Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

KMCopeland wrote:
mhewett wrote:Listening to skousens talks reveals some very interesting facts as to the question of being extreme. In one talk he relates how in 1953, a communication between China and russia was intercepted. this contained the communist plan to take over the world. By 1970, the USA was to have been under communist control. Makes you think twice about if McCarthyism was actually on the mone.
Was the US under communist control by 1970?


The communists never made any bones about the fact that they wanted the entire world to be communists too. This is only something to fear if 1)you think they could have pulled that off and 2)if they pulled it off. I don't think they could have pulled it off, and I know that they didn't.

I would like for most of the world to have democracy. I think it's the best way for the most people to have good lives. Maybe there are communists who think that is as sinister as you and others, seem to feel their devotion to communism is. Or was. Does that make it so? Them believing that?

I just don't think there are as many things to fear as you do. Don't get me wrong. There are things to fear. Communism? I don't think it's one of them. It's a weakened philosphy, and a repudiated form of government. It is my considered belief that we are not now in any danger from it, if we ever were.

Not communism so much as cronyism and corruption from both politicians and some prominent members of society. As I have often said, the question of whether someone is into encouraging one to obey God's commandments, or tolerating his worship, that is more important than speculating on who killed Kennedy, or who is a secret communist. One can wear any number of labels and be just as much an enemy to freedom. Even the conspiracy nuts are enemies of Freedom, if they had their ideas carried out as policy, where commonsense approach of government is irrational to them. In fact, one has to have an open mind to accept the real possibility that both sides have their own conspiracies against God and his church, and both sides also have some people who are reasonable, tolerant, or even friendly to the Lord's church. Even Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy pointed out that Mormonism doesn't make a person an enemy to freedom, unlike the crazed rants of far-right evangelicals. It's more important to go by the proscribed test of who is encouraging right and who isn't. One might actually find reason to check one's affiliations if one finds that by the prayer test prescribed by Nephi, or the commandments/faith test prescribed by Mormon to Moroni, where a person or group's allegiances are. Conspiracy speculation tends to go off the deep end, yield no policy proposal, and ultimately contradicts itself.
mhewett wrote:The brethren noticed that meetings were becoming contentious and while they wanted the constitution to become a part of discussions, the contention made that idea impossible so they had to move away from that line of discussion.
Wise indeed.
mhewett wrote: Listen to his talks and you will learn a lot about the man and what really happened to him in his life.
I've heard some of this talks and I've read his books. I think he was probably a really sweet, truly wonderful man. I know he was a good Latter Day Saint and that tells me wonderful things about him too. But there are people, some of them on this board, who have all but replaced the brethren with him. As though his politics were prophecies from the mouth of God, and if the current Church leadership, and/or membership, doesn't toe the W. Cleon Skousen political mark they are out of line. I don't think he would have approved of that.
Definitely, he has his own opinions, but I wouldn't take the conspiracy speculation above the words of GAs.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

buffalo_girl wrote:
if you had your children potentially called off to war, IMHO, that would raise a whole lot of questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought.

I certainly do NOT need a maimed or murdered child to 'raise questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought'!

Should we cheerfully lead our children to the altar of Moloch for the High Priests of lucifer to sacrifice them to their god?
You don't have to have your children killed. The prospect of the draft being there would raise a lot of skepticism about war early on. Nowadays, only a fraction of parents have their kids serving in the military. A great deal of down to Earth voters don't care and are hawkish about war. Take a look at Switzerland. What wars do they get involved in? If anything, the fact that Switzerland has mandatory military service shows a decent degree of deterrence, even to the idea of going off into foreign wars.

