Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Rensai »

Here's a few more quotes to consider.
Thomas DiLorenzo: As for my research and publications on Lincoln, Civil War history was a hobby of mine for years, and I began thinking about how I could combine my profession, economics, with my hobby and get a few things published. I was struck by the fact that for his entire adult political life Lincoln was almost exclusively devoted to Hamiltonian mercantilism – high protectionist tariffs, other forms of corporate welfare, a central bank modeled after the Bank of England to pay for it all, and political patronage and matching politics. It made no sense at all that his ascendancy to the presidency had nothing to do with these issues, as America's court historians say, or that these issues had nothing to do with the reason for the war. In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration – along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.
I know you Lincoln fans discount Thomas DiLorenzo, but this is all fact verifiable by other independent sources. I quote it from him for convenience. All these quotes are his unless otherwise noted. Now Jason, are you so sure Lincoln was on the right side of the conspiracy that is so all important to you? Doesn't this sound a lot like modern presidents who you believe are gadiantons?
Lincoln was immensely unpopular during his time. How could he not have been, with having imprisoned tens of thousands of people in the North without any due process, shutting down hundreds of newspapers, handing thousands of Northern men death sentences in the form of military conscription, and generally ruling as a tyrant. Even with the South out of the union he only won the 1864 election with 55% of the vote, and that was after federal troops were used to rig the elections by intimidating Democratic voters at the polling places.
Do these sound like godly works? tens of thousands imprisoned without due process, hundreds of papers shut down, military conscription, and even voting fraud.
In his December 1861 lectures in Boston and New York City, Northern abolitionist Wendell Phillips declared that "We live today, every one of us, under martial law. The Secretary of State puts into his bastile, with a warrant as irresponsible as that of Louis XIV, any man whom he pleases."
Welcome to the land of the free??
The Civil War was immensely unpopular in the North. That's why Lincoln had to imprison so many dissenters and shut down most of the opposition press. It's also why he resorted to the slavery of military conscription. There were draft riots in New York City and elsewhere. In the July, 1863 New York City draft riots Lincoln sent 15,000 troops who fired into the crowds, killing hundreds in the streets. Entire regiments of Union Army soldiers deserted on the eve of battle again and again, and tens of thousands – probably more – deserted.

Slavery could have been ended peacefully as all other nations did – and as the Northern states did – in the nineteenth century. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853. The real purpose of the war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution. Lincoln, who was the political son of Jefferson's nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, removed that cornerstone by orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 fellow American citizens, including more than 50,000 civilians according to historian James McPherson.
50,000 civilians... thats ok, just collateral damage right?
In his bid for absolute power, Lincoln used "treason" as a pretext to unleash war and shred the Constitution. Freedom of the press was curtailed. The Chicago Times was one of over 300 Northern newspapers suppressed for expressing "incorrect" views. As late as May 18, 1864, Lincoln ordered his military to "arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce."
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. He criminalized speech and legalized arbitrary arrests. Twenty thousand political prisoners were held incommunicado and denied legal counsel. Maryland's legislature was overthrown, and New York City was placed under military occupation.
It was no mere coincidence that the post-war Grant administration became notorious for political corruption associated with the government subsidization of the transcontinental railroads. American politicians had debated the constitutionality of granting taxpayer-financed subsidies to corporations ever since 1789. The biggest opposition to the subsidies came from the South: presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler all opposed them, or insisted that the Constitution be amended first to permit them. Northern politicians were always the biggest supporters of corporate welfare.

