War in Iraq not justified by Book of Mormon

[creator]

The Book of Mormon is full of examples and principles showing that the Lord was often with the Nephites when they were defending themselves, in their own land, from the Lamanites who came into their land. While they were waging a defensive war the Lord often protected them, but when the Nephites decided to go unto the Lamanites (OFFENSIVE/PRE-EMPTIVE WAR) that is when the Lord stopped helping them:

from Mormon Chapter's 3 & 4:

"...the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us; and it came to pass that in that year we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again... because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies.

"....they did aswear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies...

"...I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination...

"...I [Mormon] utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of the Spirit which had testified of things to come.

"...the Nephites did go up with their armies to battle against the Lamanites, out of the land Desolation... the armies of the Nephites were driven back

"...And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.

"...from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun."

The only way the Book of Mormon should be used in comparison with the current war on terror is to show that it is an unjust war.

In my opinion, and I know, based on their teachings, W. Cleon Skousen and the Founding Fathers would agree... we should be fighting the so-called war on terror in our own land, on our own soil only. We should not be engaged in overseas wars that have no end; we should not be sending thousands of troops to foreign nations while leaving our own borders wide open for any terrorist or criminal to pass through. I think if Captain Moroni were here today he would lead the armies back to the United States and put them on the borders.

[Swmorgan77]

I agree, and being a wise and just man he would also have the discernment to only be worried about actual threats and not contrived or exhaggerated ones designed to destroy our liberties.

[Mark]

The only way the Book of Mormon should be used in comparison with the current war on terror is to show that it is an unjust war.

In my opinion, and I know, based on their teachings, W. Cleon Skousen and the Founding Fathers would agree... we should be fighting the so-called war on terror in our own land, on our own soil only.

President Hinckley said: "We stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim....It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down."

Why do you continue to make this argument that the war on terror is an unjust war and should only be fought on our soil Brian? Do you just refuse to accept and believe President Hinckley's words when he tells us that the terrrorist organizations must be ferreted out and brought down? How do you think we are going to be able to do that if we just wait for them to attack us on our own soil again and again? Do you think President Hinckley is asking the Saints to support a cause that is unrighteous and has no validity in the eyes of the Lord? I just don't get this continued argument you make that this war on terror is unjust and immoral when our own living prophet has said just the opposite. What gives?

[creator]

You misunderstand me Mark, I completely agree with President Hinckley's statement:

"We stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim....It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down."

Mark, why don't you address the topic at hand which is not about Pres. Hinckley, it's about the Book of Mormon and the Iraq War.

[Swmorgan77]

"This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim....It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down."

There is your answer right there.

What is a 'terrorist orginization?' An orginization which uses fear for political gain. Who is doing that right now? We are told that the 'terrorists hate our freedoms and want to destroy them'. So why are we giving them what they want?

In light of President Hinckley's statement we should be alarmed at the recent rhetoric of this administration which has reached an unprecedented level in the past few weeks with even President Bush himself using the term "Islamo-fascism", a term that until recently could only be heard on 'extreme' talk shows like Michael Savage. It is a calculated effort to radicalize the whole of Islam and start the 'war of civilization' and IT IS WORKING. If you doubt that high level members of this administration want this to happen, I suggest you read their own stements in a strategy document published in September of 2000.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebui ... fenses.pdf

The simple fact is that the 'war on terror' DOES unfairly target and stigmatize Muslims both here and abroad. The military is openly using "Dragnet" tactics and rounding up whole villages sometimes on the basis of 1 or 2 suspected terrorists.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2005 ... 5_742.html

These people then find themselves in places like Guatanamo Bay or Abu Gharaib with no charges, no attorney and in many cases no basis for their detention other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even American citizens have found themselves in this position.

Remember that weekend when Dick Cheney shot his hunting partner and the news covered it for days? There was something much more important happening that weekend, because that is the weekend when the REST of the photos and details of Abu Gharaib were released... with little or no attention.

If you think that 'panties on somebody's head' is the worst that happened there, I STRONGLY suggest you take the time to watch this lecture that covers the abuses there (I realize I am not quoting you, I am paraphrasing the most common neo-con spin on the Abu Gharaib scandal).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ay+torture

Anyway, to go back to the original point remember that Captain Moroni's approach of holding a defensive position and fortifying was counter to much conventional military wisdom of the time (and today) but he did it because it was what the Lord approved of.

In Helaman chapter 4 we have a similar situation where the Nephites had been severely defeated and overrun by invading armies, and in chapter 4 they are repenting and identifying the factors that made them vulnerable to this. Here are two of them:

1) Military Bravado: (4:13) And because of this their great wickedness, and their boastings in their own strength, they were left in their own strength; therefore they did not prosper, but were afflicted and smitten, and driven before the Lamanites, until they had lost possession of almost all their lands.