Military service has nothing to do with Moloch worship. Neglecting your child's care to play video games all day is more idolatrous than sending them into the military. Assuming that your kid will just learn the gospel is plenty idolatrous. Not making the gospel in your family is idolatrous. Use of narcotics is idolatry, because as you succumb to the substances of heroin or cocaine, you love the heroin or the coke, or the meth, more than your own children, and more than God. If anything, I would recommend watching the church's message on military service. If you think your words and comparison to idolatry are better than theirs, I'm sorry but I will just have to disagree.

https://www.lds.org/callings/military-r ... s?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The fact of the matter is, we live in a world where it's really up to each of us individually to push for more worship of God, regardless of whether you are military or not. If there was zero potential to believe in the Gospel while serving in the military, not just difficult, but impossible, would you think the Church would have resources for servicemembers in the church?

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by lundbaek »

There have been numerous attempts by numerous people, including university professors, mission presidents, as well as members of this forum, to denigrate Dr. WC Skousen. I note a few of us forum members have had opportunities to get personally acquainted with him. There were times when he hosted discussions in his home in SLC that some of you forum members attended. He was invited to give many lectures over the years. For a year and an half I rented a room in his house in Provo 1970 - 1972 and had other occasions to visit with him as well. On topics the likes of which we discuss on this forum I would trust his experience, honesty, and knowledge above anyone except a prophet speaking as such.

GeeR
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1635

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by GeeR »

Me too!

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by KMCopeland »

Benjamin_LK wrote:I don't necessarily agree with his take on Capitalism (watch the blowback on that statement). I think Conservative thought tends to equate Capitalism exclusively with unalienable rights. I don't.
I don't either.
Benjamin_LK wrote:It seems to me the Constitution is pretty straight forward as far as it goes. I see a couple of areas having to do with Executive Power during wartime that makes me wish it could be fine tuned a bit.
I think it can be fine-tuned a bit. I think that was built-in.

Benjamin_LK wrote:I don't know, but I see the conspiracy mongering extremists as a problem because they are unwilling to accept practical solutions. If a deadly disease is going around, you quarantine areas with the infectees to protect other people from contracting the dangerous disease. You also can't trust people trying to leave the area. But when the disease is done, you can go back to business as usual.
I like your reasonable position. Very much.
Benjamin_LK wrote:I generally agree with the rejected bill of Chuck Hagel proposing we reinstate the draft. It would raise a lot of questions to people if we had a draft as to whether or not we should actually go fight a war. Switzerland seems to work in that direction by having mandatory military service. Some might consider it tyranny, but at the same time, if you had your children potentially called off to war, IMHO, that would raise a whole lot of questions as to whether or not the war is worth being fought.
I think we should reinstate the draft for many reasons. The biggest reason is that a draft is the best possible way to eliminate all wars except those that actually threaten us. As opposed to ones designed to steal somebody else's oil for instance. When you're pretty sure it will be somebody else's kids that get killed when you make decisions about war like it's some kind of game, it's a lot easier to get involved in a war. If it's your kids that could get killed -- you might think about it a little harder.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7016

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by buffalo_girl »

I think we should reinstate the draft for many reasons. The biggest reason is that a draft is the best possible way to eliminate all wars except those that actually threaten us. As opposed to ones designed to steal somebody else's oil for instance. When you're pretty sure it will be somebody else's kids that get killed when you make decisions about war like it's some kind of game, it's a lot easier to get involved in a war. If it's your kids that could get killed -- you might think about it a little harder.

How did that work for the 17,671 conscripted soldier who died in Vietnam? Total of 58,220 casualties!

http://www.archives.gov/research/milita ... stics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The first I knew there was a WAR in SE Asia - when very young - was in front of the Federal Building in downtown Portland, Oregon where parents with petitions protested the conscription of their sons. This was BEFORE hippies, radicals, counterculture, and college students.

PARENTS!

As young as I was, I knew there was something rotten when a friend's father showed me the bill of lading for a merchant ship he worked on; Tungsten mining equipment. The entire ship's cargo was for extracting tungsten in Vietnam.

I have yet to meet a man who 'physically' survived the Vietnam war who survived it emotionally.

It ended when soldiers began killing their commanding officers and when returned soldiers led protests against the 'conflict'.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7016

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by buffalo_girl »

MY comment: I don't necessarily agree with his take on Capitalism (watch the blowback on that statement). I think Conservative thought tends to equate Capitalism exclusively with unalienable rights. I don't.

