LDS Freedom Forum

I walked out of subbing seminary the other day and met up with son of a family that I have known and loved for a long time. I was grieved as I chatted and found that this family...who has shown some enlightenment...is pro-war and pro-Mitt....and some are even pro Rudy (Giuliani not Rudecker)!! I asked if they had investigated Ron Paul...and he said they had. So I walked away and sent him a message with some info and some scriptures to look up regarding war...and how the Lord has to command it or it isn't justified.

My understanding is that there are two main hurdles that we have to leap over to be on the Lord's side entering a war (granted we are righteous)...we need to (in the US) follow the procedure as outlined in the constitution...getting congressional approval...and we need for the Lord to put His stamp of approval on it.

So...that being the case...when was the last war that both of those criteria were met? Do we have anything close to a modern day example of how that should take place? I have never seen any statement by any prophet condoning any of the modern wars. Supporting the troops yes...the war...no.

I would say that the closest endorsement was the Mormon Battalion in modern times.

One thing I'm afraid of is that if Mitt Romney were, as President, to send the US military into war, even without the proper declaration of war by Congress, most American LDSs would assume he was inspired by God simply because he is LDS.

Can you also imagine all the rumors that he was being quietly counseled by the brethren. It would be like the John the traveling food storage hitchhiker bout of rumors that have plagued LDS.

If an LDS US President were to support a program or legislation, or do anything else that is a violation of the US Constitution, like consulting a bunch of lawyers about going to war instead of insisting that Congress make that declaration, or like initiating a manditory national health care program, are we to assume that action has the the Lord's approval?

If an LDS US President were to support a program or legislation, or do anything else that is a violation of the US Constitution, like consulting a bunch of lawyers about going to war instead of insisting that Congress make that declaration, or like initiating a manditory national health care program, are we to assume that action has the the Lord's approval?

I'm assuming your question was rhetorical. But just in case it wasn't, I'll answer it:

Nope.

I have encountered people who would assume he was being quietly counseled by the brethren or directly by the Lord. Probably many of you have also.

We have an all volunteer army. We have undeclared wars because idiots volunteer.

These wars are supported by people that pay voluntary income taxes.

Idiots get what they deserve.

A nation of lemmings and sheep, unwilling to learn what the laws say and mean, deserves the tyranny it tolerates. –C.F. Charpentier

Main Entry:
1vol·un·teer
Pronunciation:
\ˌvä-lən-ˈtir\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
obsolete French voluntaire (now volontaire), from voluntaire, adjective, voluntary, from Old French, from Latin voluntarius
Date:
circa 1600

1: a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service: as a: one who enters into military service voluntarily b (1): one who renders a service or takes part in a transaction while having no legal concern or interest (2): one who receives a conveyance or transfer of property without giving valuable consideration

SwissMrs&Pitchfire wrote:I would say that the closest endorsement was the Mormon Battalion in modern times.

That is intriguing. I'll have to go back and investigate.

I hear the other comments regarding Mitt. Regardless of how many public statements from Mitt and the church make regarding Mitts views being his own...people will continue to believe they are connected. If he is elected...I fear for the saints. It would certainly help to expedite some prophecy regarding persecution of the saints!

I only mention it because Brigham Young recruited men to volunteer for it. Not a direct endorsement given that the government sent a recruiter to solicit it and there was the whole leaving the states loyalty question that might have been the compelling reason...?

I have encountered people who would assume he was being quietly counseled by the brethren or directly by the Lord. Probably many of you have also.

I would imagine that being more of a back-channel...warning..."Careful Mitt...not a wise thing, Mitt..."

This hypothetical situation would likely be limited to the more egregious and obvious poor courses of action.

So...I texted back and forth with the young man in front of the church buildings brother...then I was asked to send their family an email....this is what I sent...sorry...it's long...

............. family,

Hey there my friends. I hope that you can look at my history with your family and have found that I am a sincere person…and that you know that I care deeply for your family. The following will be long…but I hope that you will read it. It is my conversion story. It may not flow all that great as it will be written as things come to mind without revision.

So. Several years back I was teaching seminary. I was politically kind of out of the loop. I was registered a republican…because regardless of what the statements are regarding neutrality of the church on parties…our “mormon culture” espouses the republican party as the one that good LDS people are a part of. I listened to news talk radio and spent my time dreaming about all of the stuff I wanted…..the dream house I wanted to buy…how I was going to build my mansion here on earth. I read my scriptures and got stuff out of them. I was in financial services and worked long hours. I was not doing anything “bad” but it is a fact that I still had one foot in Babylon . I did not “hunger and thirst” after righteousness. I enjoyed the scriptures…but was not driven to read them. I wanted to relax and watch TV…I wanted to turn on some music. I was addicted to noise. All was well in Zion …I was lukewarm….ready to be spewed.

The prophet came out and challenged the saints to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year. I quite honestly didn’t plan on doing it. I was teaching seminary in the morning…running a large office during the day…meeting with clients during the evening and then going home at dark to study a lesson for the next days seminary. I didn’t see how I had time to read for the next days lesson and also be reading elsewhere in the BOM. My wife called me on it and said “You had better not tell those seminary students that they should read it by the end of the year if you aren’t willing to do it!” So what I decided to do was to listen to the Book of Mormon on my ipod on my 45 minute drive to my office. Then I listened to it for 45 minutes driving home. At first it was hard…I was struggling to stay awake…and I was like a drug addict going through withdrawals wanting to put on the radio to sing along. Then my heart started to change. I soon found that the taste for the things of the world left me. I stopped thinking about all of the money I wanted to make to buy stuff…and became driven to learn of God like I have never been before.

