Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

[Jason]

BTW.... Glenn Beck DOES NOT tell "half truths". I'm an expert on half truths from dealing with anti-mormons for the last 20 years and liberals for the last 10. Anyone that says that Glenn Beck tells half truths is themselves promoting half truth. Of course, as a human he can error, but making a mistake once out of 1000 comments does not making him a half truth teller. Someone actually needs to watch and listen to Glenn Beck rather than reading whatever idiot is misrepresenting him, like Rush Limbaugh is also misrepresented, and mormonism is misrepresented, and conservatives are misrepresented, even by other so-called conservatives like Alex Jones.

Thanks for reminding the anti-BECK crowd about Glennn's integrity and constant concern for having
all the facts....the RIGHT facts.

for a little more insight into the person you're dealing with....just click "profile" for individual....then click "search user's posts"......you get a fairly good synopsis pretty quick....

[freedomlover]

Spending so much time lambasting Lincoln over the Civil War is really missing the entire point. If Lincoln hadn't taken the steps he took, the U.S. would have failed to exist as a country. There was much more at stake then 'states rights' or even 'slavery'. In essence, you are attacking the wrong side. Lincoln's actions were taken as steps to help save the country - they were not due to malevolent intent. Motive matters - and I think it wrong to malign a man that had to make difficult decisions in order to overcome the gathering forces of evil bent on the destruction of a young country.

I think "The Story of Rights in America" paints the picture very well:

The History of the USA makes no sense until one “gets the point” that, except for
a very few, the Slaveholders of the US South were, from beginning to end, nothing more
than the manipulees of the European Tobacconists and their Central Banks, who
maintained a tight control over the European Market for which nearly all of the produce
of their Slaves’ labors was intended. These Slavers, accordingly, were from the very
beginning of our USA, steeped by their manipulators in an entirely contrary Agenda for
the USA from that of the Northern Commonwealth — which Agenda they pushed
ferociously until their ultimate defeat as the complete losers of the US Civil War.

After the Mormon Pioneers had time to establish themselves with some security
in the Great Basin, efforts resolutely fought by other US citizens, chiefly Southerners,
Almighty God let the calamity of the US Civil War fall upon the Eastern United States.
A massive Army from France, Britain, Austria, Belgium and Spain, assembled by
that same Group of Guillotiners of whom we have spoken at such lengths, against
resolute efforts by Mexicans, militarily conquered and occupied the entirety of Mexico, a
land that is larger than the entire Confederacy, with a much larger population. Every
large population center of Mexico, from end to end, was securely occupied by this
gigantic European Army. There that large Army stood, during the course of the US Civil
War, along the southern border of the Confederacy, “side by side” with the traitorous
Confederate Army. The treacherous people that were the leadership of the Confederacy
had brought into the arrangement, by the Guillotiners who had sent this vast Army from
Europe, that, at the optimum moment of the War, this European Army was to cross the
Rio Grande River, join itself with the Confederate Army, and bring the US Civil War to a
standstill.
For its reward Napoleon III’s French Empire was to regain all of the Louisiana
Purchase Lands and much interest throughout the rest of the South. Spain was to regain
Texas, and Austria and Belgium were to continue ruling Mexico.
Then riots were to be fomented throughout the Northern States which, when they
were widespread, were the signal for a vast British and Canadian Army in Canada to
cross over from Canada into the US North to join itself with the European/Confederate
Army to conquer the Northern States and to re-subject the people there to a much more
stern and severe form of British Monarchical Rule than that from which they had thought
that they had escaped about 80 years earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_int ... _in_Mexico

http://www.iamthewitness.com/books/Arno ... .House.htm

In 1857 a son of James Rothschild, the person controlling the Bank of France,
married a daughter of Lionel Rothschild, who controlled the Bank of England. James and
Lionel Rothschild were uncle and nephew.
While meeting with Lionel (whom Disraeli openly advertised as his “boss” and
mentor) and with Disraeli, after a dinner associated with the wedding, James Rothschild
complained at the scant control their Mother of Harlots had over the New World.
At that Disraeli jumped to his feet and said, “IF YOU LIKE WE SHALL
‘DIVIDE’ THE ‘UNITED’ STATES INTO TWO PARTS, ONE FOR YOU (James)
AND ONE FOR YOU (Lionel). Napoleon (III) will do exactly, and all, that I shall
advise him, and Bismarck will be suggested such an intoxicating program, as to make of
him our abject slave.”

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.ph ... ed-america

As the Attorney General for the Confederate States of America, the British born
Rothschild agent, Judah P. Benjamin, was in charge of executing all of the insane
“Documents” of the Confederacy, such as its “Constitution,” which locked the US Civil
War into the condition of a machine with a wrench jammed into its gears.
As soon as that was accomplished he was promoted to being the Confederate
Secretary of War. In that position he pushed the spilling of American blood until both
sides had to make it a fight to the finish.
As soon as that was accomplished he was promoted again, to his highest position
that of being the Confederate Secretary of State. In that position he was known to people
in authority around the world as “the brains behind the Confederacy.”
From that position he was able to coordinate all of the activities of the French
Emperor, Napoleon III, in Mexico and of the military movements of his Multinational
Army there so as to be able to bring the overwhelming numbers of its manpower to the
assistance of the Confederacy at the moment when the signal was given.
From his position of the Confederate Secretary of State he was also able to
communicate with all of the Rothschild agents in Britain in order to build up the
British/Canadian Army in Canada to the point where it was able to render the USA its
Death Blow.

However, the main thing that he actually did, with the large store of “Confederate
Gold” that he had received from the Rothschilds, was to commission the construction of
five “Battleships.” These were the first of the “iron-clad steamers” that were the
“Dreadnought Battleships” that terrorized the people of Europe, who lived near its
waterways, in the last decades of the 1800’s and the first decades of the 1900’s — the
equivalent in those days of the “Nuclear Arms Race” of the Cold War — that in a similar
way frightened people into paying their Central Banks for an Arms Race.
Just as the purpose of these later Dreadnought Battleships was to destroy from the
Sea, with virtual impunity, anything which they chose to destroy, so the purpose of these
first five Confederate Dreadnought Battleships was to completely destroy the entire
maritime presence of the US North: that is, all of our ships at sea, port installations, ship
yards, wharves, docks, shore batteries, and, of course, all cities or other settlements
located near the sea and waterways.
These Battleships were built, with the “Southern Gold,” at: 1. Glasgow, Scotland,
on the Firth of Clyde; 2. Birkenhead, England, on the Mersey River across from
Liverpool; 3. Le Havre, France; 4. Brest, France; and 5. Bordeaux, France.