I don't either.

MY comment: It seems to me the Constitution is pretty straight forward as far as it goes. I see a couple of areas having to do with Executive Power during wartime that makes me wish it could be fine tuned a bit.

I think it can be fine-tuned a bit. I think that was built-in.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by KMCopeland »

buffalo_girl wrote:
KMCopeland wrote:I think we should reinstate the draft for many reasons. The biggest reason is that a draft is the best possible way to eliminate all wars except those that actually threaten us. As opposed to ones designed to steal somebody else's oil for instance. When you're pretty sure it will be somebody else's kids that get killed when you make decisions about war like it's some kind of game, it's a lot easier to get involved in a war. If it's your kids that could get killed -- you might think about it a little harder.
buffalo_girl wrote:How did that work for the 17,671 conscripted soldiers who died in Vietnam?
The decision makers on that war could easily get deferments for their children. A new draft would probably be nearly deferment-free. Johnson only had girls -- who then, were automatically draft exempt. Again -- they probably wouldn't be now. Basically, the answer to your question is that was then. This is now. They wouldn't get away with it now.

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7016

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by buffalo_girl »

Basically, the answer to your question is that was then. This is now.

17,671 conscripted soldiers killed in Vietnam is a "that was then"!!?

I expect you do not have the smallest comprehension of how offensive your 'answer' is to me.

War game nerds are super-duper at statistics and 'probabilities'.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by KMCopeland »

buffalo_girl wrote:17,671 conscripted soldiers killed in Vietnam is a "that was then"!!?
That's not remotely what I said. How dishonest of you.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Fiannan »

The decision makers on that war could easily get deferments for their children. A new draft would probably be nearly deferment-free. Johnson only had girls -- who then, were automatically draft exempt. Again -- they probably wouldn't be now. Basically, the answer to your question is that was then. This is now. They wouldn't get away with it now.
First, if women wind up being drafted for a war I will advise my daughters, if not married by then, to head to a sperm bank and get pregnant to avoid it.

Second, you think people are less gullible today than during the 1960s? People took to the streets to protest all sorts of evil then. Nowadays even liberals sing hymns of praise to Obama for his killing of innocents around the world. Many conservatives just sit in front of the TV and watch mindless TV, or switch on the computer and waste hours watching porn. Few people today even respect their bodies enough to get up and exercise.

America is a hollow reflection of what it used to be. Politicians can use that to get away with everything.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Ezra »

1 nephi 22


13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.

Those who war or support the war God has labeled them as the great and abominable church of the devil. Think of the civil war and every war since. We are all his children and he would label us as his if we choose to be rightious. We cannot serve 2 masters. So who do you serve?

Are you part of the great and abomable church which is at war? Or are you the lords people who promote peace time and time again. Only fight in self defence on there own soil and only go to war after God himself has given the commandment to. D&c 98.

KMCopeland
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2279
Location: The American South

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by KMCopeland »

Fiannan wrote:
The decision makers on that war could easily get deferments for their children. A new draft would probably be nearly deferment-free. Johnson only had girls -- who then, were automatically draft exempt. Again -- they probably wouldn't be now. Basically, the answer to your question is that was then. This is now. They wouldn't get away with it now.
First, if women wind up being drafted for a war I will advise my daughters, if not married by then, to head to a sperm bank and get pregnant to avoid it.
They may prefer to serve instead.
Fiannan wrote:Second, you think people are less gullible today than during the 1960s?
You know, all I said was the internet facilitates getting busted a lot quicker now. Reframing someone's position from what it actually is so you can argue with something they didn't say will get you kicked off the debate team. Really, you should watch that.
Fiannan wrote:Nowadays even liberals sing hymns of praise to Obama for his killing of innocents around the world.
Care to provide an example of that?
Fiannan wrote:Many conservatives just sit in front of the TV and watch mindless TV, or switch on the computer and waste hours watching porn. Few people today even respect their bodies enough to get up and exercise.
At least they're not singing hymns of praise to Obama for his killing of innocents around the world. So that's something anyway.