2) They abandoned the Constitution of Mosiah: (4:22) "And that they had altered and trampled under their feet the laws of Mosiah, or that which the Lord commanded him to give unto the people; and they saw that their laws had become corrupted"

Here is Morinihah's response to the situation: "(4:19) Therefore they did abandon their design to obtain the remainder of their lands, for so numerous were the Lamanites that it became impossible for the Nephites to obtain more power over them; therefore Moronihah did employ all his armies in maintaining those parts which he had taken. "

Even though the Nephites had lost many areas to the Lamanites, and would certainly felt justified in attempting to regain them, Moronihah sees the eternal wisdom in fortifying and defending their homes in a defensive strategy.

[Mark]

You guys are just not willing to address my point. It IS all about President Hinckley Brian. If you will be honest here you will admit that the Prophet made it perfectly clear that he was singling out radical Islamic terrorists as the group that needed to be ferreted out and brought down after the attack on 9-11. The primary goal of these radical Islamist terrorists is to kill the infidels. End of story. They have been doing this for many years and continue to attack American interests and innocents worldwide. They have declared that goal again and again thru their radical theology and religious beliefs.

President Hinckley has said multiple times including his talk after 9-11 that religious extremists which, in this case were radical Islamic terrorists, who continue to perpetrate evil acts in the name of their religious beliefs are doing so under the adversaries direction. He said in his next talk that Iraq was just an outgrowth and continuation of the war on terror referred to by President Bush in his declaration after 9-11. Iraq is crawling with radical Islamic terrorist factions who continue to promote the goal of terrorism in the name of their perverted religious beliefs. They are part of the ones that President Hinckley said needed to be brought down. He was not talking about our government or our leaders in this context. You know it and I know it. Lets not get selective with what the prophet said. He was clear with his intent and did not talk in riddles. You can not say that you believe in what the prophet said in this context yet continue to say that by going after these radical terrorists in other lands we are doing wrong. You just can't have it both ways here.

[creator]

Mark, you are entitled to your own interpretations just don't expect that everyone else is going to believe you.

since you are so intent on combining President Hinckley's talk with a discussion about the Book of Mormon and the Iraq War, I will first examine the talk given in October 2001: The Times in Which We Live. (the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11)...

Much of the talk was just statements regarding what's happening, the following is from the portion in which the prophet gave his own opinion on the situation:

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 not a matter of Christian against Muslim... We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.... We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation. We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10)...From the day of Cain to the present, the adversary has been the great mastermind of the terrible conflicts that have brought so much suffering.

Treachery and terrorism began with him. And they will continue until the Son of God returns to rule and reign with peace and righteousness among the sons and daughters of God.

Let us stand firm against evil, both at home and abroad.

President Hinckley was definitely not only talking about muslim terrorists but also "against evil, both at home and abroad." The only time he really gave specifics about who the enemy is was when he stated "We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society." That sounds a lot like the Secret Combinations that the prophets have told us are controlling our own government.

I am not denying the fact that there are terrorists in the middle-east, I just know that the bigger problem is from the terrorists within our own country, those that have infiltrated our own government, those wolves in sheeps clothing. They are the ones capable of taking away our freedoms. (in my next post I will comment on President Hinckley's 2003 talk "War and Peace".

[lundbaek]

I think President Hinkley’s statement of concern here means those of us who are Americans are obligated to stand solidly with the president of our nation to the same extent as LDSs living under communism in East Germany were counseled to return home from conferences in the West and otherwise be good citizens of the East German state. In both situations, the pressures to support the government leaders were enormous, the propaganda was compelling, and the risks for any show of rebellion were high. And the Church’s policy of supporting whatever government is in power has served it well in many places, perhaps most notably in East Germany under Communism. The course that the Church took allowed us to build a temple in a rabidly Communist country years before the Iron Curtain was removed. And that provided temple blessings to many Latter-day Saints that are difficult to forego for the sake demonstrating contempt for the government. I think the same applies to our situation now.

I believe President Hinkley acknowledged a relationship between the terrorist organizations and what I call Latter Day Gadiantons' involvement “in the present situation”. Note well that he did not identify or even imply who the terrorists are. And I would not expect him to, for the same reasons that East German LDSs did not criticize or make accusations against their government. I do know of one incident, I think I discussed elsewhere here, in which in 1973 or ‘74 the East German Mission President was called on the carpet to explain some disparaging remarks about communism and the East German communist government made the previous Sunday in a West German sacrament meeting. I know of this because my job at that time included some responsibility for certain activities in East Germany. And I and a few others were asked from the Church European HQ to discontinue the smuggling of church books and tabernacle choir records into the DDR.

