War in Iraq not justified by Book of Mormon

[Mark]

Anti-Christ Combinations galore..


"Its only natural following their train of psychotic logic that you would want to INSULT our troops at their own funerals! It’s not enough to go after soldiers while they are in harms way, fighting a REAL war against REAL evil, but we couldn’t possibly shut up our hate and ignorance for even a moment at their own funeral"

By Dr. Laurie Roth Ph.D.
The Roth Show

1 September 2006: Wow Herald! Look at all the ugly heads on that monster! Slimy, green flesh oozing with the blood of so many, looking for more to suck the life out of! Its not enough that our country and the free world must endure a chronic onslaught of threats and assaults from Islamo Fascists but also we are forced to taste the immoral, anti God monster head as well!!!

As we try and prepare for how to take out the terrorist killers, the ACLU and their friends apparently think the terrorist and enemy is God Himself. They are taking a new action if you can believe it against the Mount. Soledad memorial cross in San Diego. They want it torn down. To them and their ilk, it is a threat, violating our constitution and must go. All the better I’m sure that along with insulting God Himself it would insult millions of our military past and present to tear it down. According to the American Center for Law and Justice and the news last night, the ACLU is also fighting for the 1st amendment rights of those who want to protest at military funerals. Of course that makes perfect sense when your spirit and history as an organization is communist, anti God and pro perversion. Its only natural following their train of psychotic logic that you would want to INSULT our troops at their own funerals! It’s not enough to go after soldiers while they are in harms way, fighting a REAL war against REAL evil, but we couldn’t possibly shut up our hate and ignorance for even a moment at their own funeral!

It is time for those of us who actually remember and know of our CHRISTIAN roots as a country to also come out of our closet. The ACLU and other similar anti American groups are busy taking our liberties, flipping them on their heads, ripping out the context of their heart, then throwing them as bombs in our face!!! It should ALWAYS be unacceptable, whether we are for the war or not, pro Bush or not, to crash a military funeral and walk around with a picket sign. If you do think that is acceptable can I write the sign you carry around for you? “I am a complete freak and hate my country”. “I am walking around your funeral sharing hate because I am a loser and have no job!” Never say I didn’t do anything for you. If you think it is cool to protest at ANYONE’S funeral, I will gladly do more for you. I will also design an entire wardrobe of clothes for you to wear and I will paint a special message on your Chinese car. Your new clothing line will let the cruel world know: “I am ugly” “I look up to terrorists and cowards” “My country owes me, and when our troops go out and die for me I can’t wait to betray them” “I am a lonely whiner who runs from my own shadow” “I think God is a loser” “I am God in my own eyes, just a very stupid God”.

It doesn’t take a genius to see the planned assault on God and Christianity in our country. Not only is the attack STUPID from a historical and identity sense, but it also makes brilliant sense to assault our very roots and core values as we are being attacked by Islamic Fascists who demand our death or forced conversion. Lets create a void so we don’t know who we are and how to respond other than with a limp wristed apology for being capitalist pig Christian and Jewish Americans. We seem to be having trouble at times even defining our enemy. Of course I know who the enemy is, God, Bush and Pastors, that is a given by some of your behavior, BUT, at least we have the ACLU trying to rip down crosses, crash funerals and supporting REAL American symbols that make us great…..condoms and of course, the endless sea of sexual rights, sexual rights, sexual rights, sexual rights…….oh, did I say sexual rights?

[rcronk]

Here's what I'm saying:

1. Before we engage in war, dissent needs to be expressed and we should voice our opinions publicly. That's democracy. That's freedom.

2. Once a war has begun, the dissent can continue, but I think it should be more private. Writing letters to congressmen, etc. Because dissent during a war only strengthens our enemy and weakens our own troops and generally doesn't accomplish anything else. The dissent should therefore be of a more private nature discussing options that are reasonable and intelligent for getting through the conflict as soon as possible and in the best way possible. Yelling (ignorantly) at the media that we must cut and run in the middle of the operation is not useful and won't cause us to cut and run - it will just weaken us and strengthen our enemy - and that's a treasonous (or perhaps just an ignorant) goal. The moment we enter a crowded theater, for example, we loose our right to yell fire when there is none. I think war changes the rules a bit out of necessity for the survival of our nation and our troops.

3. Once the war is over, the dissent should be positively focused on how we can improve in the future and not repeat the mistakes of the past. Negative bashing afterward is usually politically motivated and only divides the nation with hate - yet another treasonous/ignorant goal.

The prophet did say we are peace loving people, but in my estimation, the whole point of his "War and Peace" talk was how we reconcile being a peace loving people while at the same time supporting (and not hindering) wars to protect liberty, family, and religion.

The prophet did say that dissenters had a right to voice their opinion, but he then continued:

"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." - Hinckley, "War and Peace", emphasis added

After this quote, he talks about the righteous Nephites fighting for liberty, family, religion, etc. During his talks he also quoted a few of our troops talking about the fact that they were fighting for their families, freedoms, etc. Which to me seems to show that we're fighting for the right reasons, even though there's a chain of connections between the people we're fighting and the eventual people who would be helped by them to take us out.