It was as if I had been asleep and didn’t know it. I was in a fog and walked up the mountain to a clearing where all became clear to me. I had been so blind! I found that I had no idea up until that point what the Book of Mormon even was…and how it was written for our day. I began listening to the Book of Mormon a minimum of once a month. I found out what this statement by Ezra Taft Benson means…

I have noted within the Church a difference in discernment, insight, conviction, and spirit between those who know and love the Book of Mormon and those who do not. That book is a great sifter. (News of the Church, Ensign, Mar. 1987, 75)

My gospel studies were going for an hour of seminary…and hour and a half BOM study in my car…my studies in the evening for the next days class…and whatever else I could fit in. I was studying the gospel for a minimum of 3 hours every day…,.and I changed.

It was about this time that I had my first dream. I tell you this in complete soberness. My first dream involved teaching in seminary. The second one…the Lord told me that I was going to be called into a bishopric…and that I had to leave the firm I was with. On the day I left my firm…I was called into the stake presidents office and called into the bishopric. Since that time I have had many dreams where the Lord has shown me sobering things regarding events that will take place in the last days.

I have been pressed and pressed upon by the Lord to study and prepare. Primarily regarding the last days, preparedness, the constitution, government…and so on. I feel…quite honestly…that I am a missionary to my own people….the bulk of whom I believe have the meat hooks of Babylon sunk deep into their flesh…to encourage them to prepare for the coming of the Lord.

I don’t believe that most of our people understand the constitution and it’s importance. I don’t believe that most of our people understand what their feelings should be on war. I don’t believe that most of our people understand why food storage is so important. I believe that our people have not studied the words of the prophets on the proper role of government. Etc….etc…etc.

I believe that Helaman 6:38 is happening on many levels…

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.

I was pro-war until I read the words of the Lord…and the words of the prophets. I had bought into the sophistry spewed from the media. Much like in Alma 48…

1 And now it came to pass that, as soon as aAmalickiah had obtained the kingdom he began to binspire the hearts of the Lamanites against the people of Nephi; yea, he did appoint men to speak unto the Lamanites from their ctowers, against the Nephites.

I firmly believe that many of our latter-day saint brothers and sisters have fallen into the trap of being "warmongers" and don't know it.

Here are some things to study. It is in regards to war and preemptive war.

Read section 98 of the doctrine and covenants

Answer these questions...

Is it ALL law that the Lord would have us follow? Vs 6

If our government leader is not righteous....should we uphold them? vs10

Is it OK to be an advocate for war....to desire it...and instigate it? vs.16

When is it OK to go to war? vs33

What is the Lords process for getting His approval? vs.34-48

Did we get the Lords approval for Iraq ?

What was the last war that we did get approval for?

After 9-11 in general conference Gordon B. Hinckley said in "The times in which we live" ....

"Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions."

This is about as close a statement as I can find that could even remotely be misconstrued to mean that the prophet condoned the war. The bottom line with this statement is that American citizens (including pres hinckley) stand by the president in holding accountable the evil people that did the attack (whomever they may be!). It is a leap to say that to be "held accountable" means invading another country.

For those that have eyes to see and ears to hear.....can see something in the next passage from his talk entitled "a testimony vibrant and true" from the first presidency in 2005 where he said "

The Book of Mormon narrative is a chronicle of nations long since gone. But in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems.
I know of no other writing which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere . Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras.

Read that....then reread it...and then reread it again.

So....if the book of mormon is better that the newspaper for finding solutions to our problems....lets find out what the BOM says…

Read the following verses and find out what it says about preemptive strikes....just one topic that it addresses that applies to our current situation...

Mormon 3:9-16,4:4-5
3 Nephi 3 esp...20-21
Alma 48:14-16

Read this excerpt... Spencer W. Kimball, “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, June 1976, 3

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:44–45.)
We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, "Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them" (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha." (2 Kgs. 6:17.)
Enoch, too, was a man of great faith who would not be distracted from his duties by the enemy: "And so great was the faith of Enoch, that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch." (Moses 7:13.)
What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.
We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the "arm of flesh," for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, "I will not spare any that remain in Babylon ." (D&C 64:24.)
When Peter preached such a message as this to the people on the day of Pentecost, many of them "were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37.)
And Peter answered: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and … receive the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38.)
As we near the year 2,000, our message is the same as that which Peter gave. And further, that which the Lord himself gave "unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear:
"Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh." (D&C 1:11–12.)
We believe that the way for each person and each family to prepare as the Lord has directed is to begin to exercise greater faith, to repent, and to enter into the work of his kingdom on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It may seem a little difficult at first, but when a person begins to catch a vision of the true work, when he begins to see something of eternity in its true perspective, the blessings begin to far outweigh the cost of leaving "the world" behind.
Herein lies the only true happiness, and therefore we invite and welcome all men, everywhere, to join in this work. For those who are determined to serve the Lord at all costs, this is the way to eternal life. All else is but a means to that end.
That’s good for that topic…I there are also a plethora of talks on lds.org that support an anti-war position…as well as many other scriptures.

