LDS Freedom Forum

TonyOlsen wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:You know, if I weren't an honest man, I'd be really tempted to start a fallacious new thread titled "President Monson Goes Apostate", and in the initial post I'd make up some story about how President Monson was caught selling U.S. Nuclear missiles to Iran, or something completely ridiculous like that...

...just to see if the wolves appear and start joining in on the bashing of President Monson. It almost seems like some zealots here are anxious to out-bash someone else on whatever the new target of the day is.

Do you love your neighbors? ...or is it just show while you've already condemned them to Hell?

Is there anyone this group does NOT associate with Satan himself? Is there anything this group would consider Holy ground? Is there anything that this group considers "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy"? Is there anyone that this group feels love for (Other than Ron Paul)?

...anyone?

(I don't really mean everyone... it seems to be the vocal minority... but they sure do paint a bleak picture for everyone else)

Get your torches and pitch-forks!

It isn't the discussions of imperfections... In the sincere pursuit of truth, pointing out things that people have done wrong has its place and can sometimes be of value... but it appears that here either someone is perfect and flawless, or else he's Satan himself. There is no temperance... no "pro's and con's" on most discussions... it's completely black and white and a person is either Satanic or else he's already been translated (we're just waiting for the official news report saying so).

Would anyone who isn't translated be considered satanic by the very fact that they weren't translated?

Many of the founding fathers committed terrible sins... and yet they performed an invaluable good in helping to found our country, gave us the Constitution (through inspiration from God), and helped place us on the right (although imperfect) path. It appears that God was able to use these men, despite their imperfections, to do great things. What they did contributed greatly to the creation of an environment of freedom and tolerance which was needed in the restoration of the Gospel.

So... were the founding fathers translated, or were they Satanic followers and we've all been deceived?

Is it possible... just "possible"... that the truth lies somewhere between those incredible extremes? (I myself would put them on the "good" side, despite their imperfections).

Some people wouldn't recognize truth if it bit them on the hiny.....others just don't care and are only concerned with their self interest.....while yet others are pacified by what they say and ignore what they do.....while yet others scream at the top of their lungs that their belief system is the only way to fly no matter how precarious it seems.

Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?

Mark wrote:

Col. Flagg wrote:

Mark wrote:Interesting thought PJ. Maybe Glenn has outsmarted all his naysayers who are stuck on one paradigm beating the same NWO conspiracy drum. Had he followed the Alex Jones tactics he would never get to the point he has because he would have been marginalized and demonized by everyone but the most rabid conspiracy chasers. TPTB have Jones and his ilk in their back pocket and can lead them around wherever and whenever they want. They know that the masses think Jones is a kook and just laugh at and mock him and his bull horn antics. That is exactly what they expect and want the public to do. He is the perfect useful idiot for their overall plan because any truth he comes out with is discounted as the ravings of a lunatic..

Mark, I think you make a pretty good point here, however, at least Alex Jones isn't afraid to tackle the real, cold, hard truth and expose the lies, fraud and deception from the establishment. Glenn will only go so far... AJ goes all the way... this is what separates him from someone like Glenn Beck. But I see your point... by Beck only going so far, he can be taken more seriously by the public since he won't get labeled as a nut or 'fringe' by the PTB. But who do you respect more... someone like AJ whose mission is to expose the truth no matter the consequence or Glenn Beck, who only goes so far and then stops short in order to preserve his 'status' with the big boys?

You captured my point to a degree Col. However perhaps you are misunderstanding Glenns intention here. If Glenn is really sincere in trying to help turn things around then it is the masses that he must not alienate and become marginalized by. He knows that any chance of a return to constitutional govt and disclosure of the humanist driven agenda must involve the masses becoming awakened to the TPTB anti-God deceptive practices and programs.

Heck Col. I have watched Jones in action and he has alienated me because of his bizzare behavior and disrespectful attitudes toward others to whom he disagrees. He has bullied people and acted like an horses butt a number of times. I suspect he is an agent provacatuer but have no concrete proof. Be that as it may I would venture to say that the majority of reasonable folks who have seen him in action don't like him and think he is an ego maniac at best.

Mark, AJ an agent provocateur? Did you ever listen to his 15 minute interview with CNN? Wow... I would have said everything he did, 100%. Awesome and truly a classic AJ interview... it was one for the ages. I would have to agree that at times he shows a side to himself that can turn others off, but I think it's because he is so passionate about what he does and with all of the truth and knowledge he as accumulated over the years, he's let some of it go to his head a bit. But overall, he is a freedom fighter, truth-teller and wants what is good and right... that's good enough for me.