http://www.liv.ac.uk/~cmi/books/florida.html

Since it took a while to construct these iron clad steamer Battleships, he also
commissioned the construction in Britain of three “commerce destroyer” sailing
steamers: the “Alabama,” the “Shenandoah,” and the “Florida.” These ships were
entirely British except for their Confederate Captains. That is, they were built in Britain,
outfitted in Britain with British weapons, ammunition and supplies, manned entirely by
British crews, and led by British officers, except for the subterfuge of having the top
officer a Confederate.
The Shenandoah sailed and steamed into the North Pacific and there destroyed the
entire US Whaling Fleet. That is, the Shenandoah would sail with a victim until it was
becalmed; then the Shenandoah would steam up to it, open fire upon it, and send it to the
bottom. Thus ended in an icy grave at the bottom of the Gulf of Alaska the lives of all of
our young men and boys from New England gathering for our war effort this, then, vital
war commodity. Except for the subterfuge of its Confederate Captain, as was indicated,
this vast scale murder of people from the USA was entirely the doing of the Government
of Great Britain.

During the Alabama’s 22 months at sea it captured, sunk, destroyed and murdered
the people on 68 US ships in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and in the China Sea.
This too was entirely the doing of the Government of Great Britain, hiding behind that
subterfuge of a Confederate Commander.

And, Judah Benjamin helped in keeping the Confederacy’s hopes alive with the
anticipated arrival of the Confederacy’s Five Battleships, bought and paid for with “their”
Gold, to obliterate the North’s maritime presence.
But, of course, the Confederacy’s main hope was pinned by Judah Benjamin upon
the impending advance into the Confederacy of Napoleon III’s massive Multinational
Army, that was nearby, just over the Border from them, along the Mexican Side of the
Rio Grande River Valley, with their reinforcements stationed throughout the entirety of
Mexico, just waiting for the order to advance over that Border. Mexicans had stopped
that Foreign Army, at Puebla, on May 5, 1862, from conquering Mexico City. However,
in June, 1863, it finally conquered Mexico City. That was the Confederacy’s signal to
see if they were able, on their own, to conquer Washington D.C. They were stopped
from that at Gettysburg in July, 1863. That was, then, Napoleon III’s signal to bring his
Massive Multinational Army over the previous US/Mexican Border, into the
Confederacy and, with that Massive Army and the Confederacy’s Army together to
cower the North into appealing to that Giant Army for an Armistice.

[Hyrcanus]

Spending so much time lambasting Lincoln over the Civil War is really missing the entire point. If Lincoln hadn't taken the steps he took, the U.S. would have failed to exist as a country. There was much more at stake then 'states rights' or even 'slavery'. In essence, you are attacking the wrong side. Lincoln's actions were taken as steps to help save the country - they were not due to malevolent intent. Motive matters - and I think it wrong to malign a man that had to make difficult decisions in order to overcome the gathering forces of evil bent on the destruction of a young country.

That young country has been destroyed, in part as an extension of the vast power grab that Lincoln used to save the country. Maybe he had the best of intentions, lets set that aside for a moment. Is it not fair to criticize him for laying the groundwork for the absolute trampling of our rights as individuals and states since the Civil War, even if he lacked the foresight to see what was coming?

[Jason]

Spending so much time lambasting Lincoln over the Civil War is really missing the entire point. If Lincoln hadn't taken the steps he took, the U.S. would have failed to exist as a country. There was much more at stake then 'states rights' or even 'slavery'. In essence, you are attacking the wrong side. Lincoln's actions were taken as steps to help save the country - they were not due to malevolent intent. Motive matters - and I think it wrong to malign a man that had to make difficult decisions in order to overcome the gathering forces of evil bent on the destruction of a young country.

That young country has been destroyed, in part as an extension of the vast power grab that Lincoln used to save the country. Maybe he had the best of intentions, lets set that aside for a moment. Is it not fair to criticize him for laying the groundwork for the absolute trampling of our rights as individuals and states since the Civil War, even if he lacked the foresight to see what was coming?

Captain Moroni did the same thing!

[Rensai]

Spending so much time lambasting Lincoln over the Civil War is really missing the entire point. If Lincoln hadn't taken the steps he took, the U.S. would have failed to exist as a country. There was much more at stake then 'states rights' or even 'slavery'. In essence, you are attacking the wrong side. Lincoln's actions were taken as steps to help save the country - they were not due to malevolent intent. Motive matters - and I think it wrong to malign a man that had to make difficult decisions in order to overcome the gathering forces of evil bent on the destruction of a young country.

That young country has been destroyed, in part as an extension of the vast power grab that Lincoln used to save the country. Maybe he had the best of intentions, lets set that aside for a moment. Is it not fair to criticize him for laying the groundwork for the absolute trampling of our rights as individuals and states since the Civil War, even if he lacked the foresight to see what was coming?

Captain Moroni did the same thing!

The captain Moroni I know of didn't do any such thing. He stood for freedom, not for finding excuses for tyranny. Lincoln is nothing like Moroni. I do know a couple other guys who thought a lot like Lincoln though. Lilburn W. Boggs used much this same rhetoric in the 1830's, I've read it. He violated the rights of the "Mormons" to save the state, which you all must be fine with since he only violated the constitution for what he was sure was a good cause. More recently, G.W. Bush used the exact same philosophy to give us the patriot act, illegal wiretapping, torture, etc. So do all you Lincoln supporters support Bush too since he was working under the exact same reasoning?

Joseph Smith knew what to do with government officials who violate the constitution.

The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to capital punishment; and then the president of the United States would not say, “Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you.” (HC 6:56-57; also in TPJS 326-27)

I've read a lot of Joseph Smith's writings on the constitution, and nowhere does he make any exceptions for violating the constitution in any way.... not even to supposedly save the country. If the constitution can be set aside whenever there is a handy emergency then Bush really was right when he said it was just a piece of paper.

[Jason]

And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the bland of Nephi.

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

Therefore Moroni thought it was expedient that he should take his armies, who had gathered themselves together, and armed themselves, and entered into a covenant to keep the peace—and it came to pass that he took his army and marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness.

And it came to pass that he did according to his desires, and marched forth into the wilderness, and headed the armies of Amalickiah.

And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla.

Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them.

And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/46

Weren't Amalickiah's people just leaving the union???

[Rensai]

And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were doubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the bland of Nephi.

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them; and this he knew that Amalickiah would do that he might obtain his purposes.

Therefore Moroni thought it was expedient that he should take his armies, who had gathered themselves together, and armed themselves, and entered into a covenant to keep the peace—and it came to pass that he took his army and marched out with his tents into the wilderness, to cut off the course of Amalickiah in the wilderness.