In The Real Lincoln I quote the historian Leonard P. Curry as saying that after the war there were no longer any "constitutional scruples" about squandering taxpayers' money on corporate boondoggles. The railroads were only the beginning of what is on display today with multi-trillion dollar bailouts of Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler, and even now the Greek banks (which Wall Street must be heavily invested in).
Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.
As for why Lincoln was assassinated, I suspect it was simply an act of revenge for having micromanaged the murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow American citizens from the Southern states; burning many of their cities and towns to the ground; and plundering tens of millions of dollars of private property. Southerners also knew that Lincoln had attempted to have their president, Jefferson Davis, assassinated by Union Army soldiers. (Look up "The Dahlgren Raid" on the Web).
I could list more... but it doesn't seem like any crimes are too great to be excused on the pretext that "maybe god inspired him" or "maybe he was fighting against some conspiracy group." But for those willing to look at the evidence with an open mind, this stuff is pretty damning and shows Lincoln pulled a lot of the same tactics the gadiantons use today and even a few they haven't dared to use yet such as martial law.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:
Jason wrote: 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.
So Mormon as commander of the Nephites will be held accountable for the following????
And it is impossible for the tongue to describe, or for man to write a perfect description of the horrible scene of the blood and carnage which was among the people, both of the Nephites and of the Lamanites; and every heart was hardened, so that they adelighted in the shedding of blood continually.

And there never had been so great awickedness among all the children of Lehi, nor even among all the house of Israel, according to the words of the Lord, as was among this people.


Jason wrote: 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. :lol:
For behold, the same that judgeth brashly shall be judged rashly again; for according to his works shall his wages be; therefore, he that smiteth shall be smitten again, of the Lord.
Jason wrote: 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.
You are saying the Constitution is greater than the 10 commandments???

You have no proof that Lincoln's case isn't similar.....
Jason wrote: 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.
Jason wrote: 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 saying he didn't?
Jason wrote: 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.
ahh yes its all about the Constitution....what would men have done before the revealing of the Constitution.....
Jason wrote: 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?
Ahh oh wise one who knows all.....let me acquiesce to the greatness of your knowledge so cleverly displayed in such a simple summary!
Jason wrote: 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.
At this point in time I could provide evidence of visits by angels and you wouldn't accept a word of it....

Do you have evidence that he didn't receive inspiration? The words of the prophets since ought to be enough.....but so be it!

If you want to know....do your own research. I've done enough to know I could not convict the man for trying to save the union and consequently the liberty of all its citizens. Is he perfect? No. Did he trample on the Constitution? Yes. Did he try to reverse the steps after the war? Yes. Was there a conspiracy to split the country and destroy it? I believe yes.
Agree to disagree!

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:Here's a few more quotes to consider.
Thomas DiLorenzo: As for my research and publications on Lincoln, Civil War history was a hobby of mine for years, and I began thinking about how I could combine my profession, economics, with my hobby and get a few things published. I was struck by the fact that for his entire adult political life Lincoln was almost exclusively devoted to Hamiltonian mercantilism – high protectionist tariffs, other forms of corporate welfare, a central bank modeled after the Bank of England to pay for it all, and political patronage and matching politics. It made no sense at all that his ascendancy to the presidency had nothing to do with these issues, as America's court historians say, or that these issues had nothing to do with the reason for the war. In fact, in his first inaugural address he literally threatened "invasion" and "bloodshed" (his exact words) if the Southern states that had seceded refused to continue to pay the federal tariff on imports, the average rate of which had just been doubled two days earlier. The entire agenda of Hamiltonian mercantilism was put into place during the Lincoln administration – along with the first income tax, the first military conscription law, and the creation of the internal revenue bureaucracy, among other monstrosities.
I know you Lincoln fans discount Thomas DiLorenzo, but this is all fact verifiable by other independent sources. I quote it from him for convenience. All these quotes are his unless otherwise noted. Now Jason, are you so sure Lincoln was on the right side of the conspiracy that is so all important to you? Doesn't this sound a lot like modern presidents who you believe are gadiantons?
Lincoln was immensely unpopular during his time. How could he not have been, with having imprisoned tens of thousands of people in the North without any due process, shutting down hundreds of newspapers, handing thousands of Northern men death sentences in the form of military conscription, and generally ruling as a tyrant. Even with the South out of the union he only won the 1864 election with 55% of the vote, and that was after federal troops were used to rig the elections by intimidating Democratic voters at the polling places.
Do these sound like godly works? tens of thousands imprisoned without due process, hundreds of papers shut down, military conscription, and even voting fraud.
In his December 1861 lectures in Boston and New York City, Northern abolitionist Wendell Phillips declared that "We live today, every one of us, under martial law. The Secretary of State puts into his bastile, with a warrant as irresponsible as that of Louis XIV, any man whom he pleases."
Welcome to the land of the free??
The Civil War was immensely unpopular in the North. That's why Lincoln had to imprison so many dissenters and shut down most of the opposition press. It's also why he resorted to the slavery of military conscription. There were draft riots in New York City and elsewhere. In the July, 1863 New York City draft riots Lincoln sent 15,000 troops who fired into the crowds, killing hundreds in the streets. Entire regiments of Union Army soldiers deserted on the eve of battle again and again, and tens of thousands – probably more – deserted.