Jason wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:You know, if I weren't an honest man, I'd be really tempted to start a fallacious new thread titled "President Monson Goes Apostate", and in the initial post I'd make up some story about how President Monson was caught selling U.S. Nuclear missiles to Iran, or something completely ridiculous like that...

...just to see if the wolves appear and start joining in on the bashing of President Monson. It almost seems like some zealots here are anxious to out-bash someone else on whatever the new target of the day is.

Do you love your neighbors? ...or is it just show while you've already condemned them to Hell?

Is there anyone this group does NOT associate with Satan himself? Is there anything this group would consider Holy ground? Is there anything that this group considers "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy"? Is there anyone that this group feels love for (Other than Ron Paul)?

...anyone?

(I don't really mean everyone... it seems to be the vocal minority... but they sure do paint a bleak picture for everyone else)

Get your torches and pitch-forks!

It isn't the discussions of imperfections... In the sincere pursuit of truth, pointing out things that people have done wrong has its place and can sometimes be of value... but it appears that here either someone is perfect and flawless, or else he's Satan himself. There is no temperance... no "pro's and con's" on most discussions... it's completely black and white and a person is either Satanic or else he's already been translated (we're just waiting for the official news report saying so).

Would anyone who isn't translated be considered satanic by the very fact that they weren't translated?

Many of the founding fathers committed terrible sins... and yet they performed an invaluable good in helping to found our country, gave us the Constitution (through inspiration from God), and helped place us on the right (although imperfect) path. It appears that God was able to use these men, despite their imperfections, to do great things. What they did contributed greatly to the creation of an environment of freedom and tolerance which was needed in the restoration of the Gospel.

So... were the founding fathers translated, or were they Satanic followers and we've all been deceived?

Is it possible... just "possible"... that the truth lies somewhere between those incredible extremes? (I myself would put them on the "good" side, despite their imperfections).

Some people wouldn't recognize truth if it bit them on the hiny.....others just don't care and are only concerned with their self interest.....while yet others are pacified by what they say and ignore what they do.....while yet others scream at the top of their lungs that their belief system is the only way to fly no matter how precarious it seems.

While that is true... it neither adds to nor takes away from what I said.

I'm not talking about "truth"...

...I'm talking about "temperance".

Truth is almost every person on earth exists somewhere between the extreme of Satan himself and being translated. I think this is a "truth" that some here don't recognize... in spike of their sore Heinie's.

Jason wrote:Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?

Many of them committed adultery, for starters.

...but I won't go deeper in their sins, because I feel no desire to bash those great men.

...They know that the masses think Jones is a kook and just laugh at and mock him...

That was true initially for the first year or so immediately following 9/11, when AJ was decrying it as a false flag operation. He wound up losing half of his radio stations during that time. However, as time went on and he stuck by his convictions...that all turned around. His show is now bigger than ever and growing exponentially, while the mainstream media has lost massive credibility and are hemorrhaging viewers. AJ reaches tens of millions through his show and website...has reached over 100 million with his various films which he has made available to be viewed free online.

The majority of Americans no longer believe the government's "story" about what occurred on 9/11...and 80% of the public rejected the H1N1 vaccine that all the health officials so badly wanted them to take. AJ was at the forefront on both those issues (and others)...and it cannot be denied that tens of millions do appreciate his research and analysis of the activities of the secret combination, which he has been studying & fighting for the past 14 years.

Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... on_911.htm


NBC, ABC, CBS Evening News Continue To Hemorrhage Viewers

http://www.infowars.com/nbc-abc-cbs-eve ... e-viewers/



...this is interesting...video compiliation of 5 key predictions that came to pass...predictions that were based on the activities of the secret combination and their mouthpiece, the main stream media -- setting the stage for what was about to occur...

Video: Alex Jones Prediction Compilation


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bboD3hwR-x8 (9:52 minutes)

Congrats Tony!!! you are the first person I've ever seen on this forum who has responded to his own post!!
If people aren't responding to your post- there's probably a good reason...........

Jason wrote:
Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?


Many of them committed adultery, for starters.

