. The thing about Hinckley is, he's a very good at being
politically correct and I think it shows in these two talks. He never
CLEARLY says anything although it seems to me, still, that he implies
to be in favor of the war.
I look at it a little differently than you or Robert might. I agree
with
you that it is wrong for us to be over there... I feel very passionately
against it. I think, (and admit that I might be wrong), that Pres. Hinckley
has a greater insight on this and therefore might see that
the means justify the ends. I DON'T KNOW. It seems that in many instances
the Lord uses unrighteous means in order to achieve his objectives.
Take this country for example. Who was here before us? The native Americans,
right? And how did we eventually get this land? Taking it, by force
(unrighteous means if you ask me). But it was the Lords will. Doesn't
it seem like a paradox that at times the Lord will allow unrighteous
things to happen for even greater reasons? I think
that is maybe why Hinckley is for the war. Maybe this war will open
missionary opportunities in countries where we are not allowed. Again,
I don't know. I'm still against it. Just as I'm against what our fore-fathers
did in invading this land, and forcing our way of government on a people
who's land it was. The difference is fore-sight. I will still be a stonch
isolationist, nationalistic, right wing conservative. My favorite quote
that I tell all my friends and I even told my history class (to my teacher's
disapproval) is:
"Nothing in the Constitution or in logic grants to the president
of the
United States or to Congress the power to influence the political life
of other countries, to uplift their economies, to feed their people,
or to defend them against their enemies." President Ezra Taft Benson
(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.614)
I don't understand how you can believe in the book of mormon and not
believe in conspiracies being a threat in our government. It's absolutely
contradictory. Give me some feedback on the paradox theory. Hear from
you soon.
Shaun; I have had a few web disussions about the war on Iraq and I
have read the words of President Hinckley several times. A few basic
items come to mind which at least to me, helps sort out the controversy.
I noticed that he mentioned a democracy as being able to disagre or
some such wording was less than inspired, I thought. What I found in
his words was a bit of flip flopping which allows both sides to find
words which they can claim to support their side in the war controversy.
I wish he had not done it that way, but I am not the leader of the church
What I do see though, is that he may be trying to desperately hold
the church together at a time when factions are at polar extremes in
personal beliefs. About the only other possibilty I see is (one that
I hope is not the case) that he is not holding fast to the founders'
govt and its just laws.
There are some promises in the scriptures which I beleive apply to
our day and situation. "the wicked shall destroy the wicked"
I shall not suffer the wicked to destroy the righteous"
Now the kicker as I see it is, We as a nation are the wicked. I am
also watching the rantings of Black Bitch Condi Rice as she charges
across Europe and the ME with her rantings about what OTHER govts MUST
do. She is one evil witch and an insult to the social strata of the
nations she is ordering around. She makes the gadianton Colin Powell
look like a pussy cat.
I am thinking that events are about to unfold that will change the
appearance ot things within the church. President Hinckley is reaching
the end of his time. Thomas Monson is an entirely different person and
although he is not like Presiden Benson, he may be able to unite the
church in a single purpose, whatever that may be.
If we do not soon get our act together in trying to form Zion communities
we can bend over and grab our ankles (you know the rest of the saying)
Wars in this age, are to be fought by the wicked I beleive. This is
Armageddon so the gloves are off and eternal consequences are at hand.
Jim
Thanks Shaun. I hope that you never misinterpret my disagreement as
being hostile towards you. I’m not. I am actually very blessed
to have someone with an opposing viewpoint to work through these things
with. I think we’ll both benefit from this if we can keep it contention
free. Take care.
Wow. That was frustrating to read, as I'm sure it was for you.