And it came to pass that he did according to his desires, and marched forth into the wilderness, and headed the armies of Amalickiah.

And it came to pass that Amalickiah fled with a small number of his men, and the remainder were delivered up into the hands of Moroni and were taken back into the land of Zarahemla.

Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them.

And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/46

Weren't Amalickiah's people just leaving the union???

no they were not. Does this sound like they just wanted to leave the union? (that didn't exist)

Now Moroni thought it was not expedient that the Lamanites should have any more strength; therefore he thought to cut off the people of Amalickiah, or to take them and bring them back, and put Amalickiah to death; yea, for he knew that he would stir up the Lamanites to anger against them, and cause them to come to battle against them

You also forget to mention the earlier parts of Alma Chapter 46. Amalickiah directly challenged the Nephite government. He had clear designs to overthrow it, not peacefully leave it. That alone is a huge difference. On the other hand, there are other examples where Nephites who left peacefully were allowed to leave, so I don't believe Moroni would have stopped Amalickiah had he not already made himself a criminal with his plans to be king.

It's a poor comparison at best. Bush,Boggs, LBJ, FDR, are all much better comparisons to Lincoln. All violated the constitution (that the Nephites didn't even have) for the greater good or for "The country."

[freedomlover]

I agree with Jason. The comparison between Moroni and Abraham Lincoln holds true on a number of fronts.

1. A group of people attempting to leave the main group is stopped due to the wrong of doing so
2. King Men (Slaveholders) and Free Men (Union). The king men felt they were a special class who felt that they had the right to rule over others. The free men believed in freedom
3. Those that refused to fight for freedom were thrown in jail

8 Now those who were in favor of kings were those of high birth, and they sought to be kings; and they were supported by those who sought power and authority over the people.
9 But behold, this was a critical time for such contentions to be among the people of Nephi; for behold, Amalickiah had again stirred up the hearts of the people of the Lamanites against the people of the Nephites, and he was gathering together soldiers from all parts of his land, and arming them, and preparing for war with all diligence; for he had sworn to drink the blood of Moroni.
10 But behold, we shall see that his promise which he made was rash; nevertheless, he did prepare himself and his armies to come to battle against the Nephites.
11 Now his armies were not so great as they had hitherto been, because of the many thousands who had been slain by the hand of the Nephites; but notwithstanding their great loss, Amalickiah had gathered together a wonderfully great army, insomuch that he feared not to come down to the land of Zarahemla.
12 Yea, even Amalickiah did himself come down, at the head of the Lamanites. And it was in the twenty and fifth year of the reign of the judges; and it was at the same time that they had begun to settle the affairs of their contentions concerning the chief judge, Pahoran.
13 And it came to pass that when the men who were called king-men had heard that the Lamanites were coming down to battle against them, they were glad in their hearts; and they refused to take up arms, for they were so wroth with the chief judge, and also with the people of liberty, that they would not take up arms to defend their country.
14 And it came to pass that when Moroni saw this, and also saw that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the stubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them.
15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.
16 For it was his first care to put an end to such contentions and dissensions among the people; for behold, this had been hitherto a cause of all their destruction. And it came to pass that it was granted according to the voice of the people.
17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.
18 And it came to pass that the armies did march forth against them; and they did pull down their pride and their nobility, insomuch that as they did lift their weapons of war to fight against the men of Moroni they were hewn down and leveled to the earth.
19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.
20 And the remainder of those dissenters, rather than be smitten down to the earth by the sword, yielded to the standard of liberty, and were compelled to hoist the title of liberty upon their towers, and in their cities, and to take up arms in defence of their country.
21 And thus Moroni put an end to those king-men, that there were not any known by the appellation of king-men; and thus he put an end to the stubbornness and the pride of those people who professed the blood of nobility; but they were brought down to humble themselves like unto their brethren, and to fight avaliantly for their freedom from bondage.

The argument that Abraham Lincoln opened the door for later abuses is somewhat silly. Whether an action is justified depends on many things including the circumstances. Was Lincoln justified in restraining the press given the circumstances? Was Lincoln justified in instituting a draft given the circumstances? Was Lincoln justified in lifting Habeaus Corpus given the circumstances? Perhaps he went to far in some cases, but in general I would say a resounding "Yes". It was necessary.

Now, the fact that he was justified given the circumstances of that time - does that then open the door for all following Presidents to do the same regardless of circumstances - absolutely not.

Nephi killed Laban and yet the law is 'thou shalt not kill'. Did Nephi's actions set a precedent that then justified all murderers from that point on. Of course not, that is just silly.

[Mosby]

Captain Moroni did the same thing!

I agree with Jason. The comparison between Moroni and Abraham Lincoln holds true on a number of fronts.

1. A group of people attempting to leave the main group is stopped due to the wrong of doing so
2. King Men (Slaveholders) and Free Men (Union). The king men felt they were a special class who felt that they had the right to rule over others. The free men believed in freedom
3. Those that refused to fight for freedom were thrown in jail

Wow, all I can say is Wow.................

Abraham Lincoln compared with Captain Moroni................only on LDS Freedom forum, or perhaps http://www.glennbeck.com


Hey, have you guys ever thought that maybe Abraham Lincoln was actually Jesus in disguise?

[Rensai]

I agree with Jason. The comparison between Moroni and Abraham Lincoln holds true on a number of fronts.

1. A group of people attempting to leave the main group is stopped due to the wrong of doing so
Moroni stopped treasonous criminals who had already attempted to overthrow the government and were on their way to join the lamanites in a war against the nephites. That is NOTHING like the civil war. Lincoln stopped citizens, who had every right to secede with no legal, constitutional, justification whatsoever.
2. King Men (Slaveholders) and Free Men (Union). The king men felt they were a special class who felt that they had the right to rule over others. The free men believed in freedom
The king men (the north) took the freedom of the free men (confederates). Now had they gone in, freed the african slaves, and then let the south secede, I would be more apt to agree with your comparison, but they did not. They forced the southern citizens into the union against their will. The Union was far more like the king men than the nephites in that comparison.
3. Those that refused to fight for freedom were thrown in jail
Again, that was the treatment given to TREASONOUS KING MEN. I fail to see how this is a comparison of the north vs south.

The argument that Abraham Lincoln opened the door for later abuses is somewhat silly.
No, it is a historical fact. Lincoln broke the constitution and later the government white washed the whole thing to make him into a hero. Think about why they would turn a man, who broke the constitution to achieve more federal power, into a hero. You can bet every president afterwords was aware of that and thought about it when they too wanted to break the constitution. Lincoln should have been tried for treason. That would have given them pause and set the right precedent, and shown those who followed, that the constitution will be upheld.
Whether an action is justified depends on many things including the circumstances. Was Lincoln justified in restraining the press given the circumstances? Was Lincoln justified in instituting a draft given the circumstances? Was Lincoln justified in lifting Habeaus Corpus given the circumstances? Perhaps he went to far in some cases, but in general I would say a resounding "Yes". It was necessary.
I would say you are no friend to the constitution if you are willing to break it any time its convenient. The prophet Joseph Smith made it clear what the lord thought of those who broke the constitution when it suited their purposes.