...but I won't go deeper in their sins, because I feel no desire to bash those great men

BTW - statements like the one above show your degree in revisionist history...........a Phd

TonyOlsen wrote:

Jason wrote:Some people wouldn't recognize truth if it bit them on the hiny.....others just don't care and are only concerned with their self interest.....while yet others are pacified by what they say and ignore what they do.....while yet others scream at the top of their lungs that their belief system is the only way to fly no matter how precarious it seems.

While that is true... it neither adds to nor takes away from what I said.

I'm not talking about "truth"...

...I'm talking about "temperance".

Truth is almost every person on earth exists somewhere between the extreme of Satan himself and being translated. I think this is a "truth" that some here don't recognize... in spike of their sore Heinie's.

Jason wrote:Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?

Many of them committed adultery, for starters.

...but I won't go deeper in their sins, because I feel no desire to bash those great men.

Actually hell itself shakes at the actions being committed by some on this earth....fwiw

Care to back up your adultery claim with any evidence???

TonyOlsen wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:You know, if I weren't an honest man, I'd be really tempted to start a fallacious new thread titled "President Monson Goes Apostate", and in the initial post I'd make up some story about how President Monson was caught selling U.S. Nuclear missiles to Iran, or something completely ridiculous like that...

...just to see if the wolves appear and start joining in on the bashing of President Monson. It almost seems like some zealots here are anxious to out-bash someone else on whatever the new target of the day is.

Do you love your neighbors? ...or is it just show while you've already condemned them to Hell?

Is there anyone this group does NOT associate with Satan himself? Is there anything this group would consider Holy ground? Is there anything that this group considers "virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy"? Is there anyone that this group feels love for (Other than Ron Paul)?

...anyone?

(I don't really mean everyone... it seems to be the vocal minority... but they sure do paint a bleak picture for everyone else)

Get your torches and pitch-forks!

It isn't the discussions of imperfections... In the sincere pursuit of truth, pointing out things that people have done wrong has its place and can sometimes be of value... but it appears that here either someone is perfect and flawless, or else he's Satan himself. There is no temperance... no "pro's and con's" on most discussions... it's completely black and white and a person is either Satanic or else he's already been translated (we're just waiting for the official news report saying so).

Would anyone who isn't translated be considered satanic by the very fact that they weren't translated?

Many of the founding fathers committed terrible sins... and yet they performed an invaluable good in helping to found our country, gave us the Constitution (through inspiration from God), and helped place us on the right (although imperfect) path. It appears that God was able to use these men, despite their imperfections, to do great things. What they did contributed greatly to the creation of an environment of freedom and tolerance which was needed in the restoration of the Gospel.

So... were the founding fathers translated, or were they Satanic followers and we've all been deceived?

Is it possible... just "possible"... that the truth lies somewhere between those incredible extremes? (I myself would put them on the "good" side, despite their imperfections).

Amen, Tony

Before I read your post I was reading the rantings of the intolerant crowd, I realized that I thank God that these types didn't dominate when the constitution was being written. This nation came to be because of compromise and a willingness to work together for the greater good. Beck is a pragmatist, these guys are ideologues. Pragmatists get it done, ideologues are blue in the face.

Oh, you guys will counter that Beck is the exclusionist by citing shunning of TRUTH and it's subscribers. But people like Beck and Ron Paul know, as Mark put it so nicely, that to embrace the TRUTH crowd is the kiss of marginalization and nothing gets done.

When are you guys going to wake up to your awful situation and become effective in salvaging this great nation? Even as your icon, Ron Paul, does.

BTW, I approve of what Paul does and thinks and am thankful he is willing to remain effective in the quest to turn this nation.

PS. Mosby, you are a real peach.

PS. Mosby, you are a real peach.

Why Carlos? Because I call out someone when they make an ignorant statement about the founders based upon revisionist history and their own inability to study the lives of these great men and draw their own conclusions?

The Brethren have repeatedly spoken of the greatness of these men and our own scriptures testify that "these were some of the choicest that our Father in Heaven had" - I highly doubt that our Father in Heaven would unleash a pack of adulterers upon us to write the Constitution.

Only those who haven't studied American history ..........and the words of our prophets perpetuate the lies and character assassinations that Satan himself has stirred up to destroy the memory of these great men.

Yeah - I know they weren't perfect........but they were pretty darn good as far as mortal men come.

Mosby wrote:..."these were some of the choicest that our Father in Heaven had" - I highly doubt that our Father in Heaven would unleash a pack of adulterers upon us to write the Constitution.