The prophet also has always pointed out that we must be personally and nationally righteous in order for God to help protect us and minimize conflict, war, and death.

To summarize everything I've said on this thread: I support the current war in Iraq because in my estimation, the prophet (whose voice while acting in his calling during general conference, I believe to be the same as God's voice - by my own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same) has told me to "stand solidly" with our president in his goal to "ferret out" the terrorist organizations and those who harbor/aid them and that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are an "outgrowth and continuation" of this war on terror where we are fighting gadianton-like evil and that we must not hinder such a war against that evil. I see dissent during such a war as not just useless, harmless expression, but as hindering a fight against the evil our troops are putting their lives on the line to fight against.

Sorry for beating around the bush.

P.S. It was John Kerry's (false) words about Vietnam veterans that were read to POW's to break and further torture them. This website, exposes some of the damage of this type of public and political dissent. Here's some text off that site:

This is the website that provides background information on the testimony that John Kerry gave when he appeared before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. These remarks, which have been proven to be untrue, caused many of our soldiers and sailors who were POWs to suffer at the hands of their captors. You will hear it from their own voices, not "dramatizations", not recreations, not Hollywood superstars reading them. You will hear the people who suffered from his actions....In 1971, some 700 of these men were reported as captured or missing in action, most presumed held prisoner by the North Vietnamese Communists in such places as the notorious Hanoi Hilton. Already subjected to years of torture, solitary confinement and unspeakable psychological and physical abuse, their lives were literally hanging by a thread when Kerry issued his damning testimony.

[John Adams]

I don't know if we'll (the "we" being those of this forum) come to agreement until we get more clarification. I do acknowledge the fact that President Hinckely said what he said, the First Presidency continues to have cordial meetings with President Bush and other major political leaders (as we saw again in President Bush's recent visit to Utah), and that for some reason the church isn't as outspoken as it used to be relating to the Constitution; but I still doesn't think any of this prevents us for speaking out against those that are trashing the Constitution.

I guess I'm just very curious on the why (and I do believe there is a "why").

Can't wait for Conference.

[rcronk]

Agreed - let's all pray for more clarity and direction from the prophet this coming conference.

[WYp8riot]

R cronk brought up the continuation of the war in heaven. It led me to thoughts of the Chuck Baldwin article that was posted.

to me tyranny is tyranny wether from terrorists or our government.

The fact that one exists is not automatic elimination of the existance of the other. Fighting for freedom against ANY tyranny I see as being againts Satans plan.

Does anyone understand the financial system and exactly how the terrorists are being financed? Is it not from the fiat money system that the International Bankers use to promote wars for thier Global purposes?
Either it is or isnt. As with every war since the International Banking cartel has gained economic control, can this be any different? I would suggest NO it absolutely can not unless there is proof the war is financed by some other means than via the fiat international banking cartel.

It can be called our government but really our government is just the cover for the cartel. So the "terrorists" and "our" or more acurately now "Thier" government our concievably supporting the same agenda.

[Mark]

For those who still believe that evil combinations and conspiracies exist even outside of Washinton here is Nyquists latest that lays it out very well.


http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatc ... alysis.htm

Moscow’s anti-Jewish propaganda has so succeeded that a frightening percentage of Americans have fallen for it. What must be understood, first and foremost, by all those who fret over the wickedness of America and Israel, is that the very terms that have come into fashion today originated in the think tanks of the world’s most infamous criminal regime – not as an honest attempt to understand international events, but as a psychological warfare operation codenamed “Zionist Governments” (Sionistskiye Gosudarvstva). If the United States were portrayed as a “Jewish fiefdom,” the Arab world would stop thinking of the threat from Moscow. All eyes would be narrowed in the direction of Washington. According to Pacepa, the KGB ordered its sister agencies in the satellite countries to “export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world.”

The disinformation campaign against Israel and the United States has spread, like an infection, throughout the world. It is now found everywhere, not merely in the Middle East. Old Nazi lies, thought to be dead, are now presented as fresh news. Americans and Europeans no longer remember the past, and don’t realize that history is now repeating itself. Only this time the envisioned holocaust isn’t merely for the Jews, but for Americans. “We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds,” wrote Pacepa, “because we knew we could not win any military battles.” But once you have conquered billions of minds, the military battles are yours without argument.

[Swmorgan77]

Therein lies the crux of the matter - personal opinion vs. prophetic counsel and the interpretation thereof.

I don't believe that it is possible to support the troops but not the war. Speaking and acting out against a war emboldens our enemies and ends up getting our boys killed. I've always been puzzled by the whole support the troops but not the war.

Why not? According to a Military times poll from a few months back, about 70& of the troops think that we should bring them home.

President Benson critized the policies in vietnam, was he not supporting the troops?

Why is it somehow off limits to question the war policies of the civilian leadership of the military? It seems to me if we really do support the troops we would be extra vigilant of those who make the policies and strategies that send them into harm's way!

