Continued from Page two.
2005 Mar 15 10:51 p.m. Date Recieved, posted on St Patties Day
Joseph Fielding Smith’s comments outside of a General Conference
could have been just his personal opinion, while most of the quotes
I sent you were from general conferences. So I wanted to summarize the
“for and against” lists:
For
Physical evidence (moon rocks, laser reflecting mirrors, etc.)
Living witnesses (thousands of international scientists, NASA employees,
etc.)
Prophets speaking in General Conferences (Spencer W. Kimball, Gordon
B. Hinckley, LeGrand Richards, N. Eldon Tanner, Harold B. Lee, Hugh
Nibley, etc.)
Against
Documentaries, theories, etc. (Many of which I have found to be false
already)
Joseph Fielding Smith in a Stake conference and at BYU
I only found one documented reference to Joseph Fielding Smith on going
to the moon and setting up headquarters there, etc.:
“Joseph Fielding Smith: The people in our land, as well as in
foreign lands, are all going crazy over getting to the moon, setting
up headquarters there, and so forth. I think the Lord sits in the heavens
and laughs at our foolishness. He does not have to do like He did in
the days of the building of the Tower of Babel, come down to take a
look. But I think he sits in the heavens and smiles at the foolishness
of mortal men.” (Speeches of the Year, 25 Oct. 1961, 5)
It sounds like he was against going and then setting up headquarters
there, etc., but he didn’t say here that we won’t go. This
contrasts with Gordon B. Hinckley’s comments about it being a
wonderful human accomplishment. It ended up that we just got together
and went and didn’t set up headquarters, etc. so that’s
good, I guess.
It seems to me that the evidence for the moon landing being authentic
seems overwhelmingly more powerful than the theories against it, especially
when you have multiple prophets and general authorities in multiple
general conferences talking about it and saying that it happened.
Are all of these general authorities who spoke in general conferences
deceived?
P.S. I also asked you what you thought specifically about quote A and
points 10 and 11 that basically state that the military is not there
for the wrong reasons but for the right reasons.
2005 Mar 15 1:41 p.m. Date Recieved, posted on St Patties Day
Robert, et alia,
I mostly write this follow up on this for any other readers who may
drop in. You have pretty clearly set up your pattern-- instead of facing
directly the points brought up for consideration, you seem to be off
busy collecting another heap of so-called "evidence" to support
your claims, rather than even understanding the points. Don't bother
with any more of that. I don't want to waste any more time for any of
us. The size of the pile on each side is of no value to me. I look for
quality and understanding.
You wrote: "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...."
Sorry, but not a one of them is standing in front of me for questioning...
Not even you, it seems! Nor have I seen any of the so called evidence,
nor have access to "work with it". I have observed many of
the so-called experts cower from questioning, however. Do you have first
hand knowledge of such, or are you relying on the same publications
you have directed us to in the past? If you can find any first-hand
witnesses willing to face questioning, I should be pleased to engage
them. Meanwhile, why don't _you_ show your sincerity by just answering
the simple questions from your own experience, knowledge and heart.
At least show a sincere effort to comprehend the simple set of questions
I issued.
As for your quotes from Church leaders, they are interesting, yes.
The sad fact is, they prove little beyond that church leaders are well
aware that the people generally hold the issue in awe, respect and basic
awareness. Truly most were mere implications of the event-- only one
actually stated that men landed on the moon:
Carlos E. Asay -
"On July 20, 1969, astronauts landed on the moon,
a planet located some 239,000 miles from the earth."
Reading this talk in context reveals that he merely used a well known
event taken as the pinnacle of man's achievement to show how much more
important the first vision was. It is also of interest, that he stretched
scientific definition in calling the moon a planet, and slightly mis-quoted
Neil Armstrong to fit the purpose of his talk when he added the word
"a" in the famous utterance:
"One small step for a man; one giant leap for mankind."
The Grolier electronic encyclopedia has a recording of the statement
which unquestionably does not have the word "a" though the
text claims he later said that he intended to say "a".
But this is of course trivial compared to the fact that neither Asay
nor any of the other quotes were speaking to the question as such--
they merely are using the common knowledge subject to make a point relating
to the gospel. It is not evident whether they have considered it as
a questionable event or not. I realize that this is the crux of your
"evidence", but ignoring the existence or validity of a question
does not to my mind, prove anything but ignorance.
I do like your quote from Hugh Nibley though-- "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."