I don't have the eloquence in words that you or Robert has. But I respect
both of you. However, I'm with Robert on this one. Finally something
I
understand that you are talking about. I agree 100% w. Robert.
yes, at times you worry me, b/c i do think you could be off your rocker
when it comes to the Bush Administration and the War on Terror. I'm
letting you know, b/c you have no fear of letting me voice my opinion.
though, I'm not eloquently stating it, nor going into detail. I can't
argue w. you, nor do i care to...b/c you will not waiver on this subject.
that's too bad
Dear Robert, et alia,
I'm disturbed by such statements as: "an obvious message in President
Hinckley's talks". As a very interested and knowledgeable non-member
told me, yea, one who listened carefully to the talks, and many deeply
considered discussions afterward, "it is a MASTERPIECE in neutrality
and diplomacy". The fact that you seem to ignore or dismiss the
contradictions set forth in the talks is of deep concern and difficulty
in considering your position.
We mortals seem to have a universal abhorrence for contradictions and
we struggle incessantly to reconcile such or give up to despair or employ
some other defense mechanism. How we react to such contradictions may
well be the crux of the test of mortality-- consider the following:
"... and is called the Son because of
the flesh, and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer;
or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to
more powerful contradictions than any man can be." --Joseph Smith-
Fifth Lecture on Faith
Would it not seem that our task would be to face as many contradictions
as possible to find deeper meaning rather than to maneuver ourselves
to where we "see no evil"?
At first it would seem that Adam and Eve did a terrible wicked thing
in violating their charge by taking the fruit of Knowledge. Much of
Christendom believes so fully, and even that the coming of Christ to
redeem us from the fall was a make-shift plan God came up with to rectify
the screw-up of Adam & Eve. What do you believe on this point? Yes,
this is a different subject, but a more familiar example of the same
principle I endeavor to point out. Thus it bears directly on the subject
at hand.
You seem to take the mild view of our situation as being the obvious
meant by our prophet. For background, may I ask that you consider whether
he also supported and condoned President Wm Clinton? Do you also believe
he supports and condones the United Nations and the workings of Kofi
Anon? Yes, I ask these questions for serious consideration. Perhaps
you have considered the questions before or perhaps there will be events
surface that would surprise you, and may have bearing on how one would
evaluate the two talks being discussed.
You use phrases like "it is obvious that he is FOR the war against
terrorism . . . and FOR the war in Iraq." My reading is that the
official Church position is one of NEUTRALITY and subjection to the
law of the land where ever one lives. So near as I can tell, President
Hinckley carefully and wisely withheld his personal convictions and
loyalties of his heart. If his convictions were made open, how many
members would have to struggle and ferret out in their own minds hearts
and souls what they believe and why? He has made statements that support
and contradict either position we try to decipher from it.
I have yet to hear your explanation of why I do not hear nor see Iraqis,
Afghans, nor even Muslims using their power "to bring down the
Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the
society." I daily see those things being done by those in control
of our government and media-- which media is brazenly in bed with the
military (or was it "embedded"), and now is announced a Pentagon
news network. Even Hitler was subtle by comparison--after all, our own
newspapers of the time said Hitler invaded Poland for their own protection.
Read their lips, and be Deceived. Observe their fruits, and Know.
You seem to hold that the war is justified & our prophet supports
it because The United States is fighting to protect the homes families
and religion of the Iraqis. Tell me then who we are fighting AGAINST?
and what are THEY fighting for? I don't recall anyone from Iraq even
requesting us to come help them defend themselves against us nor Saddam.
Do you realize how Saddam got in power? If he is the problem, why is
he not tried promptly to resolve things. Why has nothing changed since
he was "taken into custody". Why do we hear nothing of him?
Do you realize that the US military bombed certain installations in
Iraq in the late nineties? I saw Congress discuss on C-Span that fact
in a nonchalant fashion, as though it were common place-- which I fear
it is. Most people would consider their home land being bombed and act
of war, would they not? Who is defending who against what? Indeed, who
are the terrorists and where are they? Have you honestly looked in Washington
DC?
Please carefully read the following, which personally testify was not
an after-the-fact write up. I read the initial posting as purported,
and saved a copy on my own personal computer to verify that he did not
alter it in view of the way events played out.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/13predictions.pdf
Thirteen Predictions for the War on Terrorism Written three days after
9-11. © 2001 by G. Edward Griffin Epilogues updated 2004 July 5
If this author is an idiot or a liar, lets declare it and expose him.