[Swmorgan77]

For those who still believe that evil combinations and conspiracies exist even outside of Washinton here is Nyquists latest that lays it out very well.


http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatc ... alysis.htm

Moscow’s anti-Jewish propaganda has so succeeded that a frightening percentage of Americans have fallen for it. What must be understood, first and foremost, by all those who fret over the wickedness of America and Israel, is that the very terms that have come into fashion today originated in the think tanks of the world’s most infamous criminal regime – not as an honest attempt to understand international events, but as a psychological warfare operation codenamed “Zionist Governments” (Sionistskiye Gosudarvstva). If the United States were portrayed as a “Jewish fiefdom,” the Arab world would stop thinking of the threat from Moscow. All eyes would be narrowed in the direction of Washington. According to Pacepa, the KGB ordered its sister agencies in the satellite countries to “export a rabid, demented hatred for American Zionism by manipulating the ancestral abhorrence for Jews felt by the people in that part of the world.”

The disinformation campaign against Israel and the United States has spread, like an infection, throughout the world. It is now found everywhere, not merely in the Middle East. Old Nazi lies, thought to be dead, are now presented as fresh news. Americans and Europeans no longer remember the past, and don’t realize that history is now repeating itself. Only this time the envisioned holocaust isn’t merely for the Jews, but for Americans. “We in the Soviet bloc tried to conquer minds,” wrote Pacepa, “because we knew we could not win any military battles.” But once you have conquered billions of minds, the military battles are yours without argument.

First off, I have never referred to "Zionism".

Ok let's assume that you're right for a minute, and the whole "new world order" is a big scam. Let's ignore the fact that our foreign policy for the last 100 years has moved steadily in the direction of open, stated goals of these people despite the party in power.

If this is the case, we still have to assume 2 things...and I have asked you this twice previously to no avail:

1) The "Secrect Combination" prophesied in Ether 8 that would exist in the last days and would seek to overthrow the freedom of all lands and nations, has not yet materialized or is not fulfilled by the New World Order of global government.

2) President Benson was either lying or delusional when he bore testimony in General Conference as the President of the Church in saying that that secret combination was already in existence and had already succeeded to a large degree.

I am not inclined based on all evidence, research and spirtual guidance I have recieved to believe #1

I am simply not willing to believe #2

[Swmorgan77]

R cronk brought up the continuation of the war in heaven. It led me to thoughts of the Chuck Baldwin article that was posted.

to me tyranny is tyranny wether from terrorists or our government.

The fact that one exists is not automatic elimination of the existance of the other. Fighting for freedom against ANY tyranny I see as being againts Satans plan.

Does anyone understand the financial system and exactly how the terrorists are being financed? Is it not from the fiat money system that the International Bankers use to promote wars for thier Global purposes?
Either it is or isnt. As with every war since the International Banking cartel has gained economic control, can this be any different? I would suggest NO it absolutely can not unless there is proof the war is financed by some other means than via the fiat international banking cartel.

It can be called our government but really our government is just the cover for the cartel. So the "terrorists" and "our" or more acurately now "Thier" government our concievably supporting the same agenda.

I agree, and yes Islamicism is very real. I am simply saying that it has spawned as a result of both direct funding and cooperation of western intelligence agencies, and indirect backlash to military adventurism in the middle east. In addition, the actual threat it poses, while it is growing (by design) has been exhaggerated, and exploited by those who would pose as our "protectors".

[Mark]

SW just look at the world around us. There is a growing and expanding movement to form alliances together among the worlds communist based dictators in order to strengthen their ability to wage war on the West and Israel.

Even in our own hemisphere men like Chavez and Castro and many other tin horn dictators are working fevorishly to paint America and our President as Imperialist pigs and are preparing to hurt us in any way that they can. They hate our government and despise our president. Their ultimate goal is to so weaken our civilization that it falls from its roots of freedom and democracy and succumbs to communist overthrow.

Is this not a threat to freedom in our land and those all over the globe? Why do you think that this would not relate to Ether 8? Just look at some of the far liberal leaning politicians and entertainers like Harry Bellefonte and most of the black congressional caucus along with many other far left ideologues in office today who encourage and defend tyrants like Chavez urging them to continue spreading his viotrolic hatred of the west by stirring up the masses to rebellion against America and the Jews.

Could these tyrants and traitors not be exactly who President Benson was referring to as those combinations joining forces to overthrow freedom in this and all other lands? They sure seem like a great candidate for combination of the month to me! Take a look at the following article about Chavez and tell me how any American citizen can actually have the gall to defend this weasel and support his causes against us. They should all be tried as traitors and shipped off to North Korea for the next decade to see how they like living under communist dictators.

Special Reports : Hugo Chavez, Hezbollah and Holy War (World War)
Posted by Sean Osborne on 2006/9/3 8:17:04 ( )
By Sean Osborne, Associate Director, Senior Analyst. Military Affairs
[email protected]

3 September 2006: America, we have another problem. In fact the entire Western Hemisphere has a problem. This problem is well-known inside the Washington DC beltway, and other national capitals, but overt action against it is not apparent – at least not yet. Maybe we can stimulate action to solve this problem, but more on that later. Our problem is Hugo Chavez and his Venezuelan regime of virulent Anti-American, pro-communist, anti-Semitic and islamofascist hate-mongers. This problem now includes, at Hugo Chavez’ personal invitation, the introduction of Hezbollah islamofascist conversion cadres into a specific region of Venezuela.


