Sedition Page Two
A compilation of e-mail correspondence of varying parties on the Subject of The "War on Terror" and Iraqi Invasion/Occupation/"liberation"

Continued from Page one.

Ben writes:

Robert concludes:

>In summary, I can't reconcile the above 5 items with
>what you and others believe Shaun.
>Help me to reconcile it everyone. Thanks!

2005 Mar 8

Have you considered a career as a politician? You seem a natural. A man asks a clear direct simple question on an item of common knowledge, and you blow it off without even an indication that you understood the question. Your belief in men on the moon is all based on the words of others--with no sign of original thought. Moon rocks verified by the words of others who have never been to the moon nor have any basis to compare them with moon rocks from any other source-- and none of whom will face questioning.

Now to the more direct issues. Yes, your points cause wonderment. It seems undisputed that the talks leave the issues unresolved. But by your own admission, you only seriously consider that which is in harmony with your chosen position. Reading from your point of view does not alleviate the contradictions either, when viewed as a set. Perhaps there is still more to be learned.

1- We can all have our opinions--However, we should base our loyalties on carefully considered principles. Some may think the Iraqis are wrong to be fighting us. Consider that even after we have endowed them with a democracy, many are still fighting. Are they wrong, or justified because we are still trying to impose our choice of government and all that goes with it, including religion (or the lack thereof, which is atheism). Find out how free the Iraqis are to live the tenets of their religion. Most of America has the notion that their views on gender roles and polygyny are barbaric. Yet one of the first things Hinckley warned us of was:
"We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and
hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will
not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not
become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent."

The word 'however" in your reading hardly seems like a definitive key.

2- We speak peace, but sometimes must go to war. Contradiction acknowledged. There are at least two sides to the conflict. One side might be the Muslim neighbors he asked us to respect. In a world wide church, which side do you suppose he is addressing? It seems he never spells it out.

The Iraqis, Afghans, & their friends and supporters listening to Hinckley may well feel initially that he was speaking out against them for not submitting without a fight. Then he would offer relief or justification by saying that they were fighting for a better cause.

Consider what a predicament and setup for deception the Prophet would create, if he said only that we must be for peace and against war, when in a relatively short time things turn such that we must go to war on our own soil to defend our very homes, lands, families and religions. Remember that he must look to the future and speak to the long term as well as try to hold the Church in tact until the time of the final separation of the wheat and tares.

The Afghans were attacked by us. Did we ferret out the terrorists? I see no evidence of it. Yet all the while, the Afghans were defending their homes, families, lands and religion, were they not?

Then our government experts claimed initially that Iraq had no connection to the official "terrorists" yet we are now fighting Iraq. Thus, thee out growth of the war on terror does NOT follow-- even from establishment news-- the ferreting out of terrorists. And yet, Hinckley could give us this hint without catching flak from the Gadiantons, because the dual message leaves it open for you to believe in the benevolence of the military action, which you and an acknowledged majority have done.

3- "It's terrorist's that must be ferreted out" True-- but who ARE the terrorists?

A ferret is a weasel like animal that quietly follows the target with equal or superior ability to maneuver and sneak around, without doing damage to the network of tunnels etc. nor harming any other goods nor life. Bombing the living daylights out of a whole nation and finding that the terrorists don't seem to be still hanging around does not fit the picture.

Beyond that, did you really read Griffin's 13 predictions? (see also item 5) Please, read thoughtfully the 13 predictions, and even the follow-on articles (URL above, in previous post) and if you think he is wrong, you have a duty to the world to point out where and why, in order to save us from his deception. If you don't understand what he is saying, don't just ignore it and then ask for help again-- indicate what you learned and at what point it breaks down for you. If you don't really want to know, don't give us the politician routine-- save that for those seeking after rose colored glasses.

4- see item 2

5- Of course the Iraq war is an outgrowth of the War on Terror-- a propaganda code word! Do you understand what Reichstag fire means? a Pearl Harbor event? Read Griffin and then at least report enough to indicate that you understand what he is saying.

Then consider the multiple meanings Hinckley may have in his heart. To take his public words-- strictly at the surface for face value to the casual viewer-- to be his deep convictions would have us suppose that he does not believe that God was once a man like us and Adam, and that we _may_ become as our Heavenly Father. Don't be to quick to judge his words without considering the setting.