As far as whom to support for president. I don’t want to get into a big….my guy is better than your guy thing. I will say this. I believe that if Mitt Romney were Baptist…unattractive…and running on the democrat ticket…that there are few LDS people that would be voting for him. I was first turned off to him when I read “The Mitt Romney Deception” which outlined his changing positions over the years…and his pandering to homosexual groups and so on. http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/

I have gone to his site many times to be familiar with his positions. I think he is right on track regarding some matters…such as with illegal immigration. I don’t care for his proposed use of the biometric card though. I have read up on his health care…which he calls “free market” and then everything that I read on it that outlines it makes it sound socialistic. Anywho…..

I support Ron Paul for president. I believe that his views are the closest to what the founding fathers had in mind…and what the prophets have taught regarding the proper role of government. I love the fact that I can go back and look at his voting record in congress over the last 10 years and see that he has consistently voted how I believe. I believe that our country is in great peril…and that the drastic changes he espouses are a last ditch effort to try to turn the tide towards a constitutional government…

Here is a must read by Ezra Taft Benson called “The Proper Role of Government”…

http://www.zionsbest.com/proper_role.html

Anyways…it is crazy late…and I must sleep. I love your family and hope that I have not come off poorly in any way. I didn’t mean to if I did. I would love to chat about any issues…or to support any claim I have made with the words of the prophets. Merry Christmas to all…and to all a goodnight.

Stephen Nix

This is what I got back from a brother I hadn't spoken to...

Hi Brother Nix,

I enjoyed your email to our family and would like to give you some of my reaction as a LDS Romney supporter.

I don’t have time to go over each of your points—we should talk about all this in person some time. but my main point that I want to put out there is that there are just wars and unjust wars and if your always pro-war, then your going to be wrong some of the time, and if your always anti-war then your going to be wrong some of the time.


I agree that Helaman 6;38 is happening to an unknown extent. But I’m not quite sure how you’re trying to tie that in to your anti-war theme. This verse is not about war; it’s about the infiltration of an evil secret society in to the Nephites civilization, which murder, seal, and plunder.

The “them” that the Nephites built up and supported were the Gadianton robbers. The reason that they were allowed to spread through out the land of the Nephites is because the “more wicked” supported them while the less wicked did nothing; until it had spread to the more part of the righteous as well as the wicked.

The evil society spread because it was un-confronted. The verse before (Hel 6:37) shows how the Lamanites avoided being taken over by the Gadianton robbers:

37 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.

The Lamanites hunted down and utterly destroyed the Gadianton robbers from among them; while, they preached the word of God to the wicked and this brought peace to their lands. In this case, what would be called by the sound-bight over-simplifier of today “pro-war” was the right position and brought peace. While, on the other hand, the Nephites inability to hunt down and destroy the evil that threatened them lead to their destruction.

And of course, the Nephites in Mormon 3:9-16 who were “pro-war”, blood thirsty, and drunken with revenge were past feeling and fighting a grossly unjust war—even devolving to sadistic torture and cannibalism. And although you used this example to show an example of the unjustness of preempted war—I hope that you wouldn’t say that the Iraq war is in this same category.

section 98 is awesome because it clarifies the doctrines of “turning the other cheek” and “forgiving 70 x 7” because in the Bible these doctrines, in my mind, are clearly describing person to person relation in a micro realm, but some in Christendom have misconstrued these doctrines to apply in the macro realm—nation to nation. So they think that we should turn the other cheek if we are attacked by another nation—if they bomb New York give them LA as well.

But section 98 clarifies this.
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will asmite you, or your families, once, and ye bbear it patiently and crevile not against them, neither seek drevenge, ye shall be erewarded;

So here (v. 23-31) is the law for the micro person to person relations. you should patiently bear them actually hitting you and/or your family 3 times them you are justified in reacting if you choose to or you can opt for more blessings and spare them.

Verses 33-38 lay out the law for nation to nation relation—rhyme intended— (and it includes kindred, tongues and peoples too, so it would include a nationless group like alkida)

33 And again, this is the alaw that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of apeace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would afight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an aensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.


This section is directed to the saints in Missouri. so, according to this, before they (the saints in Zion) can justify going to war against the Missouri militia/mob, the Missouri militia/mob would have to proclaim war against them—you don’t have to wait for a strike like in v. 23-31, they only have to declare their intent to go to war with them—then if they do this 3 times while the saint continue to declare peace, then they can take this to the Lord and he “would [not may or might] give unto them a commandment [not stated, but presumably through the Prophet], and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

The church did not go to war against Iraq—our government did. So president Hinckley doesn’t need to officially approve or disapprove of this war, nor will he because he is not the head of the US government—he’s the earthly head of the church. If this was not the case he would have been morally obligated to come out on one side of this war or the other—you can’t justly stay officially neutral if you’re the deciding factor.

But verse 38 says that this is an aensample unto all people. So if the US government is to fight a just war they must follow the same pattern.