Thanks to Gatewaypundit.blogspot.com and Internet Haganah it is ever more apparent that Hugo Chavez is actively forging mind-bending and unheard of alliances between his regime of core Communists and other Holocaust-denying anti-Semites and islamofascists. I seriously urge all of you to please read the above links and their linked data in its entirety.

Our Venezuelan Enemy

Hugo Chavez hates America with a passion one can only describe in its fullness as being inherently demonic in nature. Hugo Chavez has embraced every avowed enemy of the United States and Judeo-Christian or western culture imaginable. It is Chavez personal mission to export his communist-anti-Semitic-Islamofascist "revolution" throughout Latin America behind the deception of his “Bolivarian” national self-determination agenda across Central and South America; to use this "revolution" as a tool to destroy, first and foremost, both America Israel and ultimately the whole of western Judeo-Christian civilization.

You might be shocked to your core to learn that Hugo Chavez has embraced Iranian islamofascist and apocalyptic shi'ism in the form of Hezbollah and allowed that virulent strain to be injected into the Wayuu indigenous culture of Venezuela. Here’s where the demonic nature of this action comes into play.

The Wayuu and Hezbollah

Let’s take a moment to look at some quick facts on the indigenous Venezuelan people known as the Wayuu. This peaceful people have long existed on the Guajira Peninsula shared by Colombia and Venezuela. This peninsula is hot, dry and scant of rain – just like a desert. It is not the sub-tropical region we might tend to think it to be. Here’s the key data on the Wayuu themselves:

• 66% of the Wayuu have never had any formal education, they are functionally illiterate.
• The culture has been eroding, the social fabric disintegrating, which according to Chavez is the result of American imperialism and the "Jewish financial mafia."
• The social disintegration and increasing lack of ethnic identity has resulted in low self-esteem particularly among the Wayuu youth.

Here we find the perfect ingredients for Hezbollah to create islamofascist holy warriors indigenous to the western hemisphere. This should, to those who remember the communist tactics of the Cold War era, be eerily reminiscent and ring claxons of alarm of communist infiltration of indigenous populations in the so-called “wars of liberation” around the globe. The Wayuu population is small, perhaps 300,000 on the entire peninsula, 130,000 on the Venezuelan side of the border, a border which is disregarded by the Wayuu people and their Hezbollah brainwashing captors.


I ask you, the free peoples of North, Central and South America, where is the outrage? What are our governments doing to stop this madness of Hugo Chavez before it engulfs our entire Western Hemisphere? One can only speculate on how our individual national authorities perceive these facts about our common enemy in Venezuela, his truly rogue regime and the terrorists he sponsors in neighboring nations.

However, I do have an idea on how you can send a message, make a ‘call to action’ with your wallet or purse.

Sending a Message

What can we American’s do to send a very strong message to Hugo Chavez, the Chavista’s and Venezuela? It’s quite simple actually. All across America we should boycott CITGO. Your local CITGO gas station is owned by PDV America, Inc., an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., a/k/a/ the national oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela


That’s right, we can as individuals initiate a grass-roots set of economic sanctions against Hugo Chavez and his regime. Simply refuse to purchase any gasoline, diesel and other petroleum product from CITGO stations or CITGO-related products wherever you may find them in the continental United States, Canada or Mexico. In fact, if you decide to embark on this course of action and you purchase gasoline or petroleum product at 7-Eleven stores, please check to see if those products are not in fact CITGO products.

To be perfectly clear, this is much more than sending Chavez a message, or our own governments a message, it is about reinforcing American self-reliance and control over our own national infrastructure as well as combating on a very personal level the direct threats governments like Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and his new-found anti-Semite Hezbollah and Tehran-sponsored allies pose to the over 900 million residents of this hemisphere.

This is a World War after all, don’t you agree? Well then, this is a World War that you can personally participate in wherever you may live.

[WYp8riot]

R cronk brought up the continuation of the war in heaven. It led me to thoughts of the Chuck Baldwin article that was posted.

to me tyranny is tyranny wether from terrorists or our government.

The fact that one exists is not automatic elimination of the existance of the other. Fighting for freedom against ANY tyranny I see as being againts Satans plan.

Does anyone understand the financial system and exactly how the terrorists are being financed? Is it not from the fiat money system that the International Bankers use to promote wars for thier Global purposes?
Either it is or isnt. As with every war since the International Banking cartel has gained economic control, can this be any different? I would suggest NO it absolutely can not unless there is proof the war is financed by some other means than via the fiat international banking cartel.

It can be called our government but really our government is just the cover for the cartel. So the "terrorists" and "our" or more acurately now "Thier" government our concievably supporting the same agenda.