Slavery could have been ended peacefully as all other nations did – and as the Northern states did – in the nineteenth century. There were still slaves in New York City as late as 1853. The real purpose of the war was to end once and for all the ability of American citizens to control the federal government by possessing the powers given to them by the Tenth Amendment, including the power of nullifying unconstitutional federal laws, and secession or the threat of secession. Thomas Jefferson believed that the Tenth Amendment was the cornerstone of the Constitution. Lincoln, who was the political son of Jefferson's nemesis, Alexander Hamilton, removed that cornerstone by orchestrating the murder of some 350,000 fellow American citizens, including more than 50,000 civilians according to historian James McPherson.
50,000 civilians... thats ok, just collateral damage right?
In his bid for absolute power, Lincoln used "treason" as a pretext to unleash war and shred the Constitution. Freedom of the press was curtailed. The Chicago Times was one of over 300 Northern newspapers suppressed for expressing "incorrect" views. As late as May 18, 1864, Lincoln ordered his military to "arrest and imprison . . . the editors, proprietors and publishers of the New York World and the New York Journal of Commerce."
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. He criminalized speech and legalized arbitrary arrests. Twenty thousand political prisoners were held incommunicado and denied legal counsel. Maryland's legislature was overthrown, and New York City was placed under military occupation.
It was no mere coincidence that the post-war Grant administration became notorious for political corruption associated with the government subsidization of the transcontinental railroads. American politicians had debated the constitutionality of granting taxpayer-financed subsidies to corporations ever since 1789. The biggest opposition to the subsidies came from the South: presidents Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, and Tyler all opposed them, or insisted that the Constitution be amended first to permit them. Northern politicians were always the biggest supporters of corporate welfare.

In The Real Lincoln I quote the historian Leonard P. Curry as saying that after the war there were no longer any "constitutional scruples" about squandering taxpayers' money on corporate boondoggles. The railroads were only the beginning of what is on display today with multi-trillion dollar bailouts of Wall Street, General Motors and Chrysler, and even now the Greek banks (which Wall Street must be heavily invested in).
Lincoln had sent warships to Charleston Harbor, and successfully duped the South Carolinians into foolishly firing on the fort. Afterwards, Lincoln wrote a letter of thanks and congratulation to his naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in getting the war started in this way. It was the biggest political miscalculation in American history: Lincoln (and many other Northerners) believed the war would be relatively bloodless and last only a few weeks or months.
As for why Lincoln was assassinated, I suspect it was simply an act of revenge for having micromanaged the murder of hundreds of thousands of fellow American citizens from the Southern states; burning many of their cities and towns to the ground; and plundering tens of millions of dollars of private property. Southerners also knew that Lincoln had attempted to have their president, Jefferson Davis, assassinated by Union Army soldiers. (Look up "The Dahlgren Raid" on the Web).
I could list more... but it doesn't seem like any crimes are too great to be excused on the pretext that "maybe god inspired him" or "maybe he was fighting against some conspiracy group." But for those willing to look at the evidence with an open mind, this stuff is pretty damning and shows Lincoln pulled a lot of the same tactics the gadiantons use today and even a few they haven't dared to use yet such as martial law.
I'm not a Lincoln fan per se......but I do find your accusations ironic. Actually one of my relatives was hung by the neck until dead for participating in the plot to murder Lincoln. I also, like many, had family on both sides of the war.

Lincoln was assassinated for going against the bankers.....his Greenbacks thwarted their goals. Had he been allowed to continue....the power structure in this nation would be vastly different!

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Some additional reading for those interested.....