Sodom Hussein had proclaimed war against us for decades, and openly supported groups hostile to us and are allies; including, paining the assassination of our president, shooting at our planes, giving money to the families of homicide bombers in Israel, and threatening us and the world with WMD’s that he had at one point—even using them against his own people, then acting as if he still had them and refusing to allow in weapons inspector to check.

we had about 14 (well over the required 3) UN resolutions declaring peace if Sodom would give up his murderous designs and allow weapon inspector back in. so all we needed is to bring these testimonies before the Lord to get our commandment and justification for war. And seems how the president is commander and chief of the US army, it would only make sense that he would be the one to bring this before the Lord. and I have no doubt that president Bush did this seems how he says that he prays about ever decision he makes for the country. So the question is not did the Prophet officially approve of the war; it is did the Lord justify (through the process in section 98) the US government in their decision to go to war with Iraq, and I believe he did. I could be wrong, but, either way, if we did Ron Paul’s imminent withdrawal; it would precipitate chaos and massacre and that would be on our hands—regardless how one feels about entering the war, we now owe the Iraqi people a stable homeland.

Plus, Sodom satanically oppressed his own people. This included: killing one and thousands at a time—we’ve fond the mass graves--, killing those who didn’t vote for him along with their family—and still he could only got about 98% to vote for him--, using torture and rape to stay in power and had dungeons built for that purpose. Sodom’s treatment of his people was one of the reasons that Bush put forth in the state of the nation address which preceded the war, and I believe this is a just reason based on President McKay’s 3rd condition.

“There are … two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter—enter, not begin—a war: (1) An attempt by others to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency [which implies that the aggressor started the war], and (2) Loyalty to his own country. Possibly there is a third, viz., Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one [which also implies that the aggressor started the war. We entered to liberate the Iraqi people decades after Sodom stared his warlike oppression of his people].” (David o. McKay April conference report 1942)

On a more personal side note, the day that our troops marched into Baghdad and with the help of the Iraqi people toppled the giant idols built to Sodom, while the people dance in the streets—over joyed with the fall of a tyrant and the hope of freedom, I was over come with the spirit and gratitude to my God that I lived in a country that would spend their own gold and spill their own blood in liberating strife to free a people on the other side of the world and demonstrate to the world that they loved mercy more then life!

I want to keep it as short as I can, but we need to have a good friendly debate about this in person some time. To end I want to respond a little about what you said about Mitt and Ron.

I think you’re right that if Romney was Baptist, unattractive, and on a democrat ticket that few Mormons would support him, but that’s like saying that if Mitt was the complete opposite of himself that he would have difference supporters, or if Mitt Romney was Jimmy Carter few Mormons would vote for him—and that’s true.

I can’t say why others support Mitt, but I like him because he’s not a career politician, yet still has crucial executive experience. He has brought positive change to everything that he has been put in charge of: he turned around dozens of businesses, the Utah Olympics, and Massachusetts.

He is the most conservative person that can win (and being able to win is vital because otherwise, we get Hillary); his ideas are viable and would move us in a more conservative direction. Plus, he has a track record of getting things done, so his promises are not empty—he’s done it before.

With Ron Paul, first I think that he is just wrong on the war and his brand of isolationism is what lead to WWII. And if we left Iraq immediately—like he wants to do—countless innocence would me massacre; just like when we pulled out of Viet Nam and 1-3 million were massacred. Whether or not one believes that the war was justified to enter—if we left now the blood of the massacred would be on our hands.

Secondly, I like a lot of what Ron has to say about limiting the size and scope of government, but they are hollow promises—he’s running for President Paul, not king Paul. He knows better then anyone that his espoused drastic changes could only be enacted through bloody force, and that’s what some of his supporter want him to do. Change by government is ether slow or bloody; what we need is to chart a steady course towards a more conservative government—not revolution or deadlock.

Well, that’s all I can muster for now—we’ll have to talk later.

with love,

I am going to be working on a point by point response...and invite you to do the same.

No more fence sitters. I haven't seen many. We are all choosing or have all chosen our sides.

Best I can do is a few thoughts.

1.) Isolationism is not what led to WWII. What did is history that I would not expect even many historians to believe. I believe the U.S.A. got into WW2 officially due to a conspiracy involving FDR and some of his military staff and civilian “advisors”. A guy named Tyler Kent discovered correspondence between FDR and Churchill that discussed getting the US into the war even as FDR was promising Americans he would keep America out to the war. America fought WW2 supposedly to protect Europe from Germany and to save China from Japan. But I believe the real reason was to protect the USSR and create the formidable enemy that it became. I could go on, but I'd expect few to believe me.

2. More on WW2: In his book Sgt. Nibley, Hugh Nibley relates on Page 286: "During the past few months I have had some extremely interesting documents in my hands....invariably these paper loving boors watied until too late to destroy documents, and the result is you had better not try to tell little old me who started the war." (He became aware of the collaboration between certain US and German industries, even during the war.)

3.) If anybody still thinks US forces went into Iraq to secure Iraqi freedom, he/she probably thinks like many other American voters. If he/she wants to contribute to Iraqi freedom/ he/she is free to dig out his/her steel hat and .45 and go over there and help out. To force others to go fight a war they have no interest in is tyranny.

4.) An immediate withdrawal from Iraq might precipitate chaos and massacre among Iraqis, but that would be on their hands and on the hands of the LDGs (who created the UN mandates that got us in there in the first place, mandates that we are not obligated to follow and should not).