Now, the fact that he was justified given the circumstances of that time - does that then open the door for all following Presidents to do the same regardless of circumstances - absolutely not.
It is most definitely not a fact that he was justified. That is only your opinion. And yes, it does open the door for other presidents. Lincoln was never punished in anyway for breaking the constitution or his oath to it. He set precedence.

Nephi killed Laban and yet the law is 'thou shalt not kill'. Did Nephi's actions set a precedent that then justified all murderers from that point on. Of course not, that is just silly.
Now Lincoln's treason is the same as Nephi getting a direct commandment from god? Had god commanded Lincoln to do that, then yes, he would be justified, but until God says Lincoln was acting under his command, he should be treated like any other traitor. Nephi's situation in no way justifies Lincoln. Was Lincoln a prophet following God's command?? If not, then your comparison invalidates itself.

Now, lets flip this comparison around and compare Lincoln to Amalickiah.

Lincoln broke the law of the land for more power.
Amalickiah broke the law of the land for more power.

Lincoln took away the freedom of the southern states.
Amalickiah wanted to take away the freedom of the Nephites.

Lincoln's didn't hesitate to spend lives to gain power over the south.
Amalickiah didn't hesitate to spend lives to gain power over the Nephites.

Lincoln lied to the people.
Amalickiah lied to the people.

I could keep this up all night. Comparisons between Lincoln and Captain Moroni are an insult to Moroni. Captain Moroni was a man who had a perfect understanding. "Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men." (Alma 48:17) You slander Moroni by comparing him to a man who has been proven to have committed treason by breaking the constitution he was sworn to uphold. Do the scriptures ever show Moroni breaking an oath? How about breaking the law? Did he lie to the people? You defend a man largely responsible for the death of over half a million Americans, who you acknowledge is an oath breaker, who like Satan, thought the ends justified the means, that it was ok to take away peoples freedom "for a good cause". Why do you do this? By your own words you know he broke the constitution. Do you love freedom or not? Is it a sacred god given right or a privilege from the president to be taken away when he desires?

[Mosby]

Rensai-
Thank you for paying the price to know and understand both U.S history and the Book of Mormon.

Folks like you give me hope for the future.

[Jason]

Yeah I reckon ol' Abraham should have just let those cats go.....thus preparing the way for re-absorption into Europe and eventual loss of all sovereignty.

Captain Moroni was obviously justified since he personally knew the pretense of why Amalackiah's group was leaving......and Abraham Lincoln couldn't possibly know the real pretense/justification for the South leaving the union....and who was funding the split!

....but ah shucks lets just flip the whole thing around and call evil good and good evil why don't we.....I mean obviously Lincoln was an evil cat and needed to be assassinated.....can't keep those evil guys around can we.

[Rensai]

Yeah I reckon ol' Abraham should have just let those cats go.....thus preparing the way for re-absorption into Europe and eventual loss of all sovereignty.

Sure, that might have happened and it might not. Why don't we just play it safe and start killing everyone we don't agree with. We got those darn southerners and those Iraqi's that might have maybe someday sorta turned into some kind of threat to the Union. Why stop there? Lets play it safe and get em all. After all, they could be involved in some plot against us, we don't know for sure. Better play it safe.

Captain Moroni was obviously justified since he personally knew the pretense of why Amalackiah's group was leaving......and Abraham Lincoln couldn't possibly know the real pretense/justification for the South leaving the union....and who was funding the split!

Abraham Lincoln's diary and other writings say several times that he was only interested in preserving the union. Where does he mention he has any knowledge of some nefarious plot to surrender sovereignty back to Europe?

....but ah shucks lets just flip the whole thing around and call evil good and good evil why don't we

I think you already did that. Lincoln started a war resulting in over half a million deaths, along with the rapes, robberies, constitutional violations, wrongful improsonments etc that went with it. If he's a hero... truly we are calling the evil good.

.....I mean obviously Lincoln was an evil cat and needed to be assassinated.....can't keep those evil guys around can we.

Not assassinated, but he definitely should have been tried for treason.

[Jason]

Yeah I reckon ol' Abraham should have just let those cats go.....thus preparing the way for re-absorption into Europe and eventual loss of all sovereignty.

Sure, that might have happened and it might not. Why don't we just play it safe and start killing everyone we don't agree with. We got those darn southerners and those Iraqi's that might have maybe someday sorta turned into some kind of threat to the Union. Why stop there? Lets play it safe and get em all. After all, they could be involved in some plot against us, we don't know for sure. Better play it safe.

Captain Moroni was obviously justified since he personally knew the pretense of why Amalackiah's group was leaving......and Abraham Lincoln couldn't possibly know the real pretense/justification for the South leaving the union....and who was funding the split!

Abraham Lincoln's diary and other writings say several times that he was only interested in preserving the union. Where does he mention he has any knowledge of some nefarious plot to surrender sovereignty back to Europe?

....but ah shucks lets just flip the whole thing around and call evil good and good evil why don't we

I think you already did that. Lincoln started a war resulting in over half a million deaths, along with the rapes, robberies, constitutional violations, wrongful improsonments etc that went with it. If he's a hero... truly we are calling the evil good.

.....I mean obviously Lincoln was an evil cat and needed to be assassinated.....can't keep those evil guys around can we.

Not assassinated, but he definitely should have been tried for treason.

.....I never said Lincoln was a hero.....and never said he was the devil. The reality is there was a conspiracy to overthrow the nation whether he was intimately aware of it or not. The reality is we don't know what all was going on behind the scenes.....and therefore to say he was the devil and should be tried for treason seems a bit of a stretch under the circumstances....

When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it. Yes, with Lincoln I say: "To add brightness to the sun or glory to the name of Washington is . . . impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce the name and in its deathless splendor, leave it shining on." - Ezra Taft Benson

....then again maybe Lincoln is one of the three...

I straightway went into the baptismal font and called upon brother McCallister to baptize me for the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and fifty other eminent men, making one hundred in all, including John Wesley, Columbus, and others; I then baptized him for every President of the United States, except three; and when their cause is just, somebody will do the work for them.

.....as I never walked the mile in Lincoln's moccasins....I won't be casting any stones!