The most extensive documentation of long-term Illuminist plotting to destroy the American Republic, from before the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to the leadership of the secession movements that provoked the war of 1861-65 and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is:

William H. McIlhany, No Civil War At All: Eighty Years of Conspiracy to Destroy the United States, 1790-1870, serialized in Journal of Individualist Studies, Vol. 1, Nos. 1-2 (Winter, Fall, 1992).

A few of these sources include:

Orville J. Victor, History of American Conspiracies: A Record of Treason, Insurrection, Rebellion, &c. in the United States of America, from 1760 to 1860 (New York: James D. Torrey, Publisher, 1863, reprinted, New York: Arno Press, 1969)

An Authentic Exposition of the "K.G.C.", "Knights of the Golden Circle;" or A History of Secession from 1834 to 1861 (Indianapolis, 1861).

Felix G. Stidger, ed., 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 (Chicago: Published by the Author, 1903).

John Smith Dye, History of the Plots and Crimes of The Great Conspiracy to Overthrow Liberty in America (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1969).

John A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy: Its Origins and History (New York: A.R. Hart & Co., 1886), pp. 757-779.

John W. Headley, Confederate Operations in Canada and New York (New York: Neale, 1906).

Ollinger Crenshaw, "The Knights of the Golden Circle: The Career of George Bickley," American Historical Review, vol. LXVII, no. l (October, 1941), pp. 23-50.

Roy Sylvan Dunn, "The K.G.C. in Texas, 1860-1861," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. LXX, no. 4 (April, 1967).

George Fort Milton, Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column (New York: Vanguard Press, 1942).

Wood Gray, The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads (New York: Viking Press, 1942).

James D. Horan, Confederate Agent: A Discovery in History (New York: Crown, 1954).

Elbert J. Benton, The Movement for Peace Without a Victory During the Civil War (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972).

Izola Forrester, This One Mad Act ... The Unknown Story of John Wilkes Booth and His Family by His Granddaughter (Boston: Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1937). Proves that Booth was acting as an agent of the K.G.C.

Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959), pp. 3-19. Roscoe's work is largely based on the pioneering research of Otto Eisenschiml. Independent corroboration for this thesis, without emphasis on the K.G.C. or its international connections, is: William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall and David Winfred Gaddy, Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln (Jackson: University of Missi-ssippi Press, 1988).

Michael J. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists (Chicago: F.J. Schulte, 1889), in recent hardback reprint, an exhaustive history of the Chicago Haymarket Square bombing in 1886.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Rensai »

Jason wrote:
I'm not a Lincoln fan per se......but I do find your accusations ironic. Actually one of my relatives was hung by the neck until dead for participating in the plot to murder Lincoln. I also, like many, had family on both sides of the war.

Lincoln was assassinated for going against the bankers.....his Greenbacks thwarted their goals. Had he been allowed to continue....the power structure in this nation would be vastly different!
You pile wishful thinking on top of speculation on top of guess work on top of hearsay. :lol: Call me crazy, but I'll stick to the plain old facts.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:Call me crazy, but I'll stick to the plain old facts.
LOL....written by who????

Go back and study the findings of the Reece Commission!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd- ... tions-1954

....and since your mind is made up on Lincoln may I offer you some interesting "facts" on WWII and its conclusion courtesy of our dear Hugh Nibley and others...

http://www.believeallthings.com/2554/ig ... gh-nibley/

....of course you are always welcome to peruse my suggested reading list of "facts" here -
http://yophat.blogspot.com/2009/05/reading-list.html

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Rensai »

Jason wrote:
Rensai wrote:Call me crazy, but I'll stick to the plain old facts.
LOL....written by who????
Now your just being obstinate. Much comes from Lincoln himself. Do you dispute the historical record of his actions? All the charges DiLorenzo lays out that I quoted, are recorded, historical fact with clear documentation to prove them. Do you dispute that? Even historians who love Lincoln do not dispute that he broke the constitution and did the things I've mentioned. It's public record.