This happens to be rather close to statement I heard by him on video
which induced me to suspect that Nibley was wanting to say the moon
landing was another hoax, just as he had divulged his understanding
of the deceptive nature of World War II and indeed all the wars since,
and the deceptive nature of CIA in messing about in government affairs
in the middle east. I know it's not evident from your quote, which highlights
how little concern Americans have for anything but self-indulgence,
but in the context I heard it, and knowing him and his nature, I was
just dying to discuss it with him. Now I suppose I will have to (literally)
die to ask him! :-)
Sincerely,
Ben
Robert,
As to your quote A and points 10 and 11, they indeed seem to fall on
the pro side-- but seem to have little significance or true bearing.
Who said the soldiers were going for the wrong reasons? That is not
the issue at hand to my understanding. Am I off track, Shaun? Its the
leaders who are in charge, who have violated the constitution in implementing
these undeclared wars for unjustified cause. But, when the wicked rule,
the righteous suffer. Until such time as the People are prepared to
exercise the rights and duties proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence,
it behooves them to obey the rulers until such time as they suffer enough
to become humble enough to want honest and just government enough to
swallow the pride and cowardice separating us from such.
Personally, I'm ready. Give me liberty or give me death. The sooner
the better. But its obvious the masses are not. So meanwhile I suffer,
righteous or not.
Praying I may endure to the end.
Ben Andrus
"One Small Step for a Man;
One Giant Leap for Mankind"
Elder Carlos E. Asay
Of the Presidency of the Seventy
Carlos
E. Asay, "One Small Step for a Man; One Giant Leap for Mankind,"
Ensign, May 1990, 62
I pray for the influence of the Holy Spirit as I discuss with you a
most sacred subject-a subject that I hope will have special significance
to those of you who may be investigating the Church. On July 20, 1969,
astronauts landed on the moon, a planet located some 239,000 miles from
the earth. Millions of people the world over witnessed this historic
event on television and stared in amazement as the lunar module came
to rest on the moon's surface. All were thrilled when Neil Armstrong
exited from the space craft and announced: "One small step for
a man; one giant leap for mankind."
The press coverage of this monumental achievement was broad. It occupied
headlines and was the subject of feature stories for many days. After
all, the moon-landing had opened new frontiers of space travel, revealed
new knowledge about the universe, and represented a major investment
of human resources. Some reporters declared that the moon landing was
the greatest event in the history of mankind since the resurrection
of Christ.
I do stand in awe of the recent developments in space technology. My
mind does not comprehend even a fraction of the miracles wrought by
knowledgeable men of the world who have probed the universe. However,
I take issue with those who believe that the placement of men upon the
moon is the greatest occurrence of the last two thousand years. I do
so because I know of an event wherein the Creator of the universe himself
came to earth in answer to an obscure boy's humble prayer and revealed
pure theology.
Greatness is measured by men in many ways. It is generally equated
with size, cost, quantity, and position. God, however, has a better
way, "for as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are [His]
ways higher than [man's] ways." (Isa. 55:9.) In God's eyes, greatness
is equated with light, truth, goodness, and service. (See D&C 93:36;
Matt. 23:11.)
***
From time to time I take a peek at the dialog in that forum and it
causes me to wonder why you are even concerned about a landing on the
moon.
Your energies (All of you in the discussion) which have been spent on
the word battle would have been more productive in an attempt to grow
food or herbs.
In the unlikely event that you are able to prove that there was no landing,
what exaclty have you accomplished, other than to keep some attention
focused on events which are history, while the gadiantons devour our
remaining freedom of choice in numerous areas.
I think you are proving gadiantons as the winners in this endless word
battle. They want you to focus on the past.
Jim
As far as the moon and Iraq, I stand the same as I always have done.
I understand that much has been published in effort to explain away
the "conspiracy" theories. Joel Skousen speaks about how they
do this with 9/11. The media takes some obscure "conspiracy theory"
that they usually by themselves think up, and then they "debunk"
it. The net effect by the poorly informed populace is to think "Oh,
there it is again, the people out in la la land have once again been
proven false." The media does this masterfully, but of course,
the real and big issues and evidence is never addressed. The 9/11 families
(some of them) are furious over the fraud that was the 911 commission.
It contains mass amounts of "interviews with caputured Al Quida"
but it is all for show with no substance, and the real questions are
not asked nor then answered. The whole thing is a sham. This too is
what happens with all of this "propaganda campaign" under
which we are suffering under, be it a phoney war in Iraq which was based
on "sexed up" intelligence manufactured by the Neocons, and
their promises to pay for the war with "Iraqi Oil reserves"
to where now there is not such mention of things as this, nor will there
need to be, as the American people can't get off their tread mill workaholic
bondage way of life to realize the treason, fraud and corruption of
the Babyonian system which is orchestrating their demise. Yes, we are
in a rat race and can hardly spend time to become informed, be it on
Iraq, Freedom, Liberty, Moon hoax realities, 9/11 and what not.