5.) The president is commander and chief of the US armed forces, but it is the responsibility of the Congress to make the decision whether to go to war or not. Therefore it is the responsibility of each member of Congress to bring this before the Lord. And people who think that president Bush did this, believing that he prays about every decision he makes for the country, should tally up the damage and destruction he has actually presided over (as much as the LDGs let or directed him) to this country .

So much of one's understanding or misunderstanding depends on one's perspective.

Thank you friends...for your thoughts.

You can argue these minor points night and day. Perhaps concentrate on what prophets have said about standing up for the consititution and then relate this to how Romney is doing this and Paul is. Oh and send him this article. This should do the trick
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/
Hope it helps

Bridgey wrote:You can argue these minor points night and day. Perhaps concentrate on what prophets have said about standing up for the consititution and then relate this to how Romney is doing this and Paul is. Oh and send him this article. This should do the trick
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/
Hope it helps

WHOA!

I sent that info out.

I stopped supporting him based upon the global positions he takes, and because I questioned their previous positions on issues, but I NEVER knew that there was that much.. and his mother too.... I don't think someone just changes over night on that...

(unless they are running for president and want to look as conservative as possible)

I research the proper role of government and war last year because I found such discord among priesthood holders on the subject of the war in Iraq. I tried to start with an open mind and just read what the latter-day prophets had written.

To be honest, I was shocked when I read statements by them at the time that both WWI and WWII we wicked was and that the US was going to be punished for having entering them. I was raised brainwashed that we were justified in "stopping Hitler". What a bunch of BS.

Prior 2 WWI I can think of the war with Mexico where we backed Sam Houston in stealing Texas. Now when I think of it, the situation was almost exactly the same then as now except the tables are turned 180 degrees. Now we are losing it back. If it isn't "right" now for us to lose it, how could it have been right back then for us to take it?

Was the Civil War a righteous war?

Perhaps the war of 1812 was the last righteous war.

To be honest, I was shocked when I read statements by them at the time that both WWI and WWII we wicked was and that the US was going to be punished for having entering them.

Can you cite any of those things you read as references?

LDC

That thread had a bit of it.

I can go back and piece them together.

The most eye opening ones came from Prophet, Principles, and National Survival.

It was also interesting to watch a DVD last week of a talk Cleon Skousen gave in 1991. He documents J. Ruben Clark's involvement in the war and military complex just after WWI and how he warned that WWII was being planned 20 years in advance. I figure someone here probably has a better copy than what I have but it was a very good primer on the NWO for LDS .

your friend is a moron

even worse he is a dangerous moron, because he believes he has substantiation for his (wrong) beliefs. a true fundaMENTAList.

but we all have friends like this. theres lots of them.

these are they who will waterboard you for dissent, for your own good.

that's why we are in iraq and that dope bush is still your president.

Stephen wrote: (Brother Nix)
I agree that Helaman 6;38 is happening to an unknown extent. But I’m not quite sure how you’re trying to tie that in to your anti-war theme. This verse is not about war; it’s about the infiltration of an evil secret society in to the Nephites civilization, which murder, seal, and plunder.

exactly, so we can't use it to justify US foreign policy invading sovereign nations

Stephen wrote: 37 And it came to pass that the Lamanites did hunt the band of robbers of Gadianton; and they did preach the word of God among the more wicked part of them, insomuch that this band of robbers was utterly destroyed from among the Lamanites.

internal domestic. borders didn't really apply then.
remind in EVERY instance that the nephites went up into THEIR lands, they lost.

Stephen wrote: The Lamanites hunted down and utterly destroyed the Gadianton robbers from among them; while, they preached the word of God to the wicked and this brought peace to their lands. In this case, what would be called by the sound-bight over-simplifier of today “pro-war” was the right position and brought peace. While, on the other hand, the Nephites inability to hunt down and destroy the evil that threatened them lead to their destruction.

huh? what part of "we better not go up into their lands lest they destroy us" and "we lost because we went up into their lands" did he misread?


anyway, ends do not justify the means. retrospective argument. uses domestic issues thousands of years previous during period with prophet amongst people to equate to international war, sorry, not applicable.

Stephen wrote:And of course, the Nephites in Mormon 3:9-16 who were “pro-war”, blood thirsty, and drunken with revenge were past feeling and fighting a grossly unjust war—even devolving to sadistic torture and cannibalism. And although you used this example to show an example of the unjustness of preempted war—I hope that you wouldn’t say that the Iraq war is in this same category.

You don't have to but i would and half the world does. Can I introduce a few words into his myopic ignorant lexicon? Namely, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Depleted Uranium, White Phosphorous, Cluster Bombs, AC-130 gunships, Daisy Cutters, Shock and Awe, MOAB Bunker Busters?

Shall I throw in a million dead, 500k of which were children during the sanctions? This guy has stars in his eyes. You can't convince him of anything.

Stephen wrote:section 98 is awesome because it clarifies the doctrines of “turning the other cheek” and “forgiving 70 x 7” because in the Bible these doctrines, in my mind, are clearly describing person to person relation in a micro realm, but some in Christendom have misconstrued these doctrines to apply in the macro realm—nation to nation. So they think that we should turn the other cheek if we are attacked by another nation—if they bomb New York give them LA as well.