Only those who haven't studied American history ..........and the words of our prophets perpetuate the lies and character assassinations that Satan himself has stirred up to destroy the memory of these great men...

I second that, Mosby.

...an example of real truths about our Founders, that was formerly taught in school -- before Luciferian-inspired-revisionist-historians got to work -- on all those young, impressionable minds.

The Bullet Proof President

From America's Godly Heritage
by David Barton
Wallbuilders.com

This story of George Washington once appeared in virtually every student text in America, but hasn't been seen in the last forty years. This story deals with George Washington when he was involved in the French and Indian War as a young man only twenty-three years of age.

The French and Indian War occurred twenty years before the American Revolution. It was the British against the French; the Americans sided with the British; and most of the Indians sided with the French. Both Great Britain and France disputed each others' claims of territorial ownership along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers; both of them claimed the same land.

Unable to settle the dispute diplomatically, Great Britain sent 2300 hand-picked, veteran British troops to America under General Edward Braddock to rout the French.

The British troops arrived in Virginia, where George Washington (colonel of the Virginia militia) and 100 Virginia buckskins joined General Braddock. They divided their force; and General Braddock, George Washington, and 1300 troops marched north to expel the French from Fort Duquesne --- now the city of Pittsburgh. On July 9, 1755 --- only seven miles from the fort --- while marching through a wooded ravine, they walked right into an ambush; the French and Indians opened fire on them from both sides.

But these were British veterans; they knew exactly what to do. The problem was, they were veterans of European wars. European warfare was all in the open. One army lined up at one end of an open field, the other army lined up at the other end, they looked at each other, took aim, and fired. No running, no hiding, But here they were in the Pennsylvania woods with the French and Indians firing at them from the tops of trees, from behind rocks, and from under logs.

When they came under fire, the British troops did exactly what they had been taught; they lined up shoulder-to-shoulder in the bottom of that ravine -- and were slaughtered. At the end of two hours, 714 of the 1300 British and American troops had been shot down; only 30 of the French and Indians had been shot.

There were 86 British and American officers involved in that battle; at the end of the battle, George Washington was the only officer who had not been shot down off his horse -- he was the only officer left on horseback.

Following this resounding defeat, Washington gathered the remaining troops and retreated back to Fort Cumberland in western Maryland, arriving there on July 17, 1755.

The next day, Washington wrote a letter to his family explaining that after the battle was over, he had taken off his jacket and had found four bullet holes through it, yet not a single bullet had touched him; several horses had been shot from under him, but he had not been harmed. He told them:

By the all powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.
Washington openly acknowledged that God's hand was upon him, that God had protected him and kept him through that battle.

However, the story does not stop here. Fifteen years later, in 1770 -- now a time of peace -- George Washington and a close personal friend, Dr. James Craik, returned to those same Pennsylvania woods. An old Indian chief from far away, having heard that Washington had come back to those woods, traveled a long way just to meet with him.

He sat down with Washington, and face-to-face over a council fire, the chief told Washington that he had been a leader in that battle fifteen years earlier, and that he had instructed his braves to single out all the officers and shoot them down. Washington had been singled out, and the chief explained that he personally had shot at Washington seventeen different times, but without effect. Believing Washington to be under the care of the Great Spirit, the chief instructed his braves to cease firing at him. He then told Washington:

I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle....I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For over 150 years the above account was contained in our history books. The answer to why it was removed along with many other examples of God's intervention in the founding of this country can be found here and here.

http://www.garymcleod.org/bullet.htm

Mosby wrote:

PS. Mosby, you are a real peach.

Why Carlos?

Mosby wrote:Congrats Tony!!! you are the first person I've ever seen on this forum who has responded to his own post!!
If people aren't responding to your post- there's probably a good reason...........

Thats why. (BTW I hope jason doesn't mind my plagiarizing of the phrase. )

Tony's point is tolerance for the sake of the greater good. Do you not agree? The founders did and I think Ron Paul does.

From another thread, thought it was relevant here. (Beck on 911 truth).

InfoWarrior82 wrote:Put simply, Beck is a hypocrite.

Quote:
Beck instructs you to “Question Boldly” – but only those questions that he approves. Don’t you dare question 9/11!


What Glenn talks about all day long is a group of elites who want to "collapse the system" by any means necessary including intentional destruction of the economy and the constitution so they can have their utopia. BUT NOOOOOOOOOO, these people aren't despicable enough to, as Beck puts it, murder 3,000 of it's own citizens! You're kidding me right? Where's the logic in this one Glenn? How is "collapsing the system" NOT going to destroy the lives of at least 3,000 US citizens in the same manner if 9/11 was an inside job?