So generally, we have vast propaganda. I would think that those who
initially supported the Iraq war would now have enough evidence to realize
the vicious lies and agenda's which were behind the war, but few there
be that truly do, as they continue to buy the ever changing (adapting
to cirucmstances) phoney baloney of the Neocons. I just don't know how
many americans will be supporting the invasion of Iran? Surely, some
more will awake at that point? But no, the propaganda will be such that
they will succom and support such war efforts at all costs as they continue
to wave their little american flags stamped "made in china,"
and will also continue to put on the abominable bumpersticker declairing:
"Power of Pride" in all of it's red, white, and blue phoney
patriotism.
So, I'm unmoved essentially in my views. I know WWII was a sham. J.
Reuben Clark and Heber J. Grant both declaired it so, and that it was
the work of Gadiantons. Even though this is the truth, how many General
Authorities and current leaders speak of it as such? None. This is not
to say that these leaders are un-inspired. Some of course have not the
clue about J. Reuben Clark, or if they do, would be hostile to what
he said about the war, given that many living at the time he prophesied
the war were hostile to him, and he died a very unpopular member of
the General Authorities (apostle in the First Presidency). So, why do
not the prophets refer to WWII in terms of it being a sham? Well, it
seems the people can't have truth. The lord does not force truth upon
people if they refuse it, but he dilivers them up to the "blindness
of their eyes and hardness of their hearts." If they would rather
refer to the prophesies of his prophets (which are his own; whether
by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants it is the same) with
hostility, and rather choose to believe a lie and the established propaganda,
then by all means, let them have their pic and choice.
Foolish men. Foolishness. Why would they choose propaganda rather than
the word of the Lord? Well, given they choose propaganda, then they
limit themselves. How unfortunate. So, WWII was a great abomination
brought about by Gadianton Robbers with the intent to spread Communism
from Russia and gobble up half of Europe. This was not merely a mistake.
If then these things are known by the prophets, and they spoke about
them years ago, with hostility being they way such was recieved, then
how are prophets to refer to such events today, now? Somewhat muted
I think.
This is the same way with the Moon landing, which I believe to be a
massive fraud, as well as Iraq, and every other unconstitutional, undeclaired
war since the war of 1812.
I'm probably re-hashing more of the same in all of this.
As for me, you need not cease making posts for contention sake, as
I don't feel contention from you. I welcome your posts, e-mail, and
insight.
I will now post on Iraq and the Moon (strange co-topics, eh?)
Iraq
Shaun, et al. - President Hinckley is quoting U.S. soldiers saying
that they are fighting for freedom and for their families’ rights
to religion, etc. and then says that this is the very type of motivation
that justifies a war. Can you reconcile this with your viewpoint?
Moon
Ben - ok, ok, I’ll answer your original questions about the moon
footprints. First, yes I do believe that the footprint is real and was
created by a man standing on the moon. As for the thrust of the lander
blowing away dust - in order to accurately answer that question, I would
need to do some research to find the answers to the following questions:
1. How much did the moon lander weigh (at 1/6 earth gravity) at the
time of landing?
2. How much thrust was needed to land safely?
3. How does the lander’s thrust cone behave in a vacuum?
4. What is the composition of the soil on the moon? (Layers, etc.)
5. How would that soil behave in reaction to the lander’s thrust
on it?
6. Would there be the right kinds of soil left over to get a footprint?
So I went and researched the answers to these questions and found that
a footprint being there after the landing happened is explainable and
makes perfect sense. If you have not found the answers to these questions
yet and want some links to the data, let me know and I’ll be glad
to provide them.
Shaun,
There are at least two possibilities. I think that people get stuck
in believing that the only the possibility is the one they currently
believe in and so everyone who believes otherwise seems like a quack.
So let’s consider both possibilities:
1. The conspiracy theories are true
2. The conspiracy theories are false
From your point of view, if the theories are true then the world remains
the same as it currently is for you and the people trying to put down
the theories are either asleep or evil. If they are false (on whichever
topic you choose) then the world is simply trying to state the facts
to show how those theories are wrong and those people are neither asleep
nor evil. It’s important to see things from both points of view
to avoid contention and hatred (calling them stupid or blind, etc.)
towards the other group of people. This applies to me and everyone else
too. Until I know “for sure” from the spirit, I cannot close
myself off to the possibilities. I desperately want to come to a knowledge
of the truth on this matter.