Captain Moroni righteously held a sword to men's throats and demanded that they serve the cause of freedom or die. He also acted preemptively with that intent when a separation of the people would have weakened his cause......so judge for yourself but know that with that same judgment you will also be judged!

[Rensai]

The reality is there was a conspiracy to overthrow the nation whether he was intimately aware of it or not. The reality is we don't know what all was going on behind the scenes

I do believe Satan has plotted to overthrow the nation since it was created. Breaking the constitution does not protect us from that, it only helps with that overthrow. In the end, as you say, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but we do know what is public record and that is, that Lincoln committed treason. That is what we know. What we don't know, is all this conjecture you've used to try and justify him. Where does it end? If we're going to rationalize and make excuses then we can do that for anyone. With these types of rationalizations we could think of excuses, maybe's and what ifs, for any tyrant.

Captain Moroni righteously held a sword to men's throats and demanded that they serve the cause of freedom or die. He also acted preemptively with that intent when a separation of the people would have weakened his cause......so judge for yourself but know that with that same judgment you will also be judged!

First, Moroni did not preemptively do anything to the King men. They first committed treason and tried to over throw the government and take away the peoples freedom. Remember that? Their first act was to plot murder.

1 And it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the awords of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren.
2 And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them.

Next the scriptures say they sought to take away the freedom of the people, to gain power over them.

4 And Amalickiah was desirous to be a aking; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower bjudges of the land, and they were seeking for power.
5 And they had been led by the aflatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.

10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to adestroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of bliberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the crighteous’ sake.

It says right here he sought to destroy the peoples liberty and the church of god. I don't know how he could have committed worse crimes.

Finally, after all this, Moroni raised the title of liberty and his sword. It is clear the King men had already earned death. By the time "Captain Moroni righteously held a sword to men's throats and demanded that they serve the cause of freedom or die" they would have already forfeited their own rights to liberty through their actions to take liberty from others. They were criminals. Let's not pretend that is the same thing Lincoln did. Moroni was actually quite merciful, as the King men had undoubtedly already earned death. Moroni's actions were purely defensive and just. Is it preemptive to stop a fleeing traitor from joining with another enemy? Your comparison of Moroni to Lincoln is an insult to the great Captain.

[freedomlover]

Rensai wrote:

Next the scriptures say they sought to take away the freedom of the people, to gain power over them.

So how was this different than what the south was doing?

Rensai wrote:

First, Moroni did not preemptively do anything to the King men. They first committed treason and tried to over throw the government and take away the peoples freedom. Remember that? Their first act was to plot murder.

alma 46:1-2 wrote:
1 And it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the awords of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren.
2 And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them.

The term king men does not appear until chapter 51. It is there that we find out that they refused to help fight and defend the county. It is then that they were compelled to help in the fight or die or go to prison. And they went to prison without trial - due to the circumstances at the time.

17 And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.

19 And it came to pass that there were four thousand of those dissenters who were hewn down by the sword; and those of their leaders who were not slain in battle were taken and cast into prison, for there was no time for their trials at this period.

So we have a draft and a suspension of what we call today habeas corpus.

Before calling him a traitor and condemn his actions, you may want to consider the source of direction he received:

I would like to talk with you about Abraham Lincoln, man of God.

President Lincoln was one of the great men of all time, and the reason for his greatness was his willingness to acknowledge and obey the Lord.

He believed in God; he lived near to God; he prayed most earnestly and knew for a fact that he was guided by divine inspiration in his important work.

Lincoln guided the destinies of the United States during the Civil War period by using the Bible and applying its principles. He exercised faith, and prayer, and deep humility, and out of it all he learned this great fact, as he himself expressed it:

“I have had so many evidences of His [God’s] direction, so many instances when I have been controlled by some other power than my own will, that I cannot doubt that this power comes from above. … I am satisfied that, when the Almighty wants me to do, or not to do, a particular thing, he finds a way of letting me know it.” (Ibid., p. 124.)

One day he declared: “If we do not do right, God will let us go our own way to ruin; and … if we do right, He will lead us safely out of this wilderness, crown our arms with victory and restore our dissevered Union.” (Ibid. p. 129.)

And then, thrillingly, he said: “I know I am right, because I know that liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God.” (Ibid., p. 285–86; italics added.)

Again Lincoln said: “I seem to know that Providence has protected and will protect us against any fatal defeat. All we have to do is to trust the Almighty, and keep on obeying His orders and executing His will.” (Ibid., p. 126.)

“That the Almighty … directly intervenes in human affairs, is one of the plainest statements in the Bible,” the great Civil War leader declared. (Ibid., p. 124.)
-- Mark E. Peterson, Fall General Conference 1976

[Rensai]

Before calling him a traitor and condemn his actions, you may want to consider the source of direction he received:
By definition he was a traitor. He broke the constitution and his oath to uphold it. If god wants to excuse him, that is his right, all I can do is go off the information I have at this time rather than speculate that MAYBE he received direction from the Lord. Almost every tyrant in history has made that claim. Actions speak louder than words.

I would like to talk with you about Abraham Lincoln, man of God.

President Lincoln was one of the great men of all time, and the reason for his greatness was his willingness to acknowledge and obey the Lord.

He believed in God; he lived near to God; he prayed most earnestly and knew for a fact that he was guided by divine inspiration in his important work.

Lincoln guided the destinies of the United States during the Civil War period by using the Bible and applying its principles. He exercised faith, and prayer, and deep humility, and out of it all he learned this great fact, as he himself expressed it:

“I have had so many evidences of His [God’s] direction, so many instances when I have been controlled by some other power than my own will, that I cannot doubt that this power comes from above. … I am satisfied that, when the Almighty wants me to do, or not to do, a particular thing, he finds a way of letting me know it.” (Ibid., p. 124.)

One day he declared: “If we do not do right, God will let us go our own way to ruin; and … if we do right, He will lead us safely out of this wilderness, crown our arms with victory and restore our dissevered Union.” (Ibid. p. 129.)

And then, thrillingly, he said: “I know I am right, because I know that liberty is right, for Christ teaches it, and Christ is God.” (Ibid., p. 285–86; italics added.)

Again Lincoln said: “I seem to know that Providence has protected and will protect us against any fatal defeat. All we have to do is to trust the Almighty, and keep on obeying His orders and executing His will.” (Ibid., p. 126.)

“That the Almighty … directly intervenes in human affairs, is one of the plainest statements in the Bible,” the great Civil War leader declared. (Ibid., p. 124.)
-- Mark E. Peterson, Fall General Conference 1976

Lincoln was a fine orator and knew how to write great speeches. Many good men have quoted his fine rhetoric, but this does not in any way prove that God was directing him. G.W. Bush also claimed God was directing him. Do you believe him? Or do you look at his actions and see past the rhetoric?