Isn't it reasonable to say, that Glenn Beck's proposed endgame theory of these people who are intentionally "collapsing the system" is actually WAY WORSE than the bloodshed on that single day in September? Somehow I don't think Beck would be able to answer this question coherently.

Of course, not at all disagreeing with Beck that there is a plan to collapse the system. Just pointing out that his theory can be considered a little more far fetched than 911 truth. Beck may (ignorantly) argue that he will only discuss things that he can actually prove. All he uses now are the administration's own words. On the other hand, we have someone like Alex Jones who not only uses people's own words to prove his credibility, but also uses hard evidence.

History is just repeating:

Operation Northwoods
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... woods.html

Pearl Harbor
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICL ... pearl.html

Gulf of Tonkin
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CR ... ONKIN.html

Mosby wrote:

Jason wrote:
Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?


Many of them committed adultery, for starters.

...but I won't go deeper in their sins, because I feel no desire to bash those great men

BTW - statements like the one above show your degree in revisionist history...........a Phd

It is enough for me to know that they weren't perfect and that they had their fault.

What do I gain by delving deeper into their dirty laundry?

Why don't General Authorities list their own past faults and those of others from the pulpit each General Conference? Your sins are between you and God for you to repent of... I don't see any value taking the Inquirer-Wants-To-Know approach to past sins.

...do you?

dconrad000 wrote:

Mosby wrote:..."these were some of the choicest that our Father in Heaven had" - I highly doubt that our Father in Heaven would unleash a pack of adulterers upon us to write the Constitution.

Only those who haven't studied American history ..........and the words of our prophets perpetuate the lies and character assassinations that Satan himself has stirred up to destroy the memory of these great men...

I second that, Mosby.

...an example of real truths about our Founders, that was formerly taught in school -- before Luciferian-inspired-revisionist-historians got to work -- on all those young, impressionable minds.

The Bullet Proof President

From America's Godly Heritage
by David Barton
Wallbuilders.com

This story of George Washington once appeared in virtually every student text in America, but hasn't been seen in the last forty years. This story deals with George Washington when he was involved in the French and Indian War as a young man only twenty-three years of age.

The French and Indian War occurred twenty years before the American Revolution. It was the British against the French; the Americans sided with the British; and most of the Indians sided with the French. Both Great Britain and France disputed each others' claims of territorial ownership along the Ohio and Mississippi rivers; both of them claimed the same land.

Unable to settle the dispute diplomatically, Great Britain sent 2300 hand-picked, veteran British troops to America under General Edward Braddock to rout the French.

The British troops arrived in Virginia, where George Washington (colonel of the Virginia militia) and 100 Virginia buckskins joined General Braddock. They divided their force; and General Braddock, George Washington, and 1300 troops marched north to expel the French from Fort Duquesne --- now the city of Pittsburgh. On July 9, 1755 --- only seven miles from the fort --- while marching through a wooded ravine, they walked right into an ambush; the French and Indians opened fire on them from both sides.

But these were British veterans; they knew exactly what to do. The problem was, they were veterans of European wars. European warfare was all in the open. One army lined up at one end of an open field, the other army lined up at the other end, they looked at each other, took aim, and fired. No running, no hiding, But here they were in the Pennsylvania woods with the French and Indians firing at them from the tops of trees, from behind rocks, and from under logs.

When they came under fire, the British troops did exactly what they had been taught; they lined up shoulder-to-shoulder in the bottom of that ravine -- and were slaughtered. At the end of two hours, 714 of the 1300 British and American troops had been shot down; only 30 of the French and Indians had been shot.

There were 86 British and American officers involved in that battle; at the end of the battle, George Washington was the only officer who had not been shot down off his horse -- he was the only officer left on horseback.

Following this resounding defeat, Washington gathered the remaining troops and retreated back to Fort Cumberland in western Maryland, arriving there on July 17, 1755.

The next day, Washington wrote a letter to his family explaining that after the battle was over, he had taken off his jacket and had found four bullet holes through it, yet not a single bullet had touched him; several horses had been shot from under him, but he had not been harmed. He told them:

By the all powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation.
Washington openly acknowledged that God's hand was upon him, that God had protected him and kept him through that battle.