Of course in this pursuit, our motives must be as pure as possible.
I have found some impure motives on both sides that might hamper both
of us from reaching the truth:
Bad motives for opposing conspiracy
1. Fear that the world isn’t the happy place we dream it is -
blind patriotism
2. Blood thirst - perhaps we want to go kill - the Lamanites fell into
that one
3. Pride / self-righteousness - we couldn’t be wrong - of course
the core of pride is enmity
4. Intellectual pride over the deceived conspiracists
Bad motives for supporting conspiracy
1. We get a sense of importance, part of a small elite group who really
knows what’s going on (pride)
2. Intellectual pride - one usually has to expound the theory and therefore
can easily feel smarter than those who don’t believe
3. Distrust for authority in general can also transpose onto distrust
for government (moon hoax, wars for wrong reasons, etc.)
4. Intellectual pride over the deceived sheeple
It seems that both sides can be adversely affected by many of the same
defects. I have had to seriously look into my own motives of self righteousness
(self and country), intellectual pride, blind patriotism, and blood
thirst and I have to continually make sure that none of my motives are
tainted with these things, for they keep me from accepting the truth.
I think if I were on the conspiracist side, I’d have the exact
same problems, mainly with intellectual pride and feeling important
and part of an elite “smart and awake” group. Those things
would be my “drugs” to feel better, just like any other
drug (alcohol, drugs, gambling, porn, etc.). It’s truly an amazing
process for me to go through. Let me know what you think.
Robert
Shaun writes:
You state it well.
Bruce R. McConkie stated it similarly. He talked about elitism, where
one seeks to exalt themselves above others and scornfully look down
upon them as being inferior, which he stated is an uncharitable stance
and not christlike.
I remember reading his comments on this in Mormon Doctrine, and I wish
I could remember what exact topic it was under which he stated people
used in order to elevate themselves obove their fellow men, feeling
to be superior and "in the know" in contrast of their decieved
brethren.
This partly describes what President Hinckley warns us about constantly
in dealing with non LDS people, that we should never have an arrogant
outlook or feeling of superiority, of snobishness. Such is unbecoming
of disciples of Christ.
I am guilty from time to time of puting out strong wording against
the "sheeple" or people who I feel are blind and supportive
of corrupt policies, having "been seduced by the gadianton robbers
until they had come down to believe in and partake of their spoils."
Thank goodness the prophets are not this way toward all of the people,
as surely their patience with all of is must be tried to the limit,
as they can see so much, but yet can share so little with the hard hearted,
stiff necked people.
Neil A. Maxwell explains certainly the testing and patience of prophets
in describing Joseph Smith:
"Even with all he revealed, however, the Prophet Joseph knew much
more than he could tell. President John Taylor observed that Joseph
"felt fettered and bound." (Journal of Discourses, 10:147-48.)
Heber C. Kimball confirmed that Joseph sometimes felt "as though
he were enclosed . , there was no room for him to expand, . no room
in the hearts of the people to receive." (In Journal of Discourses,
10:233.)" (Neal A. Maxwell, "My Servant Joseph," Ensign,
May 1992, 37)
So, your point is well taken. Joseph definately did know vastly more
than his fellow brethren, and in his frustration of not being able to
"make them see" he did not demean them or sit in harsh condemnation
of them.
Mormon laments our blindness as well and states:
Come unto me, O ye house of Israel, and it shall be made amanifest.
unto you how great things the Father hath laid up for you, from the
foundation of the world; and it hath not come unto you, because of unbelief.
Behold, when ye shall rend that veil of unbelief which doth cause you
to remain in your awful state of wickedness, and hardness of heart,
and blindness of mind, then shall the great and marvelous things which
have been ahid. up from the foundation of the world from you-yea, when
ye shall bcall. upon the Father in my name, with a broken heart and
a contrite spirit, then shall ye know that the Father hath remembered
the covenant which he made unto your fathers, O house of Israel.
And then shall my arevelations. which I have caused to be written by
my servant John be unfolded in the eyes of all the people. Remember,
when ye see these things, ye shall know that the time is at hand that
they shall be made manifest in very deed. (Ether 4: 14-16).
Truly, this is inspiring. I can't wait for this wonderful time when
the Revelations will be unfolded in our eyes and understanding. This
will only happen when we repent and rend our viel of unbelief.
Talk to you later,
Shaun
Page 1
Page 2