I agree, and yes Islamicism is very real. I am simply saying that it has spawned as a result of both direct funding and cooperation of western intelligence agencies, and indirect backlash to military adventurism in the middle east. In addition, the actual threat it poses, while it is growing (by design) has been exhaggerated, and exploited by those who would pose as our "protectors".

i wouldnt disagree. In fact if the terrorism does or has reached a point of threat beyond that of the International Bankers that helped create it then all I can percieve is American soviergnty is doomed and headed for an inevitable fall. Pull out and the speed of the self destructing fractional reserve banking will begin to take extreme effects, and yet if the threats are real they can not be ignored. However There is some level of common sense that states as you have about our would be "protectors" who at the same time leave our borders open.

Anyway the question I had in point that has not been answered..

According to D&C 123:7 there is a VERY MAINSPRING of ALL corruption (assuming as I do, that applies now).
Have the terrorists been financed by any other means than the International Banking Cartel? I dont see how its possible.

[rcronk]

Therein lies the crux of the matter - personal opinion vs. prophetic counsel and the interpretation thereof.

I don't believe that it is possible to support the troops but not the war. Speaking and acting out against a war emboldens our enemies and ends up getting our boys killed. I've always been puzzled by the whole support the troops but not the war.

Why not? According to a Military times poll from a few months back, about 70& of the troops think that we should bring them home.

President Benson critized the policies in vietnam, was he not supporting the troops?

Why is it somehow off limits to question the war policies of the civilian leadership of the military? It seems to me if we really do support the troops we would be extra vigilant of those who make the policies and strategies that send them into harm's way!

Please post a link to that poll. 70% doesn't match what I've heard at all. Even if it is 70%, they are then hanging themselves, but they don't need any further help from us.

If you read my post, I support dissent before, during, and after a war. But I do think that dissent during a war should never get to the ears of our troops or the enemy since it ends up killing/torturing our troops and emboldening our enemies.

[rcronk]

One has to ask how much of all of this guessing really matters. We know what the immediate threat is and we know what the prophet has said about it (multiple interpretations noted) and so it would seem logical to do what he says and let it work itself out.

I hope the motivation for figuring all of this out beforehand isn't just to have an "I told you so" moment later on, is it? If it isn't, what is the motivation? I'm being curious - not belligerent.

[creator]

I think this quote by President Benson applies to many of those who were at the recent Pro-Bush/Pro-War rallies:

"If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.” (April 1968, General Conference Report)

Also, W. Cleon Skousen is considered by many a "modern founding father" (a title Elder Hartman Rector gave him at his funeral) - He was one of the last of the great Latter-day Saint patriots....

He has something to say about the War in Iraq, I'll post some of it here:

(This is from a filmed conversation between Dr. W. Cleon Skousen and some of his relatives)

Richard Bentley: What are your feelings about the Iraq war?

Dr. Skousen: The Founding Fathers never would have done it. The Founding Fathers said don't ever invade another country to straighten it out. Because it will fail, and all you'll do is drain our blood and treasure out, and it will not succeed. And so, I wanted President Bush to be a success and the next thing I know he's declaring war on Iraq!

Richard: So, do you feel it was kind of an unconstitutional war?

Dr. Skousen: oh ya, ya. I knew that he [W. Bush] had orders from somebody to start that war. Because he announced that we were gonna go in, and it was very unpopular. And we have a controlled press and they just kept hammering "this is the thing to do" and "this is important, we gotta pull Hussein down," and He was, he was just a horrible bruit, BUT! The Founders said don't go into other countries to solve their problem, make them solve it themselves. And let everyone know that they've gotta solve it themselves...


Dr. Skousen: ...they are wicked men, and the ones that ordered the war, which is the International Banking Group.

Richard: They ordered the war?

Dr. Skousen: ya! sure, oh that's where they make money, gotta build planes, gotta build tanks; gotta spend money like it was water. and that's what we've done, going deeper and deeper into debt, and we're not even blinking about it! people say "oh, it's a war so we gotta spend it" that's what these international bankers thrive on.

Richard: So they were the ones that ordered the war.

Dr. Skousen: They always do.


Dr. Skousen: Think of the boys that have died.

Richard: Ya, that makes me sad.

Dr. Skousen: It's unnecessary, It is absolutely unnecessary! because there are two religious groups in Iraq and now that their dictator is gone they can fight again, like they have been for hundreds of years.

Richard: Now it's a civil war.

Dr. Skousen: And each one of them wants to annihilate one another; that's part of their religion. This damnable religion that was dreamed up by Mohammed, uninspired in every respect, it makes murderers out of people and suicide bombers out of people. It's a terrible religion.


(I am not saying Brother Skousen knew everything, but I dare say that he is the most knowledgeable on the subject of the Constitution, proper role of government and Founding Fathers. and so, he is a very credible person to reference on this subject matter.)

[rcronk]

Actually I think God Himself is the most knowledgeable on the "Constitution, proper role of government and Founding Fathers" - even more knowledgeable than Dr. Skousen! God also knows the truth about all things as they were, as they are, and as they will be - along with knowing how to direct the saints (and the whole world) to bring about the most good regardless of current human knowledge and assumptions.