OCDMOM
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1405

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by OCDMOM »

Okay, back to Cleon Skousen. What do you all think about Joel Skousen? Do you think he knows what he is talking about?

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by lundbaek »

I suggest looking over and reading Joel's website at http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Until you have read his ARTICLES, GOVERNMENT COVER-UPS, AND HISTORICAL DECEPTIONS you won't really know much about him.

User avatar
mhewett
captain of 100
Posts: 675

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by mhewett »

KMCopeland wrote:
mhewett wrote:Listening to skousens talks reveals some very interesting facts as to the question of being extreme. In one talk he relates how in 1953, a communication between China and russia was intercepted. this contained the communist plan to take over the world. By 1970, the USA was to have been under communist control. Makes you think twice about if McCarthyism was actually on the mone.
Was the US under communist control by 1970? No of course not, but that was the plan and according to Skousen, they were well on the way.


The communists never made any bones about the fact that they wanted the entire world to be communists too. This is only something to fear if 1)you think they could have pulled that off and 2)if they pulled it off. I don't think they could have pulled it off, and I know that they didn't. Skousen saw that they were on the way and could have pulled it off, especially with help from within the government.

I would like for most of the world to have democracy. I think it's the best way for the most people to have good lives. Maybe there are communists who think that is as sinister as you and others, seem to feel their devotion to communism is. Or was. Does that make it so? Them believing that?

I just don't think there are as many things to fear as you do. Don't get me wrong. There are things to fear. Communism? I don't think it's one of them. It's a weakened philosphy, and a repudiated form of government. It is my considered belief that we are not now in any danger from it, if we ever were. I agree, it is not the threat it once was.
mhewett wrote:The brethren noticed that meetings were becoming contentious and while they wanted the constitution to become a part of discussions, the contention made that idea impossible so they had to move away from that line of discussion.
Wise indeed.
mhewett wrote: Listen to his talks and you will learn a lot about the man and what really happened to him in his life.
I've heard some of this talks and I've read his books. I think he was probably a really sweet, truly wonderful man. I know he was a good Latter Day Saint and that tells me wonderful things about him too. But there are people, some of them on this board, who have all but replaced the brethren with him. I agree that some may have viewed him in that way As though his politics were prophecies from the mouth of God, and if the current Church leadership, and/or membership, doesn't toe the W. Cleon Skousen political mark they are out of line. I don't think he would have approved of that.Agreed

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Ezra wrote:1 nephi 22


13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.

Those who war or support the war God has labeled them as the great and abominable church of the devil. Think of the civil war and every war since. We are all his children and he would label us as his if we choose to be rightious. We cannot serve 2 masters. So who do you serve?

I am not sure what you are talking about, because any votes or Constitutional Power by Church Members to stop the American Civil War was negligible. Regardless, the Civil War was the consequence of the sentiment between people in America over political issues of slavery. Would you hold the Church responsible for Preston Brooks beating down Charles Sumner? Agency is there, if someone, or some government really is determined to commit some awful act, even engage in war, God isn't going to stop them, and the Church has no responsibility to stop them. In the long term, however, everything, good or bad, actually STRENGTHENS the church and helps it STAND TALLER. Many of those called to World War I, World War II, etc. who were or were not members of the church did not take pride in what they were doing. Nevertheless, they had to fight some of these wars.

Are you part of the great and abomable church which is at war? Or are you the lords people who promote peace time and time again. Only fight in self defence on there own soil and only go to war after God himself has given the commandment to. D&c 98.
Context matters. The "Great and Abominable Church" is a description of the opposition to the Lord's church. People are extremely fanatical and sometimes even worship what they believe to be God in seeking to destroy God's church. The opposition carries on an obssessive, or even religious nature. The repetitive, even at times, hypocritical, nature of people trying to oppose temple after temple being constructed is a good example. There are numerous other examples, but safe to say, the Adversary and his followers consider themselves at war with the Church of Christ. So here's the real question: Are you dedicated to seeking out and destroying the Lord's Church?

buffalo_girl
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7016

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by buffalo_girl »

No doubt those of you who express doubt over a threat to our Constitutional Republic are secure in your convictions. I would that you are correct - that the United States governing system is NOT rotten to its core; that good men and honest steer the Nation to a safe and Godly harbor.