Rather it always comes down to whether the ends justify the means. To me, Joseph Smith makes it clear that they do not, even if sticking to the constitution costs you your life. I've posted that too. I guess what it comes down to is, do you believe the words of Joseph Smith? That the constitution is of God and that it worth dying to uphold; or is it the a document of man to be set aside when it becomes inconvenient? If you believe as Joseph, I don't see how you cannot condemn the clear violations of Abraham Lincoln. In my mind it is that simple. I do not accept rationalizations, or guesses about what might have happened if he had not violated it. That is just speculation, and even if it were solidly documented fact, I do not care if there was 1 conspiracy or 1000. We do not fight them by stooping to their level. The Lord has never worked that way or counseled man to do so. If the constitution was founded on correct principles, then there is never an excuse for violating them. We do not fight sin with more sin.

Historical records seem clear. Lincoln's words are very noble and great, but his works are not.
Jason wrote: Go back and study the findings of the Reece Commission!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd- ... tions-1954
I think I've read that before. Isn't that about tax free foundations? What point are you trying to make?

I hold to what Joseph Smith said. If you can show me good evidence that the entire historical record is wrong, and Lincoln did not violate the constitution, then I will retract everything I've said about it. If you cannot, then Joseph Smith has made it clear, he violated the laws of God and should not be excused. I notice you skipped right over those Joseph Smith quotes. How can you reconcile the fact that Lincoln violated the constitution with those?


Let me make this as simple as I can. There are two possibilities I will accept, but only one of them can be true.

Either Lincoln violated the constitution (and the laws of God), and should be condemned like any other traitor, OR, historical record is wrong and he did not violate the constitution. It is an "exclusive or". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or I accept no exceptions or rationalizations for violations to the constitution. If we do that, then it is a meaningless piece of paper.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:
Jason wrote:
Rensai wrote:Call me crazy, but I'll stick to the plain old facts.
LOL....written by who????
Now your just being obstinate. Much comes from Lincoln himself. Do you dispute the historical record of his actions? All the charges DiLorenzo lays out that I quoted, are recorded, historical fact with clear documentation to prove them. Do you dispute that? Even historians who love Lincoln do not dispute that he broke the constitution and did the things I've mentioned. It's public record.

Never disputed the trampling of the Constitution...stated that many times now. No need to call names....

Rather it always comes down to whether the ends justify the means.

....not so sure about that....
I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. . . .

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for . . . any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

. . . I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .
I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/od/1

...
It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.


.....add Genesis 27 & multiple others...


To me, Joseph Smith makes it clear that they do not, even if sticking to the constitution costs you your life. I've posted that too. I guess what it comes down to is, do you believe the words of Joseph Smith? That the constitution is of God and that it worth dying to uphold; or is it the a document of man to be set aside when it becomes inconvenient? If you believe as Joseph, I don't see how you cannot condemn the clear violations of Abraham Lincoln. In my mind it is that simple. I do not accept rationalizations, or guesses about what might have happened if he had not violated it. That is just speculation, and even if it were solidly documented fact, I do not care if there was 1 conspiracy or 1000. We do not fight them by stooping to their level. The Lord has never worked that way or counseled man to do so. If the constitution was founded on correct principles, then there is never an excuse for violating them. We do not fight sin with more sin.

Historical records seem clear. Lincoln's words are very noble and great, but his works are not.
Jason wrote: Go back and study the findings of the Reece Commission!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3768227/Dodd- ... tions-1954
I think I've read that before. Isn't that about tax free foundations? What point are you trying to make?

Historical "facts" are written by the winners/controllers.....our "modern" education.

I hold to what Joseph Smith said. If you can show me good evidence that the entire historical record is wrong, and Lincoln did not violate the constitution, then I will retract everything I've said about it. If you cannot, then Joseph Smith has made it clear, he violated the laws of God and should not be excused. I notice you skipped right over those Joseph Smith quotes. How can you reconcile the fact that Lincoln violated the constitution with those?


Let me make this as simple as I can. There are two possibilities I will accept, but only one of them can be true.