God has spoken through a living prophet specifically about how we need to "stand solidly with the president" in his goals to "ferret out" terrorist organizations and how Iraq is a "outgrowth and continuation" of the war on terror. None of us truly know where that ferreting will lead for sure, but God does - and He's asked us to stand solidly in that support and not hinder that fight against evil. Can anyone argue with his plain speech about supporting the war on terror and in Iraq? He's not speaking in parables or in code - he's just saying it plainly.

So then why this continual stream of "other sources" (Book of Mormon, Dr. Skousen, etc.) to answer the specific question of Iraq when the most relevant source - God Himself through His current living prophet - has already spoken about it plainly and specifically? And it always seems that these other sources go against what the prophet has said. I see this "other sources" pattern but I don't get it yet. What's going on here? I think it's important to figure this out because, as we have seen the 9/11 "truth" movement getting more limelight, if this is all bogus, we're not exposing truth but dividing a nation with falsehoods. The same goes for supporting the war in Iraq. Are we citing other sources than the living prophet and by doing so hindering this war against evil? Is it weakening our own efforts and emboldening our enemies? I think so. So to me it seems extremely important to figure this out. Again - what's going on here?

[jbalm]

So then why this continual stream of "other sources" (Book of Mormon, Dr. Skousen, etc.) to answer the specific question of Iraq when the most relevant source - God Himself through His current living prophet - has already spoken about it plainly and specifically?

With all due respect, I believe the "other sources" have come into play due to the insistence that Pres. Hinckley "plainly and specifically" supports the war in Iraq. Various snippets from his 2001 and 2003 conference talks have been repeatedly cited to support that particular point of view.

In order to regain perspective, I just reread both talks in their entirety, and I think a fewf points need to be made.

1. It is misleading to comingle sound-byte-like quotes from two different talks given 1 1/2 years apart to convey the prophet's alleged message. After all, hasn't the timing of the prophet's statements been made paramount in this discussion?

2. The inference that "outgrowth and continuation" is some kind of magical segue that makes all snippets from the prophet's 2001 talk perfectly compatible with any or all of his 2003 talk lacks credulity.

3.

Can anyone argue with his plain speech about supporting the war on terror and in Iraq?

This question is close kin to the infamous "When did you quit beating your wife?" The premise is incorrect. Of course, if the prophet had spoken plainly about supporting the war on Iraq, then one would be ill advised to argue against it. But the prophet has done no such thing.

4. I suppose it can be said that when, in his 2003 talk, the prophet said:

"n 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"

that the prophet "plainly and specifically" told us not to abdicate our constutional rights--even in war. Would anyone disagree with this assertion? How could this statement be reconciled with a supposed admonition to unequivocally support the war?

5.

God has spoken through a living prophet specifically about how we need to "stand solidly with the president"

Actually, the prophet, in 2001, said "[T]hose 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."

I see a difference in those quotes. The first, in paraphrasing the actual quote, implies that we have been commanded to support George Bush. The actual quote, which seemingly applies only to the American LDS, is a statement, not a command, made at the height of 9/11 fervor, that Americans support the American president in spite of the Church's international interests. It is absurd to turn this into a blanket endorsement of all of George Bush's future military adventures.

Intellectual honesty requires that the prophet's words be looked at in context and in their entirety.

[creator]

So then why this continual stream of "other sources" (Book of Mormon, Dr. Skousen, etc.) to answer the specific question of Iraq when the most relevant source - God Himself through His current living prophet - has already spoken about it

Why the other sources? rcronk, Because people like you misinterpret the words of the living prophet! And so we point you to credible sources that go into more detail than the prophet has!

[rcronk]

Brian,

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the prophet, but I haven't heard anyone explain it otherwise. Please explain to me how I can interpret the following statements from the prophet as being against the war in Iraq and the war on terror:

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.

Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways.

Our national economy has been made to suffer. It was already in trouble, and this has compounded the problem. Many are losing their employment. Among our own people, this could affect welfare needs and also the tithing of the Church. It could affect our missionary program.

We are now a global organization. We have members in more than 150 nations. Administering this vast worldwide program could conceivably become more difficult.

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. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim. I am pleased that food is being dropped to the hungry people of a targeted nation. 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. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down....

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

On the Larry King television broadcast the other night, I was asked what I think of those who, in the name of their religion, carry out such infamous activities. I replied, "Religion offers no shield for wickedness, for evil, for those kinds of things....

Members of the Church in this and other nations are now involved with many others in a great international undertaking. On television we see those of the military leaving their loved ones, knowing not whether they will return. It is affecting the homes of our people. Unitedly, as a Church, we must get on our knees and invoke the powers of the Almighty in behalf of those who will carry the burdens of this campaign....

Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. 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. He has declared, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God.