As how you regard those of us who believe otherwise, WHY do you care? If we are incorrect in our delusion about the Constitution hanging by a thread, that Tyranny driven by the STATE - by whatever name it be called - is literally at our very doors, then regard our worries with compassion and prayer so that we may find that 'safe & Godly harbor' as a Nation.

Ether 8
23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.

26 Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.


One serious question to consider: IF they be Righteous - those who 'serve' The People in governing systems and institutions - WHY threaten the lives of individuals who bring to light corruption or question policies and programs contrary to God's LAW?

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Ezra »

Benjamin_LK wrote:
Ezra wrote:1 nephi 22


13 And the blood of that great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall turn upon their own heads; for they shall war among themselves, and the sword of their own hands shall fall upon their own heads, and they shall be drunken with their own blood.

Those who war or support the war God has labeled them as the great and abominable church of the devil. Think of the civil war and every war since. We are all his children and he would label us as his if we choose to be rightious. We cannot serve 2 masters. So who do you serve?

I am not sure what you are talking about, because any votes or Constitutional Power by Church Members to stop the American Civil War was negligible. Regardless, the Civil War was the consequence of the sentiment between people in America over political issues of slavery. Would you hold the Church responsible for Preston Brooks beating down Charles Sumner? Agency is there, if someone, or some government really is determined to commit some awful act, even engage in war, God isn't going to stop them, and the Church has no responsibility to stop them. In the long term, however, everything, good or bad, actually STRENGTHENS the church and helps it STAND TALLER. Many of those called to World War I, World War II, etc. who were or were not members of the church did not take pride in what they were doing. Nevertheless, they had to fight some of these wars.

Are you part of the great and abomable church which is at war? Or are you the lords people who promote peace time and time again. Only fight in self defence on there own soil and only go to war after God himself has given the commandment to. D&c 98.
Context matters. The "Great and Abominable Church" is a description of the opposition to the Lord's church. People are extremely fanatical and sometimes even worship what they believe to be God in seeking to destroy God's church. The opposition carries on an obssessive, or even religious nature. The repetitive, even at times, hypocritical, nature of people trying to oppose temple after temple being constructed is a good example. There are numerous other examples, but safe to say, the Adversary and his followers consider themselves at war with the Church of Christ. So here's the real question: Are you dedicated to seeking out and destroying the Lord's Church?
The lds church was not involved in the civil war. Lincoln was. Was lincoln given a commandment from God? If he was why then was the lds church not involved as we should have been involved in Gods works.
So lincoln and the south would be the great and abomable church at the time. If we as members also choose to walk the path of war. We are no longer the lords people unless we are given the commendment from God to go to war. And the only way that will happen is in self defence on our own soil. According to the Book of Mormon and d&c.
The lord has said in d&c 121 many called few chosen. If we "lds" are not chosen we are fighting against God. So you can see we are not his at that point. He has said if ye are not one ye are not mine.
We can only go to war with gods commandment and still be his people.

If we are no longer gods people we are fighting against him. We then belong to that great and abomable church.

I'm not sure why your last response? Did you miss read what I said or not read the posted scripture to understand the content of what was said?

cmichael
captain of 100
Posts: 168

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by cmichael »

I mentioned Skousen one time to my Book of Mormon instructor at the Y, and he let me have it. He was a state legislator, and he had no kind words for Skousen, as he stood with me in the hallway, thumping me on the chest as other students were passing by, lecturing me about how radical Skousen was, and how the brethren accused him of having "imagination"

This renewed my faith that I was going in the right direction. I have read Skousen's works and other so-called "right wingers" and find them to be based on sound principles of liberty, freedom, responsibility, and sound economics.