However, the story does not stop here. Fifteen years later, in 1770 -- now a time of peace -- George Washington and a close personal friend, Dr. James Craik, returned to those same Pennsylvania woods. An old Indian chief from far away, having heard that Washington had come back to those woods, traveled a long way just to meet with him.

He sat down with Washington, and face-to-face over a council fire, the chief told Washington that he had been a leader in that battle fifteen years earlier, and that he had instructed his braves to single out all the officers and shoot them down. Washington had been singled out, and the chief explained that he personally had shot at Washington seventeen different times, but without effect. Believing Washington to be under the care of the Great Spirit, the chief instructed his braves to cease firing at him. He then told Washington:

I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle....I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For over 150 years the above account was contained in our history books. The answer to why it was removed along with many other examples of God's intervention in the founding of this country can be found here and here.

http://www.garymcleod.org/bullet.htm

WOW! Thanks!

TonyOlsen wrote:

Mosby wrote:

Jason wrote:
Just out of curiosity....what founding fathers committed what terrible sins?


Many of them committed adultery, for starters.

...but I won't go deeper in their sins, because I feel no desire to bash those great men

BTW - statements like the one above show your degree in revisionist history...........a Phd

It is enough for me to know that they weren't perfect and that they had their fault.

What do I gain by delving deeper into their dirty laundry?

Why don't General Authorities list their own past faults and those of others from the pulpit each General Conference? Your sins are between you and God for you to repent of... I don't see any value taking the Inquirer-Wants-To-Know approach to past sins.

...do you?

May I remind you that you were the one bringing up the "dirty laundry"....if in fact there is any....which you have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements....

Jason wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

Mosby wrote:...

BTW - statements like the one above show your degree in revisionist history...........a Phd

It is enough for me to know that they weren't perfect and that they had their fault.

What do I gain by delving deeper into their dirty laundry?

Why don't General Authorities list their own past faults and those of others from the pulpit each General Conference? Your sins are between you and God for you to repent of... I don't see any value taking the Inquirer-Wants-To-Know approach to past sins.

...do you?

May I remind you that you were the one bringing up the "dirty laundry"....if in fact there is any....which you have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements....

I was pointing out that imperfect people, such as our founding fathers, can still do great things and they (as well as other imperfect people) shouldn't be written off. The truth is that even though God's truth is black and white... Life itself is not black and white. Truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

When I said that I didn't want to delve deeper into their sins, other than to acknowledge (for the sake of the "temperance in all things"-discussion) that that they had them, Mosby accused me of being a revisionist for not wanting to look deeper into their sins. I was then responding to his accusation.

Ironically, even in the discussion of the imperfections of the founding fathers, I was seeking temperance. I didn't go with the extreme of pretending they were perfect, neither did I find any value in trying to paint them as Satan himself. The truth, as it so often is, lies between those 2 extremes (although I would add that I believe that the founding fathers leaned heavily on the "good" side of that range ).

TonyOlsen wrote:

Jason wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote: It is enough for me to know that they weren't perfect and that they had their fault.

What do I gain by delving deeper into their dirty laundry?

Why don't General Authorities list their own past faults and those of others from the pulpit each General Conference? Your sins are between you and God for you to repent of... I don't see any value taking the Inquirer-Wants-To-Know approach to past sins.

...do you?

May I remind you that you were the one bringing up the "dirty laundry"....if in fact there is any....which you have yet to provide any evidence to support your statements....

I was pointing out that imperfect people, such as our founding fathers, can still do great things and they (as well as other imperfect people) shouldn't be written off. The truth is that even though God's truth is black and white... Life itself is not black and white. Truth lies somewhere between the extremes.

When I said that I didn't want to delve deeper into their sins, other than to acknowledge (for the sake of the "temperance in all things"-discussion) that that they had them, Mosby accused me of being a revisionist for not wanting to look deeper into their sins. I was then responding to his accusation.

Ironically, even in the discussion of the imperfections of the founding fathers, I was seeking temperance. I didn't go with the extreme of pretending they were perfect, neither did I find any value in trying to paint them as Satan himself. The truth, as it so often is, lies between those 2 extremes (although I would add that I believe that the founding fathers leaned heavily on the "good" side of that range ).

Do I need to quote your statement on adultery to keep you from dodging the issue?

Alexander Hamilton did commit adultery. He had an extremely well publicized affair and actually wrote a semi-graphic public confession.