This is a stupid incongruous inconsistent sentence. It is meaningless jabber. Don't even reply. Maybe ask him to forget his own micro mind analysis, and just think about verses 33 to 38 with "The false gods we worship" in mind?

Stephen wrote: But section 98 clarifies this.
23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will asmite you, or your families, once, and ye bbear it patiently and crevile not against them, neither seek drevenge, ye shall be erewarded;

So here (v. 23-31) is the law for the micro person to person relations. you should patiently bear them actually hitting you and/or your family 3 times them you are justified in reacting if you choose to or you can opt for more blessings and spare them.

Verses 33-38 lay out the law for nation to nation relation—rhyme intended— (and it includes kindred, tongues and peoples too, so it would include a nationless group like alkida)

33 And again, this is the alaw that I gave unto mine ancients, that they should not go out unto battle against any nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them.
34 And if any nation, tongue, or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a standard of apeace unto that people, nation, or tongue;
35 And if that people did not accept the offering of peace, neither the second nor the third time, they should bring these testimonies before the Lord;
36 Then I, the Lord, would give unto them a commandment, and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.
37 And I, the Lord, would afight their battles, and their children’s battles, and their children’s children’s, until they had avenged themselves on all their enemies, to the third and fourth generation.
38 Behold, this is an aensample unto all people, saith the Lord your God, for justification before me.

I don't understand his confusion here.

V 33, 34, 35, 36 & 37 are an explanation of the law, application and outcome. v38 says it applies to ALL people. Present tense.

What does he think this was revealed for/ Why does he think it was good enough for Nephi, and Abraham and ALL the others, but all of the sudden, god is going to reveal it, tell us its an ensample to ALL people, but hey Joseph and all LDS in this dispensation, YOU don't have to abide by it. This guy interprets scriptures to his convenience.

Stephen wrote: This section is directed to the saints in Missouri.

So I guess that lets me off half the stuff, no, pretty well ALL of the stuff in the D&C. Tithing, that was to the children of ISrael, baptism, christ talking to Nicodemus, etc etc

Stephen wrote:so, according to this, before they (the saints in Zion) can justify going to war against the Missouri militia/mob, the Missouri militia/mob would have to proclaim war against them—you don’t have to wait for a strike like in v. 23-31, they only have to declare their intent to go to war with them—then if they do this 3 times while the saint continue to declare peace, then they can take this to the Lord and he “would [not may or might] give unto them a commandment [not stated, but presumably through the Prophet], and justify them in going out to battle against that nation, tongue, or people.

hang on they still had the LAW which they were told to eby and seek redress from. this was a domestic thing, not a friggin war. he can't tell the difference?

Stephen wrote: The church did not go to war against Iraq—our government did. So president Hinckley doesn’t need to officially approve or disapprove of this war,

Absolutely. unless you are an LDS who wants to purport the position that the church is in favour of this war. And this guy must, as do all others in favour of blood, horror, war, terror, shock, death, bloodshed, and that is because if the church annd prophet ARE NOT vocal in saying "thus saith the lord this is what i decree" then

1) the 10 commandments (thou shalt not kill)
2) International Law (no illegal invasion of a sovereign nation)
3) Words of Christ (love your enemy)
4) book of mormon (no go up to enemies)
5) Modern Revelation (D&C98- NO war unless I the lord tell prophet)

Re read the false gods we worship

Stephen wrote: nor will he because he is not the head of the US government—he’s the earthly head of the church. If this was not the case he would have been morally obligated to come out on one side of this war or the other—you can’t justly stay officially neutral if you’re the deciding factor.

irrelevent, whatever he means by "if this was not the case".
maybe i follow.
if he IS the deciding factor, which by our own scripture to us he is (Amos 3:7) then no there is no neutral, so, lack of yes, clearly means.......NO.

Stephen wrote: But verse 38 says that this is an aensample unto all people. So if the US government is to fight a just war they must follow the same pattern.

What? Does this guy equate the US govt with gods people? Does he think if the prophet says "we have a war to fight" it will be about protecting one nation of another? how imperialistic. has he confused church and state and government?

Perhaps you can agree with him?? But verse 38 says that this is an aensample unto all people. So if the IRAQI government is to fight a just war they must follow the same pattern.

This guy has a vision of a macho god with an M-16 that I don't follow. Mine is the Prince of Peace, who fights hos own battles, doesn't use countries and their navies etc

Stephen wrote: Sadam Hussein had proclaimed war against us for decades,

this is where your friend exposes himself as an ignorant twit. you have 2 choices, 1 show him what really happened, 2 forget it.


decades? WE kept him there because he was 1) not religious, so he kept the mullahs and islamo fascists out of power and 2) anti communist, he kept them out of the region as well. he has NO idea of who saddam is, what he did FOR US, or how we helped kept him in power. the irony is, the only safe (for us) solution for iraq and another non religious, non political strong man,,,,,just like saddam.

Stephen wrote: and openly supported groups hostile to us and are allies;

like who? and thats justification for an invasion is it? struth. then you can have about 40 nations who have had the CIA interfere with them coming and knocking on your door then. he has no idea about who the US really is and how it has maintained hegemony as the worlds superpower.

Stephen wrote:including, paining the assassination of our president,

and your country doesn't? so you invade a country and kill innocents, because the head is bad? oh blimey.