If this does not bring up powerful things to consider, I'm begging to
know the reason why. I realize it takes powerful faith in God to "awaken
to such an awful situation", but can we muster such faith?
President Hinckley must be keenly aware that he has no jurisdiction
over civil government and there are wolves lurking-- yea, even wolves
with-in the Church-- who would welcome his stepping over the line, even
touching the shadow of the line, even with his little toe-- to be used
against him as did the enemies of Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith. I think
Hinckley's position on the war was well put by a careful proffessional
technical writer who described it thus: "He basically said 'I can't
change it for you-- you guys bought into this mess-- Now you have to
cope.'"
As has almost been brought up, a sound analysis of the nature of these
wars (Iraq I, Iraq II, Iran, "Terror", etc.) it is paramount
to understand Who was truly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Which
rather hinges on the nature of the Pearl Harbor attack, who bombed the
Oklahoma City federal building, and the 1992 Trade Tower bombing, shot
down flight 800 east of New York, who and why the Davidians near Waco
were butchered and burned, and Sam and Vicki Weaver were shot at Ruby
Ridge Idaho, the lies about men on the moon, Government evasion of facing
the law about income tax on Americans, and so on. . . ad nauseam
You indicate that the Iraq war is not really a pre-emptive strike because
we were already attacked on 911. Do you not recall that initially Bush
& co. declared that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with Osama
& co.? Yes, Iraq is an outgrowth of Afghanistan. Reread Griffin.
For more on that and deeply related subjects see also his articles entitled:
Future is Calling and No Place to Hide.
I agree that "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." is
a key phrase. Yes, it on the surface would seem to support your view.
BUT it does NOT say explicitly what his personal feelings and personal
loyalties are. Again-- Who is more obviously fighting to defend their
homes and religion? Is the US military committed to uphold Islam and
their customary form of government? Think about it!
You indicate that: "If he was against the war and wanted to remain
quiet, he wouldn't have said anything."
But it seems to me we could with equal authority and clarity declare
that he supports those who speak out against the war when he said:
"Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is
their privilege. That is their right,..."
You previously wrote: "Just assume that we are not the source
of evil while you read the following quotes, for President Hinckley
states that "God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation"
I have done that previously, independently, and prayerfully. I have
tried every which way to reconcile all of the statements. I don't think
it is humanly possible to fully allay all the contradictions. Do note,
however, that the part of the statement you left out-- indeed, two separate
phrases: "... and all of the civilized world who look to Him."
was part of the same sentence and sharply qualifies it and indeed perhaps
nullifies the assumption that we (collectively as a nation, not individually)
are not the source of evil.
Do you ever pay attention to the (genuinely) honorable Ron Paul's weekly
congressional update at 1-888-322-1414 or his web postings at: http://www.house.gov/paul
Do you accept and uphold the Manifesto? Does it state that polygamy
is evil? Does it say that the law forbidding it is just, holy, and constitutional?
Or does it just say that the church will submit, regardless. What do
you suppose would have happened if President Woodruff had not been silent
(in the official statement) on his and the Church's beliefs and convictions
on that subject? Do you somehow think the Gadianton are now gone to
sleep and have left Hinckley alone?
Now maybe for you its not much of a challenge to engage such intense
discussions without engendering hard feelings. For me, it is rather
a challenge, in the face of such statements as the following, to not
feel vicariously slighted : "And I don't care how many other people
agree with you on your mailing list - that's arm of the flesh/ praise
of the world all the way."
To my perception, Shaun did not nor ever has, used such statements
as justification of his beliefs and positions. It has been merely to
show that there are others who understand and in most cases INDEPENDENTLY
come to the same basic conclusions and hold just as firmly and to the
gospel, Church, and words of the prophets with a clear conscience.
It is particularly poignant in view of your statement:
"A friend of mine who I consider to be one of the smartest people
I know (he's spiritual too) said that he thought both talks were obviously
for the war on terror and the war in Iraq."