So yes.......the founders were imperfect in many instances. Admittedly though, Hamilton was my least favorite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Reynolds

patriotsaint wrote:Alexander Hamilton did commit adultery. He had an extremely well publicized affair and actually wrote a semi-graphic public confession.

So yes.......the founders were imperfect in many instances. Admittedly though, Hamilton was my least favorite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Reynolds

So is it one out of a hundred then.....yet being portrayed as 99/100?

Jason wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:Alexander Hamilton did commit adultery. He had an extremely well publicized affair and actually wrote a semi-graphic public confession.

So yes.......the founders were imperfect in many instances. Admittedly though, Hamilton was my least favorite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Reynolds

So is it one out of a hundred then.....yet being portrayed as 99/100?

I'm not portraying anything, merely providing a reference on adultery as requested. I love the founders and am certain that the vast majority were wonderful men. There's a quote from a prophet somewhere saying they were the best spirits on the earth at that time. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

However, they were human like the rest of us. Franklin loved wine and women and had an illegitimate son. Jefferson was rumored to have had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings. John Adams, despite being the "lion on the floor" to get the Declaration approved and signed gave us the horribly unconstitutional "alien and sedition acts".

Knowing that they were imperfect though doesn't take away my respect for them. A hard look at my life wouldn't be all that flattering. Especially if one were specifically looking for the negative.

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:Alexander Hamilton did commit adultery. He had an extremely well publicized affair and actually wrote a semi-graphic public confession.

So yes.......the founders were imperfect in many instances. Admittedly though, Hamilton was my least favorite!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Reynolds

So is it one out of a hundred then.....yet being portrayed as 99/100?

I'm not portraying anything, merely providing a reference on adultery as requested. I love the founders and am certain that the vast majority were wonderful men. There's a quote from a prophet somewhere saying they were the best spirits on the earth at that time. I'll have to see if I can dig it up.

However, they were human like the rest of us. Franklin loved wine and women and had an illegitimate son. Jefferson was rumored to have had children with one of his slaves, Sally Hemmings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings. John Adams, despite being the "lion on the floor" to get the Declaration approved and signed gave us the horribly unconstitutional "alien and sedition acts".

Knowing that they were imperfect though doesn't take away my respect for them. A hard look at my life wouldn't be all that flattering. Especially if one were specifically looking for the negative.

That's the point....most of it is just rumors or worse yet....historical revision. If you go back to the history books utilized prior to foundation involvement (pre-1920's) you get a whole different version of history. Ironic that a couple hundred years after the fact....suddenly history professors know the intimate details of the founder's lives when those details weren't available 50 to a 100 years after their deaths.

But lots of folks buy this crap as the gospel truth today.

Jason wrote:
That's the point....most of it is just rumors or worse yet....historical revision. If you go back to the history books utilized prior to foundation involvement (pre-1920's) you get a whole different version of history. Ironic that a couple hundred years after the fact....suddenly history professors know the intimate details of the founder's lives when those details weren't available 50 to a 100 years after their deaths.

But lots of folks buy this crap as the gospel truth today.

Absolutely nothing I said was revisionist. Hamilton confessed, Adams did sign the Alien and Sedition acts, Franklin's illegitimate son is well documented and you can trace the debate on Jefferson back to writings from Madison in which he discusses how the children look like Jefferson. Jefferson's case may be considered unsubstantiated, but it is certainly not revisionist.

Simply claiming these facts are revisionist does not make them so. Sometimes people in the Church try to exalt the founders as near perfect beings. They were involved in events larger than life, but that did not make them larger than life. They were men and subject to the same temptations and errors that we are. They had to fight the "natural man" just like we did today.

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:
That's the point....most of it is just rumors or worse yet....historical revision. If you go back to the history books utilized prior to foundation involvement (pre-1920's) you get a whole different version of history. Ironic that a couple hundred years after the fact....suddenly history professors know the intimate details of the founder's lives when those details weren't available 50 to a 100 years after their deaths.

But lots of folks buy this crap as the gospel truth today.

Absolutely nothing I said was revisionist. Hamilton confessed, Adams did sign the Alien and Sedition acts, Franklin's illegitimate son is well documented and you can trace the debate on Jefferson back to writings from Madison in which he discusses how the children look like Jefferson. Jefferson's case may be considered unsubstantiated, but it is certainly not revisionist.