Stephen wrote:shooting at our planes,

what, in the USA do you mean? oh no, you mean those in Iraq no? when we fly over his cities dropping bombs on his installations

Stephen wrote:giving money to the families of homicide bombers in Israel,

whats this got to do with the USA?


and threatening us and the world with WMD’s that he had at one point—[/quote]


any idea of who sold them to him? and how many Nukes does the US have? Which is the ONLY country to ever use a nuke, and twice? Any idea WHY rumsfeld went to iraq? whose satellites Saddam used? so a threat is a danger is it, and a threat to use WMD's against your country is justification to invade a nation? hmmmmm, WHO said we will blow your country to the stone ages in a barrage of shock and awe? your friend is an idiot. if he doesn't know this you won't get through to him.

Stephen wrote:even using them against his own people, then acting as if he still had them and refusing to allow in weapons inspector to check.

can someone attach the prophets quote "the US has NO place nation building in other nations"

Stephen wrote: we had about 14 (well over the required 3) UN resolutions declaring peace if Sodom would give up his murderous designs and allow weapon inspector back in.

he did. read up on the following people 1) Richard Butler, 2) Scott Ritter 3) Hans Blix

40 million people marches in March 2003 saying "let the inspections work"
but the WMD was a smokescreen anyway. there never were any that were not sludge. we know they, they knew that. it was all lies.
muderous lies? what a joke. if he had them he didn't use them when we invaded now eh? he went and hid in a hole. some threat. was that the monster? was that worth 3000 US boys abd girls to die for? while KBR and Halliburton make tens and hundreds of billions?

Stephen wrote:so all we needed is to bring these testimonies before the Lord to get our commandment and justification for war.

what? take false testimonies to the lord? 500,000 Iraqi's dead for US oil. And this is what the lord wanted? get real!!!!!
And D&C 98 says WHO will fight the battle? Carlyle. Blackwater? KBR? Halliburton? George Bush? Your friend is a fundamentalist fascist of the most dangerous variety

Stephen wrote: And seems how the president is commander and chief of the US army, it would only make sense that he would be the one to bring this before the Lord.

Is this guy LDS? truly? is he? i wonder where he places the first presidency and the US presidency in his godhead triangle? idiot.

Stephen wrote: and I have no doubt that president Bush did this seems how he says that he prays about ever decision he makes for the country.

your friend is a MOron. i can't believe this. he prays? your mate falls for this? oh brother. give up on ron paul with him. your mate is a dope. he'd vote Mitt if he stood up and voted for legal freebasing in seattle

Stephen wrote: So the question is not did the Prophet officially approve of the war; it is did the Lord justify (through the process in section 98) the US government in their decision to go to war with Iraq, and I believe he did. I could be wrong,

well no he didn't and you are wrong. what is more is that you have no understanding of your own gospel and you are a dangerous person as well

Stephen wrote:but, either way, if we did Ron Paul’s imminent withdrawal; it would precipitate chaos and massacre and that would be on our hands—regardless how one feels about entering the war, we now owe the Iraqi people a stable homeland.

um. declare victory, withdraw and send them a cheque for the damages. any idea what the IRAQI's might want? has anyone asked them? not the hacks you put in power but them?
on your theory, you need to send more people with more guns no? why stop at 250,000 troops? this guys listens to oreilly and his fascist mates too much

Stephen wrote: Plus, Sadam satanically oppressed his own people. This included: killing one and thousands at a time—we’ve fond the mass graves--, killing those who didn’t vote for him along with their family—and still he could only got about 98% to vote for him--, using torture and rape to stay in power and had dungeons built for that purpose.

guantanamo bay, habeus corpus, tasers, praetorians. look in mirror buddy.
anyway, this is why he'll never vote for Ron Paul. building other Nations is not part of the constitution so paul won't have it. your mate is happy to spend other peoples money on his imperialistic vision, ergo mitt romney

Stephen wrote: Sodom’s treatment of his people was one of the reasons that Bush put forth in the state of the nation address which preceded the war, and I believe this is a just reason based on President McKay’s 3rd condition.

what, is this for real? i can name 10 countries that could invade your nation for the way you treated blacks, indians (genocide anyone). how about minding your own business and obeying international law. where in the US constitution is global policeman written?

your mate is no better than the nazi's "god is with us"

Stephen wrote:
“There are … two conditions which may justify a truly Christian man to enter—enter, not begin—a war: (1) An attempt by others to dominate and to deprive another of his free agency [which implies that the aggressor started the war], and (2) Loyalty to his own country. Possibly there is a third, viz., Defense of a weak nation that is being unjustly crushed by a strong, ruthless one [which also implies that the aggressor started the war. We entered to liberate the Iraqi people decades after Sodom stared his warlike oppression of his people].” (David o. McKay April conference report 1942)

MAN....ENTER......MAY
refer D&C98.

Stephen wrote: On a more personal side note, the day that our troops marched into Baghdad and with the help of the Iraqi people toppled the giant idols built to Sodom, while the people dance in the streets—over joyed with the fall of a tyrant and the hope of freedom, I was over come with the spirit and gratitude to my God that I lived in a country that would spend their own gold and spill their own blood in liberating strife to free a people on the other side of the world and demonstrate to the world that they loved mercy more then life!

onward christian solders.......