I know no other way to help.
Good luck,
Ben Andrus

Robert Writes:

The war in Iraq and the war on terror

I consider the whole of both talks but I only submit to you the points that don’t seem to fit with your stance so that you can reconcile the issues for me. As for President Hinckley talking to the Iraqis when he talks about fighting for liberty, family, etc., I don’t think that is the case as noted by the following paragraph and points from “War and Peace”:

Quote A

“In a touching letter I received just this week, a mother wrote of her Marine son who is serving for the second time in a Middle Eastern war. She says that at the time of his first deployment, “he came home on leave and asked me to go for a walk. . . . He had his arm around me and he told me about going to war. He . . . said, ‘Mom, I have to go so you and the family can be free, free to worship as you please. . . . And if it costs me my life . . . then giving my life is worth it.’ ” He is now there again and has written to his family recently, saying, “I am proud to be here serving my nation and our way of life. . . . I feel a lot safer knowing our Heavenly Father is with me.””

President Hinckley also says “The question arises, ‘Where does the Church stand in all of this?’” and so I look for the answer to that question that he proposes to answer. Here is the order of paragraph topics he gives right after the above question:

1. We have no conflict with Muslims, we’re all children of God

2. But as citizens, we are under direction of our leaders, our leaders have greater access to intelligence than do people generally

3. But we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace”

4. In a democracy, we can renounce war and proclaim peace, people can oppose the war however they must realize that war is ok if it’s for family, liberty, etc.

5. It is clear that there are times when nations are not only justified but obligated to fight for these reasons

6. We preach peace, but even Christ said “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”

7. We are in a position where we long for peace but are loyal to our leaders; we love freedom and are committed to defend it wherever it is in jeopardy

8. God won’t hold military responsible, in fact he may hold us responsible if we impede those involved with a fight against evil and repression

9. We can give our opinions on the matter, but don’t hate

10. We pray for the U.S. soldiers, they are not in that land of blowing sand and brutal heat because they enjoy the games of war

11. The strength of the U.S. soldiers’ commitment is measured by their willingness to give their very lives for that in which they believe

12. We hope peace will come again soon because we don’t like war

13. Trust in Christ and be righteous - all will be we well in the end

I think that quote A above combined with numbers 10 and 11 above clarify that our soldiers in general are not evil and that they are fighting for freedom and what they believe in and that the rest of the neutral statements can therefore be applied to us because according to the prophet, our soldiers are fighting for their families and for freedom.


A politician? It would never happen - I’m much too abrasive to get anyone to vote for me. :-)

I apologize for directly ignoring your question. I figured that with physical evidence (rocks and mirrors that we can see and work with right now) combined with thousands of witnesses from different countries testifying to the truthfulness of the moon missions, we wouldn’t have to talk about assumptions about footprints, dust, and thrust. I don’t believe that you are seriously saying that you stand in front of thousands of scientists and geologists from different countries throughout the world and call each and every one of them liars. If they are telling the truth, then dust and footprints and thrust (or any other theory) and our assumptions about them are irrelevant. I will deal in testimony and facts and physical evidence - of which there is plenty - not in assumptions about what might have happened and how I think things might have happened. Out of curiosity though, I have in the past gone over each and every one of the moon hoax theories that Shaun has tossed my way and debunked each one from radiation to photos to dust, so I’m not ignoring them in ignorance, but I believe that investigating them further is a waste of time when we have reality staring us in the face this very day in the form of witnesses and physical evidence.

P.S. For even more testimonies about the moon landing from LDS church leaders:

President Spencer W. Kimball - President of the Church, Conference April 1976

“Through the ages there have been many laws repealed, but we know of no divine repeal of the law of work. From the obscure life organs within the body to the building of the moon landing craft, work is one of the conditions of being alive.”

Carlos E. Asay - of the presidency of the seventy, Conference April 1990

“On July 20, 1969, astronauts landed on the moon, a planet located some 239,000 miles from the earth.”

Elder LeGrand Richards - my great uncle and member of the council of the twelve apostles, Conference October 1970

“If I were to ask what you consider the most wonderful thing that has happened to the world in the last 150 years, I imagine that most people would say the landing of the astronauts on the moon.”

President N. Eldon Tanner - Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Conference Report, April 1970

“To accomplish the great flight of Apollo 11, which resulted in the landing on the moon, every law of nature affecting this endeavor had to be kept in the most minute detail: the las of physics, the law of chemistry, the law of gravity, and every other law pertaining to the flight had to be understood and applied by those who were concerned and engaged in the preparations.”

President Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1970, General Priesthood Meeting, p.113

Some months ago, millions of watchers and listeners over the world waited breathlessly and anxiously the precarious flight of Apollo 13. The whole world, it seemed, prayed for one significant result: the safe return to earth of three brave men.

Hugh Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon, Semister 1, 1988-1990, p. 390

“Remember, when the second moon landing was broadcast, a flood of complaints came in. Here’s man landing on the moon, his greatest achievement for ages. The stations were just flooded with complaints, “You cut off our favorite soap opera.” You cut off our favorite science fiction to see somebody really landing on the moon.”

President Gordon B. Hinckley - First Counselor in the First Presidency, LDS Church News, 1989

“I watched on television a replay of the landing on the moon which occurred 20 years ago. I can still scarcely comprehend it....The other thing that absolutely enthralled me was the descent of Voyager II to within 3,000 mils of Neptune. Did you watch it? Did you experience the awesome feeling that I did? Did you wonder why, if man can do such remarkable things, he cannot live together in peace with his brothers on this earth?”

Space Effort Boosted by Lds Experts, LDS Church News, 1989, 02/18/89-

“A number of Church members at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral (which was re-named Cape Kennedy for a short period of time) are involved in some of the most significant aspects of the space program. One who has seen firsthand the liftoffs and splashdowns of America's space program is Craig E. McCreary, former bishop of the Titusville (Fla.) Ward and a NASA engineer for more than 26 years. McCreary, a soft-spoken supervisor, is one of perhaps four dozen members who are part of a 17,000-person work force on this Merritt Island facility. When he joined the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, it was just six years old. His first project was overseeing the mechanical operation of Gemini 3, the first two-man space flight with astronauts Gus Grissom and John Young. The Gemini flight was successfully launched, and McCreary's next assignment was Apollo 8, a three-man capsule carried into space by a 36-story-high Saturn rocket, so large it required a freight train with 96 tank cars to bring in its fuel. This "moon look" flight was also successful, launched from the Kennedy Space Center. His next assignment was Apollo 11, also with a Saturn rocket, which culminated in the successful moon landing effort July 20, 1969. "On both Apollo flights, I was in the firing control room," he recalled. "We monitored conditions in the spacecraft." A few times, he said, he relayed instructions to the astronauts to correct problems.

Shaun writes:

Very good research on quotes of LDS leaders on the Moon. I myself am still a huge sceptic, given what I've seen (I believe 6 documentaries now) on the subject matter. There is enough teeth in those documentaries to demand scepticism of me, and so there I stand, but I acknowledge there is plenty (nearly everything mainstream) that runs against me on the subject matter. There is a journalist who I wish I could get to come to UVSC on their speaker series, but they are now bankrupt, as Sean Hannidy who was to speak for "free," charged a near $50.000 to the school for non-itimized travel, plus the Michael Moore sham of that same amount plus some. I would love to have this journalist show up and speak, as he claims that the moon landing was a major fake, and the dialogue brought to campus would be fascinating, to see all those believing his message and the strong majority who certainly would find him most contemptable. All in all, I'm moved by the strong words of Joseph Fielding Smith who we've talked about plenty, and I only have eye witness family members who heard him state man would not go to the moon. Both my Parents heard him say so in a Stake or Regional Conference in the later 1960's in the Smith Field House on BYU campus. Then I have uncles and aunts who heard him state the same thing in different conferences.

So, obviously, there are plenty of points to both sides. Quite an interesting deal. To type in "moon hoax" on google brings up bucketlaods of conflicting information of both perspectives. Some sites are outrageous and make a devoted effort at making those believing in the hoax look rediculous, and perhaps they succeed.

Something of much greater significance however to our immediate attention is discerning the reality that the attacks of 9/11 were in fact brought about by elements (traitors) within the US. Government, all as an effort of a 'vicious, oath bound and secret organization bent on evil and destruction." They are taking congrol of the society and wooing the people with sophistry, and the warning of Moroni is such that we "cannot ignore it" as Boyd K. Packer told us in 2004. Indeed, Pres. Packer told us that the current political debate deals with two issues, morality and the Constitution. Why the Constitution? Well, those with eyes to see are witnessing the strings of tyranny being put upon the nation, and the Elders of Israel are going to pay a dear price for facilitating this tyranny and not fighting it as it entangles them in their sleepy and apathetic state, which state leads them "carefully down to hell."

Page 1
Page 3