Here are a few quotes for you to consider.

We have ever held ourselves amenable to the law. . . . I am ever ready to conform to and support the laws and Constitution, even at the expense of my life. I have never in the least offered any resistance to law or lawful process, which is a well-known fact to the general public. (Joseph Smith HC 6:526)

We have never gone contrary to constitutional law, so far as we have been able to learn it. (HC 6:539)

Tell me, if Joseph Smith was ready to uphold the constitution, even at the expense of his life, do you think he approves of Lincolns violations of it? If anyone in this country ever had a good reason to feel betrayed and justified in breaking the constitution (Because it was broken by those who abused them) it was the early saints. Yet they didn't. Not once does Joseph smith ever even hint that breaking the constitution is acceptable. In fact, he almost puts it on par with scripture.

Hence we say, that the Constitution of the United States is a glorious standard; it is founded in the wisdom of God. It is a heavenly banner; it is to all those who are privileged with the sweets of liberty, like the cooling shades and refreshing waters of a great rock in a thirsty and weary land. It is like a great tree under whose branches men from every clime can be shielded from the burning rays of the sun. . . .

We say that God is true; that the Constitution of the United States is true; that the Bible is true. (TPJS 147-48)

If I lose my life in a good cause I am willing to be sacrificed on the altar of virtue, righteousness and truth, in maintaining the laws and Constitution of the United States, if need be, for the general good of mankind. (HC 6:211; also in TPJS 332; WJS 320)

Doesn't sound like a man who's willing to break the constitution whenever its convenient. That is because the Lord made it clear that the constitution was of him and Joseph Smith would no sooner break that than any other law given by god.

Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land. (D&C 58:21)

Did Lincoln keep the laws of the land? According to D&C then, he did not keep the laws of God either.

Here's another one...

And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land. (D&C 98:5-6)

Did Lincoln befriend the constitution? If befriending the constitution is justifiable before the Lord do you think breaking it is also justifiable before the Lord?

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I [the Lord] have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles. (D&C 101:76-77)

Have mercy, O Lord, upon all the nations of the earth; have mercy upon the rulers of our land; may those principles, which were so honorably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever. (D&C 109:54)

These scriptures and quotes make it pretty clear the Lord approves of the constitution and it is based on just and holy principles. A good man should never need break the constitution any more than any other laws from God. Further, D&C makes it clear we are to befriend it (not break it) and uphold it. It doesn't say, uphold it unless it becomes inconvenient and you need to break it. If God gave Lincoln some sort of special dispensation to violate it, there is no record of such. If I find out someday he did, I will gladly retract everything I've said about Lincoln and get in line to praise him, but at this point, that is just speculation.

The facts are clear. God expects every man to uphold the constitution. Lincoln doubly so. As president he had a greater responsibility and he swore and oath to uphold it. Instead he swore and oath on the bible then promptly started breaking it. I can only judge him with the facts I have been given and the facts show that he committed treason and that the Lord does not anywhere give men the right to decide when the constitution should be violated.

You go ahead and believe in Lincoln if you wish. I will follow and believe in Joseph Smith instead, and stand firmly in support of the constitution, even if it costs me my life someday. I will never, ever, knowingly violate it or make excuses for those who do, but will instead seek to see they are justly prosecuted instead.

[JMarsigli]

No Beck's postion is only "historically valid" if you like revisionist history, mixed with the statist view of America, and a "Union" of states that is enforced by the sword - and a monsterous federal government that does as it pleases.Only then his postion is valid- that is if you are a statist, who believes in a strong federal government with weak states. Ironically this is the opposite (Beck and Lincoln's position) of our founders views (except Hamilton and a few others)

I will include a very good source for both Lincoln, and the root cause(s) for the Civil War. I realize it's far easier to say that Civil War was about slavery, especially if Glenn Beck says it was. However, for those who are prepared to pay the price to study the issue out in depth and be honest with themselves in challenging some deep-held paradiems of thought, they will come to a knowledge that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was no hero either.

I won't argue the issue, I've spent years reading thousands of pages on the subject and I've drawn my own conclusons based upon the facts- the truth is out there for those willing to be honest and do their own homework.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html


Good Luck.

Post flagged for blatant self-righteousness, hubris, arrogance, loftiness, pride, vanity, and a Messiah complex.

You could use a dose of humility. This post should be held as prime example of how to speak and think like the devil wants you to.

[Jason]

The reality is there was a conspiracy to overthrow the nation whether he was intimately aware of it or not. The reality is we don't know what all was going on behind the scenes

I do believe Satan has plotted to overthrow the nation since it was created. Breaking the constitution does not protect us from that, it only helps with that overthrow. In the end, as you say, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but we do know what is public record and that is, that Lincoln committed treason. That is what we know. What we don't know, is all this conjecture you've used to try and justify him. Where does it end? If we're going to rationalize and make excuses then we can do that for anyone. With these types of rationalizations we could think of excuses, maybe's and what ifs, for any tyrant.

Captain Moroni righteously held a sword to men's throats and demanded that they serve the cause of freedom or die. He also acted preemptively with that intent when a separation of the people would have weakened his cause......so judge for yourself but know that with that same judgment you will also be judged!

First, Moroni did not preemptively do anything to the King men. They first committed treason and tried to over throw the government and take away the peoples freedom. Remember that? Their first act was to plot murder.

1 And it came to pass that as many as would not hearken to the awords of Helaman and his brethren were gathered together against their brethren.
2 And now behold, they were exceedingly wroth, insomuch that they were determined to slay them.

Next the scriptures say they sought to take away the freedom of the people, to gain power over them.

4 And Amalickiah was desirous to be a aking; and those people who were wroth were also desirous that he should be their king; and they were the greater part of them the lower bjudges of the land, and they were seeking for power.
5 And they had been led by the aflatteries of Amalickiah, that if they would support him and establish him to be their king that he would make them rulers over the people.

10 Yea, we see that Amalickiah, because he was a man of cunning device and a man of many flattering words, that he led away the hearts of many people to do wickedly; yea, and to seek to adestroy the church of God, and to destroy the foundation of bliberty which God had granted unto them, or which blessing God had sent upon the face of the land for the crighteous’ sake.

It says right here he sought to destroy the peoples liberty and the church of god. I don't know how he could have committed worse crimes.

Finally, after all this, Moroni raised the title of liberty and his sword. It is clear the King men had already earned death. By the time "Captain Moroni righteously held a sword to men's throats and demanded that they serve the cause of freedom or die" they would have already forfeited their own rights to liberty through their actions to take liberty from others. They were criminals. Let's not pretend that is the same thing Lincoln did. Moroni was actually quite merciful, as the King men had undoubtedly already earned death. Moroni's actions were purely defensive and just. Is it preemptive to stop a fleeing traitor from joining with another enemy? Your comparison of Moroni to Lincoln is an insult to the great Captain.