Let us be prayerful. Let us pray for righteousness. Let us pray for the forces of good. Let us reach out to help men and women of goodwill, whatever their religious persuasion and wherever they live. Let us stand firm against evil, both at home and abroad. Let us live worthy of the blessings of heaven, reforming our lives where necessary and looking to Him, the Father of us all. He has said, "Be still, and know that I am God"

My brethren and sisters, last Sunday as I sat in my study thinking of what I might say on this occasion, I received a phone call telling me that Staff Sergeant James W. Cawley of the U.S. Marines had been killed somewhere in Iraq. He was 41 years of age, leaving behind a wife and two small children.

Twenty years ago Elder Cawley was a missionary of the Church in Japan. Like so many others, he had grown up in the Church, had played as a schoolboy, had passed the sacrament as a deacon, and had been found worthy to serve a mission, to teach the gospel of peace to the people of Japan. He returned home, served in the Marines, married, became a policeman, and was then recalled to active military duty, to which he responded without hesitation.

His life, his mission, his military service, his death seem to represent the contradictions of the peace of the gospel and the tides of war.

And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. 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 is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion....

In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.

Many of our own Church members have been involved in this conflict. We have seen on television and in the press tearful children clinging to their fathers in uniform, going to the battlefront.

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."

The question arises, "Where does the Church stand in all of this?"

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith. We recognize and teach that all the people of the earth are of the family of God. And as He is our Father, so are we brothers and sisters with family obligations one to another.

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (A of F 1:12).

But modern revelation states that we are to "renounce war and proclaim peace" (D&C 98:16).

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.

"And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God" (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, "Defend your families even unto bloodshed" (Alma 43:47).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. 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. 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.

Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. 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 in various nations 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.

To our brothers and sisters in harm’s way, we say that we pray for you. We pray that the Lord will watch over you and preserve you from injury and that you may return home and pick up your lives again. We know that you are not in that land of blowing sand and brutal heat because you enjoy the games of war. The strength of your commitment is measured by your willingness to give your very lives for that in which you believe.

[rcronk]

jbalm,

1. It is misleading to comingle sound-byte-like quotes from two different talks given 1 1/2 years apart to convey the prophet's alleged message. After all, hasn't the timing of the prophet's statements been made paramount in this discussion?

I have, in the past, posted links to the entire talks and quoted large portions of it - I was saving people the bother of having a long post by quoting large portions of the talks again. I will post larger portions from now on to prevent any misunderstanding. I was just summarizing what I have already gone through in detail. The timing of the prophet's messages is important and he himself is the one who linked those two talks together - linking the "present war" in Iraq with the war on terror and linking our soldiers who are fighting for their families and freedoms with the righteous Nephites. God sees the whole picture so he's not going to change his mind when us humans come up with new information.

2. The inference that "outgrowth and continuation" is some kind of magical segue that makes all snippets from the prophet's 2001 talk perfectly compatible with any or all of his 2003 talk lacks credulity.

I didn't do that - but I take the whole talk into account and see the connections he's making. I assumed that everyone here has read both talks and would be ok with me summarizing the specific points I'm making.

This question is close kin to the infamous "When did you quit beating your wife?" The premise is incorrect. Of course, if the prophet had spoken plainly about supporting the war on Iraq, then one would be ill advised to argue against it. But the prophet has done no such thing.

I guess we can agree to disagree - but can you really say he hasn't supported the war in Iraq when reading the larger quotes I just posted above? If so, how?

4. I suppose it can be said that when, in his 2003 talk, the prophet said:

"n 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"

that the prophet "plainly and specifically" told us not to abdicate our constutional rights--even in war. Would anyone disagree with this assertion? How could this statement be reconciled with a supposed admonition to unequivocally support the war?

You cut off the next part of the prophet's words:

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.

He then describes that the overriding responsibility is to defend our liberties and families unto bloodshed if necessary and with the quotes from our own troops about fighting for their families, etc. he's linking our troops to the righteous Nephites. I never said or implied that we should "abdicate our constitutional rights" - stop putting words into my mouth and taking my arguments to an extreme so that you can more easily put them down. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Actually, the prophet, in 2001, said "[T]hose 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."

I see a difference in those quotes. The first, in paraphrasing the actual quote, implies that we have been commanded to support George Bush. The actual quote, which seemingly applies only to the American LDS, is a statement, not a command, made at the height of 9/11 fervor, that Americans support the American president in spite of the Church's international interests. It is absurd to turn this into a blanket endorsement of all of George Bush's future military adventures.

Intellectual honesty requires that the prophet's words be looked at in context and in their entirety.

Actually, see my above quotes to Brian that show an even larger picture of what the prophet said. He was talking about how he met with the president, how the president then spoke to congress about hunting down the terrorists and those who harbor them, and then he said we stand solidly with the president in his goal to ferret out the terrorist organizations and those who harbor them - not in everything he does - I have never said anything about "a blanket endorsement of all of George Bush's future military adventures" - again, stop putting words into my mouth and taking my position to an extreme so that you can more easily "defeat" that self-invented strawman position.

No hard feelings though. I'm being honest here and I want some answers to how some here are viewing my assertions about President Hinckley's talks as being wrong or misled. I think there are enough plain statements and links in both of these talks to come to the point that I can support the war against terror, evil, and the war in Iraq. I'm asking for you guys to help me understand how the above quotes and links the prophet are making are not what I'm seeing them as. That's all. Use the prophet's talk itself to make your points, as I have.