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Lincoln did his job as POTUS. The Confederacy and it's member states were in open rebellion and robbed the constitutional property of the U.S., and Congress declared war. All of it was constitutional

cmichael
captain of 100
Posts: 168

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by cmichael »

Ezra wrote:
Benjamin_LK wrote:
Ezra wrote:1 nephi 22



I am not sure what you are talking about, because any votes or Constitutional Power by Church Members to stop the American Civil War was negligible. Regardless, the Civil War was the consequence of the sentiment between people in America over political issues of slavery. Would you hold the Church responsible for Preston Brooks beating down Charles Sumner? Agency is there, if someone, or some government really is determined to commit some awful act, even engage in war, God isn't going to stop them, and the Church has no responsibility to stop them. In the long term, however, everything, good or bad, actually STRENGTHENS the church and helps it STAND TALLER. Many of those called to World War I, World War II, etc. who were or were not members of the church did not take pride in what they were doing. Nevertheless, they had to fight some of these wars.



The lds church was not involved in the civil war. Lincoln was. Was lincoln given a commandment from God? If he was why then was the lds church not involved as we should have been involved in Gods works.
So lincoln and the south would be the great and abomable church at the time.
The glaring defect with some of these sentiments is that the war was not about slavery, it was about secession. Lincoln had no desire to free the slaves, it only became an issue years into the war, as a political and military expedient.

Lincoln himself said, ""My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

Much of our political opinion is driven by false history and I fear that too many worldviews are formed from historical revisionism.
What motivated Lincoln was the fear that the South would govern themselves, in much the same way the original colonies had torn away from Britain. The was was about breaking the power of the South, not about any moral issue with respect to slavery.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by lundbaek »

I for one am pleased that the country was held together. It is my understanding, from multiple sources, that it was the desire of the Rothschild clan to facilitate a break-up of the United States. England supported the South to a considerable extent. But what I only recently learned was that Russia sent ships to back-up the Union naval blockade of the Confederate sea ports, and sent some naval forces to the Pacific coast.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Ezra »

Benjamin_LK wrote:Lincoln did his job as POTUS. The Confederacy and it's member states were in open rebellion and robbed the constitutional property of the U.S., and Congress declared war. All of it was constitutional
The entire civil war didn't need to happen.

Joseph smith was running for president when he was murdered. He was polled to win. His party platform was to end slavery by selling off the unconstitutionally owned land. "That you say the south stole. " and pay the slave owners for there slaves. Freeing them. And gifting the remaining unconstitutionally owned land to the freed slaves to get a start on.

The south was trying to leave the union because they felt they were being unfairly taxed. 60% of the taxes came from the south with only 25% of the population located there.
They brought their greavences to congress who ignored them. They were using there constitutional right to leave the union and would have had enough votes to do so if lincoln didn't arrest and imprision the Delaware delligates without charge or trial. Again a unconstitutional act. instead of calling for an emergency session of Congress to discuss the south lincoln instead told congress to stay away for an extra 3 month were he Lincoln claimed war on the south. Another unconstitutional act. During his presidency lincoln arrested without charge and imprisioned without trial over 3000 people. And newspaper or journalists who spoke against Lincoln.

My point is this. The civil war didn't need to happen shouldn't have happrns if the people were following the constitution and were not wicked.

The lds church was not involved In the civil war.
Those involved were part of the great and abomable church who wars against itself. And was drunk on its own blood. They were not doing as the lord asked constitutionlally. And as it says in d&c 98 anything more or less then this "the constitution" cometh evil.

The civil war and war in general is a perfect example of evil that comes from ignoring the constitution.

Just to be clear on unconstitutionally owned land. The constitution states that the only land that can be owned by the governemt is ports armorys and forts. Only land for defenceive purpose.

Again joseph smith was running for president to get rid of the unconstitutional land owned by the governemt.

This bundy ranch mess wouldn't have happed either. This we see again what comes from ignoring gods laws " the constitution"

Benjamin_LK
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2502
Location: Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Skousen: "a conspiracy-mongering extremist"?