Either Lincoln violated the constitution (and the laws of God), and should be condemned like any other traitor, OR, historical record is wrong and he did not violate the constitution. It is an "exclusive or". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or I accept no exceptions or rationalizations for violations to the constitution. If we do that, then it is a meaningless piece of paper.
You are correct if the Constitution is a law of God - i.e. a higher law than even the 10 commandments that could not be overruled by direction from God.....and/or you can prove that Lincoln did not receive inspiration to keep the union together.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Rensai »

Jason wrote:
LOL....written by who????
Jason wrote: Never disputed the trampling of the Constitution...stated that many times now. No need to call names....
What is your first response if not disputing? That's what it looks like to me.

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
Not applicable. This was a simple matter of justice. Laban was judged and his crimes merited death. There is no overturning of the constitution or other principles of God there.
Jason wrote: Historical "facts" are written by the winners/controllers.....our "modern" education.
Exactly.. that's why we've all been taught in school that Lincoln was a great man and president.
Jason wrote: You are correct if the Constitution is a law of God - i.e. a higher law than even the 10 commandments that could not be overruled by direction from God.....and/or you can prove that Lincoln did not receive inspiration to keep the union together.
I never said it could not be overruled by God, though I do not believe he has ever done that with correct principles, such as those contained in the constitution. God does not overturn his own principles, if he did, he would cease to be God. Anyway, you've got this backwards. It is not my job to prove this, it is yours. You contend he DID receive the inspiration, so you have the burden of proof. Show me the prophet who says God wanted Abraham Lincoln to start the civil war.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:
Jason wrote:
LOL....written by who????
Jason wrote: Never disputed the trampling of the Constitution...stated that many times now. No need to call names....
What is your first response if not disputing? That's what it looks like to me.

It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
Not applicable. This was a simple matter of justice. Laban was judged and his crimes merited death. There is no overturning of the constitution or other principles of God there.
Jason wrote: Historical "facts" are written by the winners/controllers.....our "modern" education.
Exactly.. that's why we've all been taught in school that Lincoln was a great man and president.
Jason wrote: You are correct if the Constitution is a law of God - i.e. a higher law than even the 10 commandments that could not be overruled by direction from God.....and/or you can prove that Lincoln did not receive inspiration to keep the union together.
I never said it could not be overruled by God, though I do not believe he has ever done that with correct principles, such as those contained in the constitution. God does not overturn his own principles, if he did, he would cease to be God. Anyway, you've got this backwards. It is not my job to prove this, it is yours. You contend he DID receive the inspiration, so you have the burden of proof. Show me the prophet who says God wanted Abraham Lincoln to start the civil war.
Well we are definitely on different wave lengths here. I've said repeatedly that I understood and recognized the steps Lincoln took.

I've also pointed out repeatedly different scenario's where God has gone to a higher law and overruled the lessor law. Or He has put His law on hold with respect to lessor laws of man.

Nice try....you are the one condemning thus the burden of proof falls on you. I neither condemn nor sanctify Lincoln. I have stated (now repeatedly) that I neither uphold nor condemn the man as I do not have enough information. I do not know whether he was inspired or whether he wasn't. I've never contended that Lincoln DID in fact receive revelation....you are putting words in my mouth. I've stated that its possible and I don't know for absolute positive fact that he didn't. So again since you are the one condemning the man therefore the burden of proof falls on YOU (innocent until proven guilty)!!!

With that said, I can see the possibility of God using Lincoln to hold the union together. The plots to overthrow the union are well documented (see suggestions for additional reading several posts previous....and I will add them to this post for your benefit) with the specific actions of the Knights of the Golden Circle (KGC) that ultimately assassinated Lincoln. To the best of my knowledge Lincoln took every step within his capability (including trampling all over the Constitution) in order to keep the union intact and end the war as quickly as possible. In fact he repeatedly fired generals for not being proactive enough and seizing the day.

If the man was a power hungry dictator why would he not extend the war which would further cement his position as dictator....since you suggest that was his sole aim??? Why would he seek to reverse his actions at the conclusion of the war???

There were active attempts to destroy or split apart the US until after the Civil War at which point they then moved to controlling it from within. In fact substantial historical documentation is available portraying the Illuminati's attempts from 1797 up until the conclusion of the Civil War with the evidence produced by Felix G Stidger that wiped out the lower minions of the KGC. You can then follow the (at least in my family) the KGC into the modern developments of the CIA (via George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law Prescott Bush).