My version of the scriptures don't agree with yours......it was put to a vote (Amalickiah lost...and his people knew the cause wasn't just so they fled the union).....and Moroni (appointed by the government) took preemptive action to stop it! Already posted the relevant verses. As mentioned previous to my response...."kingmen" weren't around at that point in time.

Again Lincoln was elected and supported by the people (appointed by the government - Congress isn't much use when close to half are splitting away) in the drastic steps he took to keep the union together. Moroni did the same thing (no one went to see the judges - they had a knife to their throat and they either took an oath to support liberty or they died).

Conspiracies to overthrow the freedom and liberty of the people existed in both cases. I've posted this several times now on this forum but you might read the Treason history of the Order of Sons of Liberty, formerly Circle of Honor, succeeded by Knights of the Golden Circle, afterward Order of American Knights. The most gigantic treasonable conspiracy the world has ever known. 1864 (1903)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/929322/Treaso ... of-Liberty
http://www.archive.org/details/sonsofliberty00stidrich

Fairly short read and very informative....anyways to each their own opinion!!!

[pritchet1]

Why the ad hominem attack? Seems the link is a good source of history and the comments are not as you describe (unhumble).

[Rensai]

My version of the scriptures don't agree with yours......it was put to a vote (Amalickiah lost...and his people knew the cause wasn't just so they fled the union)

Your right, your scriptures are different than mine. Mine say nothing about any vote. They do however, mention that Amalickiah and his followers plotted to Murder Helaman and destroy the church of god and peoples Liberty BEFORE Moroni took any action.

.....and Moroni (appointed by the government) took preemptive action to stop it! Already posted the relevant verses.

You posted verses that came AFTER they had already plotted murder and overthrow! By definition, Moroni's actions are not pre-emptive at that point, they are defensive.

As mentioned previous to my response...."kingmen" weren't around at that point in time.

Semantics, its the same group.

Again Lincoln was elected and supported by the people (appointed by the government - Congress isn't much use when close to half are splitting away) in the drastic steps he took to keep the union together.

Drastic is one word for it, but treason is more correct.

Conspiracies to overthrow the freedom and liberty of the people existed in both cases. I've posted this several times now on this forum but you might read the Treason history of the Order of Sons of Liberty, formerly Circle of Honor, succeeded by Knights of the Golden Circle, afterward Order of American Knights. The most gigantic treasonable conspiracy the world has ever known. 1864 (1903)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/929322/Treaso ... of-Liberty
http://www.archive.org/details/sonsofliberty00stidrich

Fairly short read and very informative....anyways to each their own opinion!!!

Jason, even if these conspiracies are real (And we don't know for sure they are), that still doesn't justify Lincoln. I've shown quite clearly the Lords words on the constitution. Further, Lincoln did not limit his actions to people involved in the conspiracy as Moroni did. It is public record that Lincoln's troops robbed, raped, and murdered southern non-combatants, including women and children, not to mention the northern judges, press, etc that were wrongfully imprisoned on his direct orders for trying to stand against his violations of the constitution. These were citizens of the union in good standing who were deprived of liberty and worse, without due process. Did Moroni do any of those things when he fought Amalickiah's conspiracy? While you're answering that, please also explain to me why Lincoln should not be held accountable for any of these things simply because their might have been some kind of conspiracy going on at the time.

[Jason]

My version of the scriptures don't agree with yours......it was put to a vote (Amalickiah lost...and his people knew the cause wasn't just so they fled the union)

Your right, your scriptures are different than mine. Mine say nothing about any vote. They do however, mention that Amalickiah and his followers plotted to Murder Helaman and destroy the church of god and peoples Liberty BEFORE Moroni took any action.

I apologize....I should have used "choice" instead of "vote"....definitely the wrong connotation of the term as we know it today (the people made a choice as to who to follow)-

And now it came to pass that when Moroni had said these words he went forth, and also sent forth in all the parts of the land where there were dissensions, and gathered together all the people who were desirous to maintain their liberty, to stand against Amalickiah and those who had dissented, who were called Amalickiahites.

And it came to pass that when Amalickiah saw that the people of Moroni were more numerous than the Amalickiahites—and he also saw that his people were adoubtful concerning the justice of the cause in which they had undertaken—therefore, fearing that he should not gain the point, he took those of his people who would and departed into the bland of Nephi.

.....and Moroni (appointed by the government) took preemptive action to stop it! Already posted the relevant verses.

You posted verses that came AFTER they had already plotted murder and overthrow! By definition, Moroni's actions are not pre-emptive at that point, they are defensive.
very true with relation to raising the flag of liberty and putting forth a choice to the people....but Moroni was preemptive in the response to the other side running away....but its all perspective and neither here nor there...

As mentioned previous to my response...."kingmen" weren't around at that point in time.

Semantics, its the same group.
one could say the same about voting or choosing....although to cut hairs and be specific, the "kingmen" were the ones who obviously lied when the sword was put to their throat and later went after Pahoran...

Again Lincoln was elected and supported by the people (appointed by the government - Congress isn't much use when close to half are splitting away) in the drastic steps he took to keep the union together.

Drastic is one word for it, but treason is more correct.
Agree to disagree

Conspiracies to overthrow the freedom and liberty of the people existed in both cases. I've posted this several times now on this forum but you might read the Treason history of the Order of Sons of Liberty, formerly Circle of Honor, succeeded by Knights of the Golden Circle, afterward Order of American Knights. The most gigantic treasonable conspiracy the world has ever known. 1864 (1903)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/929322/Treaso ... of-Liberty
http://www.archive.org/details/sonsofliberty00stidrich

Fairly short read and very informative....anyways to each their own opinion!!!

Jason, even if these conspiracies are real (And we don't know for sure they are), that still doesn't justify Lincoln. I've shown quite clearly the Lords words on the constitution. Further, Lincoln did not limit his actions to people involved in the conspiracy as Moroni did. It is public record that Lincoln's troops robbed, raped, and murdered southern non-combatants, including women and children, not to mention the northern judges, press, etc that were wrongfully imprisoned on his direct orders for trying to stand against his violations of the constitution. These were citizens of the union in good standing who were deprived of liberty and worse, without due process. Did Moroni do any of those things when he fought Amalickiah's conspiracy? While you're answering that, please also explain to me why Lincoln should not be held accountable for any of these things simply because their might have been some kind of conspiracy going on at the time.