And now, may I ask for consideration of one of the side issues mentioned
above, will you please explain your belief on the first foot print on
the moon? Was it a real foot print naturally created in the naturally
present dust on the moon after the landing? If no, how do you reconcile
the deception. If yes, how did the LEM land without crashing? Did it
use retro-rockets as alleged? If so, what prevented the dust from being
blown well away as would occur in every other realm with which mortal
man has encountered? If man truly literally landed on the moon as you
seem to believe, then the answer to this dilemma must surely be trivial
and well documented. Do you accept the challenge?
Ben Andrus
Thanks for all of the postings. It’s good for me to hear things
from many points of view and I appreciate being able to see the comments.
I admit that I have flaws in my arguments and have leaned on the arm
of the flesh just as you have and I appreciate people keeping me honest
by pointing those things out. I am neither free from hypocrisy nor contention
- I’ll be the first to admit that. I hope that the kind of contention
(about baptism) that Christ expelled from the people when he visited
the Nephites doesn’t happen here with this topic. I also hope
that some of this ambiguity can be expelled by President Hinckley soon.
I also see what’s going on in the world and do take that into
consideration somewhat as I try to make sense of President Hinckley’s
talks. However (there’s that word again), I am still trying to
find someone to address the difficult points of my arguments. Let me
reiterate my “most difficult points to explain away” list:
1. The word “however” in the middle of the paragraph “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.” As I see it,
he’s talking about people speaking out against the war and then
justifying support of war in general using the important word however
to separate the two points. He then talks about fighting for the right
reasons. Now, I know that many will disagree with me that we are fighting
for the right reasons, however, read his statement again. His use of
the word “however” seems to me to be the absolute key here.
I can’t resolve this one to say anything but that he’s pointing
out that there are people speaking out against the war and have every
right to HOWEVER we must look at the fact that war is justified in some
circumstances. I can’t see him saying that and meaning that he’s
also against the war.
2. “We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who
was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand
up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni
rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children,
and the cause of liberty.” Notice the use of the topic of peace
and then the word “but” just like the use of the word however
in the above topic.
3. “It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out
and brought down.”
4. The title of the War and Peace talk and how the whole talk seems
to be about the paradox of preaching peace but supporting war. Why on
earth would he talk about that if he doesn’t support the war?
What kind of confusion would he be stirring up if he was really against
the war? It seems crazy and irreconcilable to me. I would be confused
by this if he were not supporting the war against terror and the war
in Iraq.
5. “The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of
that conflict.” He is saying that the Iraq war is an outgrowth
and continuation of the war on terror. I don’t care what the world,
the internet, and Mr. Griffin say; I will listen to the prophet on this
one. And I loved the Creature from Jekyll Island by Mr. Griffin!
Again, I know that we have corruption in our country but in just looking
at his talks and the wording and ordering of them and the titles of
them, I see a prophet who is saying, we are peace loving people but
it’s ok to support a war if it’s fought for these reasons
- in my mind also saying that we are fighting for these reasons - again,
why would he take this repeated angle on it if he were against the war?
It would seem truly misleading if this were the case. I refuse to pretend
that I have confidence in the internet and the rest of the arm of the
flesh - half of which is saying that Bush is evil and the other half
saying he’s great - I’ll listen to the prophet though and
figure out the truth about things based on what he says instead of what
he says mingled with the words of the flesh - at least to the best of
my ability, that is.
In summary, I can’t reconcile the above 5 items with what you
and others believe Shaun. Help me to reconcile it everyone. Thanks!
P.S. Not the moon hoax again! One of the replies mentioned the moon
hoax. We’ve got 841 pounds of moon independently verified by thousands
of scientists around the world from different countries (including Russia,
and they would definitely expose a hoax in those rocks if there was
one). We also have mirrors left on the moon during those missions that
people all over the world have been bouncing lasers off of ever since,
to measure distance between the earth and the moon and to test gravitational
speed theories, etc. We also have several first hand accounts from people,
again from all over the world, who tracked the rockets toward the moon
via high powered telescopes - I have read the accounts myself. I think
we went to the moon. Sorry for the continuation of that tangent.
Robert
Page 2