Here's some additional reading (I'm assuming you haven't covered these based on your forgone conclusion concerning Lincoln).......the most extensive documentation of long-term Illuminist plotting to destroy the American Republic, from before the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to the leadership of the secession movements that provoked the war of 1861-65 and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is:

William H. McIlhany, No Civil War At All: Eighty Years of Conspiracy to Destroy the United States, 1790-1870, serialized in Journal of Individualist Studies, Vol. 1, Nos. 1-2 (Winter, Fall, 1992). A few of these sources include: Orville J. Victor, History of American Conspiracies: A Record of Treason, Insurrection, Rebellion, &c. in the United States of America, from 1760 to 1860 (New York: James D. Torrey, Publisher, 1863, reprinted, New York: Arno Press, 1969)

An Authentic Exposition of the "K.G.C.", "Knights of the Golden Circle;" or A History of Secession from 1834 to 1861 (Indianapolis, 1861).

Felix G. Stidger, ed., 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 (Chicago: Published by the Author, 1903).

John Smith Dye, History of the Plots and Crimes of The Great Conspiracy to Overthrow Liberty in America (Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1969).
John A. Logan, The Great Conspiracy: Its Origins and History (New York: A.R. Hart & Co., 1886), pp. 757-779.

John W. Headley, Confederate Operations in Canada and New York (New York: Neale, 1906).

Ollinger Crenshaw, "The Knights of the Golden Circle: The Career of George Bickley," American Historical Review, vol. LXVII, no. l (October, 1941), pp. 23-50.

Roy Sylvan Dunn, "The K.G.C. in Texas, 1860-1861," Southwestern Historical Quarterly, vol. LXX, no. 4 (April, 1967).

George Fort Milton, Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column (New York: Vanguard Press, 1942).

Wood Gray, The Hidden Civil War: The Story of the Copperheads (New York: Viking Press, 1942).

James D. Horan, Confederate Agent: A Discovery in History (New York: Crown, 1954).
Elbert J. Benton, The Movement for Peace Without a Victory During the Civil War (New York: Da Capo Press, 1972).

Izola Forrester, This One Mad Act ... The Unknown Story of John Wilkes Booth and His Family by His Granddaughter (Boston: Hale, Cushman & Flint, 1937). Proves that Booth was acting as an agent of the K.G.C.

Theodore Roscoe, The Web of Conspiracy: The Complete Story of the Men Who Murdered Abraham Lincoln (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959), pp. 3-19. - Roscoe's work is largely based on the pioneering research of Otto Eisenschiml. Independent corroboration for this thesis, without emphasis on the K.G.C. or its international connections, is: William A. Tidwell, James O. Hall and David Winfred Gaddy, Come Retribution: The Confederate Secret Service and the Assassination of Lincoln (Jackson: University of Missi-ssippi Press, 1988).

Michael J. Schaack, Anarchy and Anarchists (Chicago: F.J. Schulte, 1889), in recent hardback reprint, an exhaustive history of the Chicago Haymarket Square bombing in 1886.

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Rensai »

Jason wrote: Nice try....you are the one condemning thus the burden of proof falls on you. I neither condemn nor sanctify Lincoln. I have stated (now repeatedly) that I neither uphold nor condemn the man as I do not have enough information. I do not know whether he was inspired or whether he wasn't. I've never contended that Lincoln DID in fact receive revelation....you are putting words in my mouth.
You compare him to Moroni, Abraham, etc. What is that if not justifying him? It also strongly implies that you are stating he was receiving revelation, when you compare him to men who we know did receive revelation.
Jason wrote: 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.
What is this if not trying to justify Lincoln?
Jason wrote: I've stated that its possible and I don't know for absolute positive fact that he didn't. So again since you are the one condemning the man therefore the burden of proof falls on YOU (innocent until proven guilty)!!!
I have proven he was guilty of treason. that is my claim. I never asserted anything about revelation except to say that I have seen no proof one way or the other on that, and therefore, logically I have to default to assuming he did not receive it. Why would I need to prove anything about that? You are the one implying, through your comparisons to Moroni, etc that he was inspired, therefore I said you needed to prove that. If you are not claiming he was inspired and commanded to break the constitution, then on what other basis can you justify his actions? To me it seems like that is the position you are defending.
Jason wrote: If the man was a power hungry dictator why would he not extend the war which would further cement his position as dictator....since you suggest that was his sole aim??? Why would he seek to reverse his actions at the conclusion of the war???
Who knows for sure what the answers are to these questions. It doesn't change the fact that he committed treason. Also, I never said being a dictator was his sole aim, I said that is what he did through his actions. He may have had the best of intentions, but his methods were evil and criminal.
Jason wrote: There were active attempts to destroy or split apart the US until after the Civil War at which point they then moved to controlling it from within. In fact substantial historical documentation is available portraying the Illuminati's attempts from 1797 up until the conclusion of the Civil War with the evidence produced by Felix G Stidger that wiped out the lower minions of the KGC. You can then follow the (at least in my family) the KGC into the modern developments of the CIA (via George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law Prescott Bush).