So you would lay all the sins of the troops (acting independently of orders) on Lincoln's head??? Or do you have "proof" of orders to rob/rape/etc civilians directly from Lincoln???

I wasn't there. From what I've "read"....deep conspiracies existed and based on the BOM I have every reason to believe that....and also that people who were "of good standing" were plotting murder and destruction of the nation. Hence I will not judge either way on Lincoln.

As you state Lincoln trod all over the Constitution yet I can see situations requiring the overruling of the Constitution (or any other law for that matter) due to the circumstances. Much like Captain Moroni, Nephi, Abraham, etc etc etc etc.

Are you going to hold Captain Moroni accountable for putting a blade to someone's throat saying if you don't side with us we cut your head off? Are you going to hold Nephi accountable for the premeditated cutting off of Laban's head while he was lying in a drunken stupor upon the ground? Are you going to hold Abraham accountable for contemplating and nearly completing the murder of his son?

Basically I don't have enough knowledge of the realities of the situation to make a correct determination for or against.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the conspiracies that existed or didn't exist with Lincoln and the realities of what he was up against? Or the divine revelation he did or didn't receive?

[Mosby]

Post flagged for blatant self-righteousness, hubris, arrogance, loftiness, pride, vanity, and a Messiah complex.

You could use a dose of humility

Sounds like you are just the man to give me that dose of humility - how shall we proceed?

Look, I will not retreat from my statements on the Civil War It's not "arrogance" "pride" "vanity" - or a Messiah complex to state that I have honestly spent thousands of hours studying the history of that war- I have, it's a fact. It doesn't mean that I'm any better than anyone on this forum, it just means that I have devoted a certain portion of my life to reading and studying about the Civil War war. Why does that anger you so JMarsigli?

Jason is an expert on finiancial/economy matters, I'm sure that he has spent hours and upon hours researching as well- when he posts I give his statements weight because I can tell that he has paid the price to study out these issues- I'm not mad at him because he is well read.

So what's really the point here Marsigli?

In my post that you refer to- I am making the case that I can back up my postion with facts, and I give the source(s) in which to do so. I am always willing to sit for a "lesson in humility"- as long as it is based upon logic and facts- If you find that you can tear yourself away from the ad hominem style of "debate" that you favor- I will be more than happy to discuss why you are so angry about my position on the Civil War.

[Rensai]

So you would lay all the sins of the troops (acting independently of orders) on Lincoln's head??? Or do you have "proof" of orders to rob/rape/etc civilians directly from Lincoln???

Was Lincoln the commander in chief? Did he order the troops to attack? I am not saying he told them specifically to rape, but you bet he is responsible for the actions of the troops he ordered into battle. They are responsible as well, but he shares in the blame. Now some of the other things, such as locking up press who wrote against the war, and a judge who ruled it was unconstitutional and subsequently house arrested, yes, there are direct orders from Lincoln violating their rights.

I wasn't there. From what I've "read"....deep conspiracies existed and based on the BOM I have every reason to believe that....and also that people who were "of good standing" were plotting murder and destruction of the nation. Hence I will not judge either way on Lincoln.

Ahh ok... in that case. Lets not judge any tyrant, lets celebrate them all because doubtlessly there are conspiracies everywhere all the time and who knows... maybe they are fighting them.

As you state Lincoln trod all over the Constitution yet I can see situations requiring the overruling of the Constitution (or any other law for that matter) due to the circumstances. Much like Captain Moroni, Nephi, Abraham, etc etc etc etc.

I've already made it clear how Moroni's circumstance was different. If you can't see that, then let me try this another way. Did Abraham, Moroni, or Nephi have the constitution? Do you know what their laws were? Also, in their cases, we have direct knowledge that God commanded them and made an exception in some way, which is why, Nephi did not commit murder, but rather, was dispensing justice from the highest court when he killed Laban. You have no proof that Lincoln's case is similar at all.

Are you going to hold Captain Moroni accountable for putting a blade to someone's throat saying if you don't side with us we cut your head off?

No, he was dealing leniently with criminals guilty of treason and plotting murder.

Are you going to hold Nephi accountable for the premeditated cutting off of Laban's head while he was lying in a drunken stupor upon the ground?

No, because we know God commanded it and has the authority to authorize anyone's death. Are you saying Lincoln had direct approval from God for the war?

Are you going to hold Abraham accountable for contemplating and nearly completing the murder of his son?

Not murder, sacrifice at God's command.

You know, none of these examples are anything remotely close to Lincoln's situation. The constitution didn't even exist in these men's days. You keep making these comparisons and generalizations that have no validity as far as I can see.

Basically I don't have enough knowledge of the realities of the situation to make a correct determination for or against.

Exactly my point! What do you know about the situation? Only that it is a fact he broke his oath to uphold the constitution and started a war costing man many lives. That is treason, plain and simple. So how can you defend him against those FACTS with pure speculation and a few poor comparisons to BoM men?

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to the conspiracies that existed or didn't exist with Lincoln and the realities of what he was up against? Or the divine revelation he did or didn't receive?

No I can't, I know of no evidence for any of this stuff. That's kind of the point. His own words say he fought for one reason only; not to free the slaves, not to fight a conspiracy, but only to "preserve the union". If you have proof that he received divine revelation, then by all means share it. Otherwise, don't expect me to believe he had divine revelation anymore than G.W Bush. I look at their actions and they do not inspire confidence in me that either of these presidents was acting under God's orders, whatever claims they may have made to the contrary.

[Rensai]

No Beck's postion is only "historically valid" if you like revisionist history, mixed with the statist view of America, and a "Union" of states that is enforced by the sword - and a monsterous federal government that does as it pleases.Only then his postion is valid- that is if you are a statist, who believes in a strong federal government with weak states. Ironically this is the opposite (Beck and Lincoln's position) of our founders views (except Hamilton and a few others)

I will include a very good source for both Lincoln, and the root cause(s) for the Civil War. I realize it's far easier to say that Civil War was about slavery, especially if Glenn Beck says it was. However, for those who are prepared to pay the price to study the issue out in depth and be honest with themselves in challenging some deep-held paradiems of thought, they will come to a knowledge that the Civil War was not about slavery and that Lincoln was no hero either.

I won't argue the issue, I've spent years reading thousands of pages on the subject and I've drawn my own conclusons based upon the facts- the truth is out there for those willing to be honest and do their own homework.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/lincoln-arch.html


Good Luck.

Post flagged for blatant self-righteousness, hubris, arrogance, loftiness, pride, vanity, and a Messiah complex.

You could use a dose of humility. This post should be held as prime example of how to speak and think like the devil wants you to.

Yeah, you tell him J, you're clearly taking the high road here.