Stephen wrote: I can’t say why others support Mitt, but I like him because he’s not a career politician, yet still has crucial executive experience. He has brought positive change to everything that he has been put in charge of: he turned around dozens of businesses, the Utah Olympics, and Massachusetts.

not a career politician"
olympics? read "lords of the rings"

Stephen wrote: With Ron Paul, first I think that he is just wrong on the war and his brand of isolationism is what lead to WWII. And if we left Iraq immediately—like he wants to do—countless innocence would me massacre; just like when we pulled out of Viet Nam and 1-3 million were massacred. Whether or not one believes that the war was justified to enter—if we left now the blood of the massacred would be on our hands.

you mean 1-3 million cambodians massacred?

anyway, the blood IS on your hands. try love, not more bullets

Stephen wrote: Secondly, I like a lot of what Ron has to say about limiting the size and scope of government, but they are hollow promises—he’s running for President Paul, not king Paul. He knows better then anyone that his espoused drastic changes could only be enacted through bloody force, and that’s what some of his supporter want him to do. Change by government is ether slow or bloody; what we need is to chart a steady course towards a more conservative government—not revolution or deadlock.

and this he pacifies them




Prophecy of Joseph Smith, as recorded by Mosiah Lyman Hancock (June 19, 1844), commonly known as the “Hancock Prophecy”:
The next day the Prophet came to our home and stopped in our carpenter shop and stood by the turning lathe. I went and got my map for him. "Now," he said, "I will show you the travels of this people." He then showed our travels thou Iowa, and said, "Here you will make a place for the winter; and here you will travel west until you come to the valley of the Great Salt Lake! You will build cities to the North and to the South, and to the East and to the West; and you will become a great and wealthy people in that land. But, the United States will not receive you with the laws which God desires you to live, and you will have to go to where the Nephites lost their power. They worked in the United Order for 166 years, and the Saints have got to become proficient in the laws of God before they can meet the Lord Jesus Christ, or even the city of Enoch." He said we will not travel the shape of the horse shoe for there we will await the action of the government. Placing his finger on the map, I should think about where Snowflake, Arizona is situated, or it could have been Mexico, he said, "The government will not receive you with the laws that God designed you to live, and those who are desirous to live the laws of God will have to go South. You will live to see men arise in power in the Church who will seek to put down your friends and the friends of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Many will be hoisted because of their money and the worldly learning which they seem to be in possession of; and many who are the true followers of our Lord and Savior will be cast down because of their poverty. There will be two great political parties in this country. One will be called the Republican, and the other the Democrat party. These two will go to war and out of these two parties will spring another party which will be the Independent American Party. The United States will spend her strength and means warring in foreign lands, until other nations will say, "Let's divide up the lands of United States." Then the people of the U.S. will unite and swear by the blood of their forefathers, that the land will not be divided. Then the country will go to war, and they will fight until one half of the U.S. army will give up, and the rest will continue to struggle. They will keep on until they are very ragged and discouraged, and almost ready to give up, when the boys from the mountains will rush forth in time to save the American Army from defeat and ruin. And they will say, "Brethren, we are glad you have come. Give us men, henceforth, who can talk with God." Then you will have friends, but you will save the country when it's liberty hangs by a hair, as it were.
(Sources: The Journal of Mosiah Lyman Hancock, p. 19-20; Autobiography of Mosiah Hancock, typescript, BYU Library Special Collections, p. 29. Compiled by Amy E. Baird, Victoria H. Jackson, and Laura L. Wassell (daughters of Mosiah Hancock).
http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS ... ncock.html and http://www.kingdomofzion.org/doctrines/ ... ournal.txt. See also Crowther, Duane S., Inspired Prophetic Warnings, Horizon Publishers, Bountiful, UT, 1987, pp. 186-187.)

Well said, AussieOi!
Hugh Nibley had a great talk titled "If there Needs Be Offense" here: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?v ... &hideNav=1
where he talks about how the Lord doesn't condone the wars that will come upon all nations. Here is a quote:

"President Joseph F. Smith declared all this warlike activity to be strictly contrary to the will of God, who “is not pleased, nor was it his purpose or design or intent to foreordain the condition [of war] that the world is in today,” since wars come “not to fulfill the purposes of God, but the purposes of the nations of the earth in consequence of their wickedness.”

He also expounds how the two great events in the last days are the building of Zion and the overthrow of Babylon and how they work in opposite directions.

My favorite quote in his talk is this:

the Nephites acquired their fatal appetite for bloodshed in a very short time: “And only a few years have passed away, and they were a civil and delightsome people.” In the course of one long war they become “without principle and past feeling; … without order and without mercy … they have lost their love, one towards another; and they thirst after blood and revenge continually.” (Moro. 9:12, 20, 18, 5)

Are we not becoming just like the Nephites? My father fought in the Vietnam War so I grew up hearing about that and prayed that we didn't have another "endless" war like that again. Unfortunately, my generation experienced our own wars in the Middle East starting with the Gulf War, and now the Iraq War. Are we not now "without principle and past feeling"? We've unprecedently abolished a few monumental principles (Habeas Corpus, posse comitatus, Bill of Rights) and are quite past feeling as well (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, water boarding, excessive torture thanks to the Military Commissions Act)

...history is repeating...