Simply claiming these facts are revisionist does not make them so. Sometimes people in the Church try to exalt the founders as near perfect beings. They were involved in events larger than life, but that did not make them larger than life. They were men and subject to the same temptations and errors that we are. They had to fight the "natural man" just like we did today.

Agree to disagree.

No intent to claim they were perfect. I've read arguments for and against....but I have noticed a definite trend as history progresses to side with one perspective over the other. Some of it is sheer opinion represented as fact while other authors choose to only pull information from the tabloids of the day.....much like a former co-worker I had who loved to rip apart Joseph Smith with all his historical facts (like Joseph being married to women who were married to other men). While on the sheer face of it some of his facts are true.....but they are completely taken out of context and true understanding. So then labels are used to paint Joseph in today's perspective and in complete ignorance of the reality of the day. Same goes for the founders.

Jason wrote:
Agree to disagree.

No intent to claim they were perfect. I've read arguments for and against....but I have noticed a definite trend as history progresses to side with one perspective over the other. Some of it is sheer opinion represented as fact while other authors choose to only pull information from the tabloids of the day.....much like a former co-worker I had who loved to rip apart Joseph Smith with all his historical facts (like Joseph being married to women who were married to other men). While on the sheer face of it some of his facts are true.....but they are completely taken out of context and true understanding. So then labels are used to paint Joseph in today's perspective and in complete ignorance of the reality of the day. Same goes for the founders.

I agree that revisionists paint the founders in a bad light, but in every case I mentioned (except Jefferson) you can read the founder's own writings regarding what I posted.

I'm not saying that there aren't attempts to smear the founders. I'm simply saying that they made mistakes like any other men and there is ample evidence provided in their own journals etc. If they said it themselves, how is it revisionist or taken out of context? Hamilton confessed his affair publicly. Adams wrote of the Alien and Sedition acts and his regret. Franklin was quite open about his illegitimate son William (who later became the governor of New Jersey). So again I ask, what is being taken out of context or revised in the examples I provided?

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:
Agree to disagree.

No intent to claim they were perfect. I've read arguments for and against....but I have noticed a definite trend as history progresses to side with one perspective over the other. Some of it is sheer opinion represented as fact while other authors choose to only pull information from the tabloids of the day.....much like a former co-worker I had who loved to rip apart Joseph Smith with all his historical facts (like Joseph being married to women who were married to other men). While on the sheer face of it some of his facts are true.....but they are completely taken out of context and true understanding. So then labels are used to paint Joseph in today's perspective and in complete ignorance of the reality of the day. Same goes for the founders.

I agree that revisionists paint the founders in a bad light, but in every case I mentioned (except Jefferson) you can read the founder's own writings regarding what I posted.

I'm not saying that there aren't attempts to smear the founders. I'm simply saying that they made mistakes like any other men and there is ample evidence provided in their own journals etc. If they said it themselves, how is it revisionist or taken out of context? Hamilton confessed his affair publicly. Adams wrote of the Alien and Sedition acts and his regret. Franklin was quite open about his illegitimate son William (who later became the governor of New Jersey). So again I ask, what is being taken out of context or revised in the examples I provided?

Nothing....I think we are two entirely different wavelengths!

Jason wrote:

patriotsaint wrote:

Jason wrote:
Agree to disagree.

No intent to claim they were perfect. I've read arguments for and against....but I have noticed a definite trend as history progresses to side with one perspective over the other. Some of it is sheer opinion represented as fact while other authors choose to only pull information from the tabloids of the day.....much like a former co-worker I had who loved to rip apart Joseph Smith with all his historical facts (like Joseph being married to women who were married to other men). While on the sheer face of it some of his facts are true.....but they are completely taken out of context and true understanding. So then labels are used to paint Joseph in today's perspective and in complete ignorance of the reality of the day. Same goes for the founders.

I agree that revisionists paint the founders in a bad light, but in every case I mentioned (except Jefferson) you can read the founder's own writings regarding what I posted.

I'm not saying that there aren't attempts to smear the founders. I'm simply saying that they made mistakes like any other men and there is ample evidence provided in their own journals etc. If they said it themselves, how is it revisionist or taken out of context? Hamilton confessed his affair publicly. Adams wrote of the Alien and Sedition acts and his regret. Franklin was quite open about his illegitimate son William (who later became the governor of New Jersey). So again I ask, what is being taken out of context or revised in the examples I provided?

Nothing....I think we are two entirely different wavelengths!

It would seem so! /shakes jason's hand