[Mark]

You are fighting a losing battle here rcronk. President Hinckley could come out this conference and say that He fully supported the war and the Presidents decision to go into Iraq and many here would question as to what he REALLY meant by the word "support" and after dissecting it would determine that he was just saying that that to not lose the tax exempt status of the church because He really knew and felt that the President and the war was evil but just couldn't say it outloud to protect the church from the real bad guy that he said he was supporting.

If someone is fully invested in a particular paradigm af how they see the world there is no amount of discussion that will move them from that pre-determined paradigm. It just isn't going to happen no matter how logical or compelling the argument may be..

[creator]

mark, rcronk, I am glad you guys are on this forum - if we all agreed on everything it wouldn't be as fun. Also, it is disagreements like this that (should) cause us to think more carefully about our own positions on various issues and make sure that we are on the Lord's side.

President Hinckley could come out this conference and say that He fully supported the war and the Presidents decision to go into Iraq and many here would question as to what he REALLY meant...

I support, sustain and follow the prophet!

rcronk, mark, you guys are doing your own interpreting of what President Hinckley meant... you're taking something that he said in a 2001 talk and fully applying it to a 2003 talk! to mean support for the Iraq war! I support getting rid of the terrorists like President Hinckley said, but you and I differ in what strategies should be used to defeat them!

[rcronk]

Brian,

I also enjoy the challenge to my current beliefs and points of view. I hope I don't come across as being contentious. I really think that this kind of interchange is healthy, but only if it's done in the absence of anger and contention. Instead, it needs to be done in the presence of love and trying to understand the other person's point of view.

I think I understand "the other point of view" here but I can't reconcile it with the statements from President Hinckley that I have quoted. That's where I need your help.

I didn't created the link between President Hinckley's 2001 and 2003 talks - President Hinckley did himself when he mentioned the 2001 talk during his 2003 talk and stated that the present war [in Iraq] is really an outgrowth and continuation of the war on terror and then went on to explain how we can preach peace but support righteous war. I didn't create the link between our troops and the Nephites who were fighting for the right reasons - President Hinckley did when he quoted our own troops talking about fighting for the right reasons and then quoted the Nephites who were fighting for the same reasons. Please reconcile these statements from the prophet with your point of view so I can better understand it. Thanks.

[jbalm]

2. The inference that "outgrowth and continuation" is some kind of magical segue that makes all snippets from the prophet's 2001 talk perfectly compatible with any or all of his 2003 talk lacks credulity.

I didn't do that - but I take the whole talk into account and see the connections he's making. I assumed that everyone here has read both talks and would be ok with me summarizing the specific points I'm making.

Fair enough. Then perhaps you can explain the following:

By now we are all quite familiar with the prophet's statement in 2001 that "[t]hose of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation." That was clearly in reference to America's response to the 9/11 attacks.

In his 2003 talk, the prophet chose not to overtly state that we stand solidly behind the president. He said alot of other things, but not that. If the prophet was telling us that we need to support the Iraq war why wouldn't he just say so?

I agree with you that President Hinckley speaks plainly, but I don't agree that he expects us to splice together his various talks in order for us to get his message.

I guess we can agree to disagree - but can you really say he hasn't supported the war in Iraq when reading the larger quotes I just posted above? If so, how?

I don't recall saying that the prophet doesn't support the Iraq war. It is quite likely that he does, or at least that he did back in '03. However, I disagree with your assertion that the general congregation has been instructed to support it as well.

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.

I think the above quote clearly shows that president Hinckley shared personal feelings in his talk, and intended for us to know that some of his words are personal, rather than revelatory.

I never said or implied that we should "abdicate our constitutional rights" - stop putting words into my mouth and taking my arguments to an extreme so that you can more easily put them down. That's intellectual dishonesty.

Never said you did. Who's putting words in whose mouth now?

By the way, no anger here either.

jim

[rcronk]

jbalm,

I'm not splicing talks together nor am I making connections between them - President Hinckley is. Read my reply above to Brian about President Hinckley making connections and comparisons.

I get your point about President Hinckley possibly talking about his own personal opinion on the issue rather than it being a revelation. I don't know why he would put that out in General Conference though - in the off chance that his personal opinion might be wrong and then end up misleading the church. I'm not sure about that one.

Fair enough - you did not specifically say that I said that we should "abdicate our constitutional rights" - so who were you saying said or implied that if it wasn't me?

[John Adams]

We've talked so much about this subject that I don't think we'll ever come to a consensus (at least until President Hinckley gives us more clarification and/or as other events unfold). But as has been said, we can just agree to disagree.

However, one other point of view. President Hinckely is a prophet, seer & revelator. When I first heard the talks I felt that he was telling us to support President Bush and the War in Iraq. But I have found as I have done more research, praying, pondering, etc. on my part--I no longer feel that's the case. I see his words much more as a prophecy of the future.