Post by Benjamin_LK »

Ezra wrote:
Benjamin_LK wrote:Lincoln did his job as POTUS. The Confederacy and it's member states were in open rebellion and robbed the constitutional property of the U.S., and Congress declared war. All of it was constitutional
The entire civil war didn't need to happen.

Joseph smith was running for president when he was murdered. He was polled to win. His party platform was to end slavery by selling off the unconstitutionally owned land. "That you say the south stole. " and pay the slave owners for there slaves. Freeing them. And gifting the remaining unconstitutionally owned land to the freed slaves to get a start on.

Paid compensation was rejected, even by those who voted in the Primaries, even by the Slave Owners. The voice of the people was firmly against JSJr.'s ideas, for different reasons, but they were against him.

The south was trying to leave the union because they felt they were being unfairly taxed. 60% of the taxes came from the south with only 25% of the population located there.
They brought their greavences to congress who ignored them. They were using there constitutional right to leave the union and would have had enough votes to do so if lincoln didn't arrest and imprision the Delaware delligates without charge or trial. Again a unconstitutional act. instead of calling for an emergency session of Congress to discuss the south lincoln instead told congress to stay away for an extra 3 month were he Lincoln claimed war on the south. Another unconstitutional act. During his presidency lincoln arrested without charge and imprisioned without trial over 3000 people. And newspaper or journalists who spoke against Lincoln.

It was attempted and rejected to free the slaves with compensation, sometimes the debates turned into situations where one Senator murdered abother (Preston Brooks killing Charles Sumner). The actions way preceded the Civil War. The secession began before Lincoln ever took office. He tried a campaign with Stephen Douglas to argue for lower taxes, which failed.

My point is this. The civil war didn't need to happen shouldn't have happrns if the people were following the constitution and were not wicked.

The lds church was not involved In the civil war.
Those involved were part of the great and abomable church who wars against itself. And was drunk on its own blood. They were not doing as the lord asked constitutionlally. And as it says in d&c 98 anything more or less then this "the constitution" cometh evil.

The Constitution itself is divinely inspired. Nowehere does this mean that those in government do no wrong, or that the procedures render results in terms of laws and/or Amendments that you or I will agree with. Was there wickedness in the United States, sure. There was such wickedness that people would fight or drive people out of the state to ensure that the vote would be in their own favor. Some of this was corruption, which the Constitution, and the Lord, with the rules of agency, does not stop. if there's some proof that Lincoln was deliberately making covenants with Satan? I doubt it. More likely than not, Lincoln wanted the matter and conflict over, he wanted the nation to hang on, and frankly, I woubt that any on this forum would just sit by and accept the Confederacy taking away forts and seceding without trying to act against it. Lincoln pretty much admitted that there was animosity on both sides which caused the war. Again, I don't claim to read Lincoln's mind, but all of what I have known about Lincoln shows little to no evidence that Lincoln had a deliberate pact with Satan, but more that he just wanted to finish the fight. A lot of the Far Left Republicans at the time didn't feel Lincoln was hard enough on the South either postwar.

The civil war and war in general is a perfect example of evil that comes from ignoring the constitution.

Actually, it goes to show that the Constitution cannot prevent all wrong. It also illustrates that insurrection and violent rebellion is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because of said war, secession was made unconstitutional, as well as slavery, by process of the Constitutional Amendment, which passed both. Because of the South's insurrection, they had zero say in the Amendment. Had they stayed, they would have had a voice of compromise, or slowing down of the process.

Just to be clear on unconstitutionally owned land. The constitution states that the only land that can be owned by the governemt is ports armorys and forts. Only land for defenceive purpose.

Fort Sumter qualifies for that description, and it was taken by extortion. The South could have sought a treaty or congressional approval to give it up, but they did not.

Again joseph smith was running for president to get rid of the unconstitutional land owned by the government.

The same person who believed in government having a right to ensure that land was preserved and resource consumption controlled

This bundy ranch mess wouldn't have happed either. This we see again what comes from ignoring gods laws " the constitution"

Post Reply