Here's some additional reading (I'm assuming you haven't covered these based on your forgone conclusion concerning Lincoln).......the most extensive documentation of long-term Illuminist plotting to destroy the American Republic, from before the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to the leadership of the secession movements that provoked the war of 1861-65 and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is:
Thanks for the references, but again, I don't believe in fighting evil with more evil. I do not care what conspiracies were going on. They are interesting to me, but not relevant because they do not justify Lincoln; only God could do that after all the crimes he committed.

User avatar
Jason
Master of Puppets
Posts: 18296

Re: Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions

Post by Jason »

Rensai wrote:
Jason wrote: Nice try....you are the one condemning thus the burden of proof falls on you. I neither condemn nor sanctify Lincoln. I have stated (now repeatedly) that I neither uphold nor condemn the man as I do not have enough information. I do not know whether he was inspired or whether he wasn't. I've never contended that Lincoln DID in fact receive revelation....you are putting words in my mouth.
You compare him to Moroni, Abraham, etc. What is that if not justifying him? It also strongly implies that you are stating he was receiving revelation, when you compare him to men who we know did receive revelation.
Jason wrote: 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.
What is this if not trying to justify Lincoln?
Jason wrote: I've stated that its possible and I don't know for absolute positive fact that he didn't. So again since you are the one condemning the man therefore the burden of proof falls on YOU (innocent until proven guilty)!!!
I have proven he was guilty of treason. that is my claim. I never asserted anything about revelation except to say that I have seen no proof one way or the other on that, and therefore, logically I have to default to assuming he did not receive it. Why would I need to prove anything about that? You are the one implying, through your comparisons to Moroni, etc that he was inspired, therefore I said you needed to prove that. If you are not claiming he was inspired and commanded to break the constitution, then on what other basis can you justify his actions? To me it seems like that is the position you are defending.
Jason wrote: If the man was a power hungry dictator why would he not extend the war which would further cement his position as dictator....since you suggest that was his sole aim??? Why would he seek to reverse his actions at the conclusion of the war???
Who knows for sure what the answers are to these questions. It doesn't change the fact that he committed treason. Also, I never said being a dictator was his sole aim, I said that is what he did through his actions. He may have had the best of intentions, but his methods were evil and criminal.
Jason wrote: There were active attempts to destroy or split apart the US until after the Civil War at which point they then moved to controlling it from within. In fact substantial historical documentation is available portraying the Illuminati's attempts from 1797 up until the conclusion of the Civil War with the evidence produced by Felix G Stidger that wiped out the lower minions of the KGC. You can then follow the (at least in my family) the KGC into the modern developments of the CIA (via George Herbert Walker and his son-in-law Prescott Bush).

Here's some additional reading (I'm assuming you haven't covered these based on your forgone conclusion concerning Lincoln).......the most extensive documentation of long-term Illuminist plotting to destroy the American Republic, from before the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 to the leadership of the secession movements that provoked the war of 1861-65 and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln is:
Thanks for the references, but again, I don't believe in fighting evil with more evil. I do not care what conspiracies were going on. They are interesting to me, but not relevant because they do not justify Lincoln; only God could do that after all the crimes he committed.
Agree to disagree....

Post Reply