Back to our obligation to stand solidly with the president of our nation. As President, he is CinC of the armed forces which in my opinion were unconstitutionally, and thus illegally, committed to battle in Afghanistan at that time. I think President Hinkley was sending the message that American LDSs are obliged to support the war if called upon to do so by the proper government authority. As far as I know, he did not say that American forces were attacking the real perpetrators of terrorism. He did say that the terrorist organizations “must be ferreted out”. That pretty much leaves it to us to decide for ourselves who the real perps are. And maybe, just maybe, he is leaving to us to ferret them out. Some of you may think Osama bin Laden & Co. are the real perps. It appears from several reports I’ve read that he had a pretty cozy relationship with certain elements of the U.S. FedGov in the past, including medical treatment provided by the U.S. I’ve decided the real perps are not Islamists or Arabs generally, however much many of them have grown to, or been persuaded to hate America and other western countries and Israel. Just as I’ve decided for myself who, generally speaking, the real perps of both communism and terrorism are.

[creator]

The question arises, "Where does the Church stand in all of this?"

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith. We recognize and teach that all the people of the earth are of the family of God. And as He is our Father, so are we brothers and sisters with family obligations one to another.

But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right...

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

"And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12-13).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

Yes, I totally agree with defensive war.

I hope that the Lord's people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.

Yes, let us be at PEACE... (not war)

[John Adams]

The more and more I read & learn (both here and elsewhere), the more I am convinced the President Bush is definitely a big part of the problem. However, what is even more scary for me is that as people begin to see this they are thinking that the only other alternative out there is the Democractic platform (whatever that is supposed to be?????).

I guess my question then is what is an alternative answer? I would like to see one of two things (I talked about this on another thread). Either we really use the "ferreting out terrorists" approach and get things done (this includes Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, any other government that harbors terrorists--feel free to add to this list)--Moroni did talk about this approach in Alma. Or else we close up our borders and really take care of ourselves (and let others take care of their own problems)--this was the most consistent approach used in the Book of Mormon by those following the prophet. I am sad that I don't think either one of these options are viable (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

So I come back instead to the only other alternative I see of just trying to be at peace with those that I trust (I'm hoping that includes many of you), living the best I can in following the commandments, preparing for the worst, trusting in God and just waiting (that's the real hard part).


P.S. If we did finally agree that President Bush is part of the problem, then does anyone have any ideas of something else we could do to address that problem besides just voting Democrat (which again I'm scared is what's going to happen as the alternative instead of something better)?

[Mark]

You make a great point JD. As many things as can be criticized about this current President and Republican congress I just shudder to think what we would be facing with the last 6 years of a President Gore along with Nancy Pelosi and crowd running the show. It would be a nightmare worst than any other I can imagine for this country. That is reality. By now it would probable be illegal to posess a gun and marriage between a man and a women would have been outlawed by Presidential decree.

[creator]

what is even more scary for me is that as people begin to see this they are thinking that the only other alternative out there is the Democractic platform (whatever that is supposed to be?????).

I believe that once a person truly wakes up to the truth about the Secret Combinations they will realize that the Republicans and Democrats are the same, in that the Secret Combinations are using them to arrive at the same end goal, just through different means of attaining the goal. I call them the Republicrats.

I believe George Washington was right in his warning against political parties, they are dangerous. I have joined the Constitution Party and am a candidate in the party this year. Personally, since I don't want to waste my vote I vote for those who are truly dedicated to upholding the constitution and the principles of God's Law... this usually ends up being candidates from the Constitution Party as well as some Libertarians and Independents (and the rare Republican like Ron Paul though he's not in my state).

I guess my question then is what is an alternative answer?

The alternative would be to vote principle over politics...
Also, the alternative is to rid ourselves of the natural man and not be "like" the rest of the world. Be in the world but not of the world.

We also need to learn to be religiously, economically and politically free.

[79scholar]

I believe that once a person truly wakes up to the truth about the Secret Combinations they will realize that the Republicans and Democrats are the same, in that the Secret Combinations are using them to arrive at the same end goal, just through different means of attaining the goal. I call them the Republicrats.

Definitely. It's like they have two sets of goals, and each platform obtains one of them via different means.
Democrats agenda:
- Socialization of America ---> Destroy Credit via Debt and Increased Dependance

Republicans agenda: (particularly Neocons whom the RNC adore)
- Tax Cuts, War Waging / Spending ---> Destroy Credit via Debt
- Economic Polarization (rich get richer, poor get poorer) ---> Increased Dependance


How does one ultra-powerful organization secure control PERMANENTLY?

Answer: Control all parties. Be the thesis (Republican candidates), and have both the anti-thesis (Communism) and synthesis (Socialism / Democrats in power) work towards your ultimate goals as well.


Leo Strauss in all his Machiavellianism only serves the Gadiantons. The same goes with his devout followers, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.. (most White House Straussians are also in the CFR)

[Swmorgan77]

You guys are just not willing to address my point. It IS all about President Hinckley Brian. If you will be honest here you will admit that the Prophet made it perfectly clear that he was singling out radical Islamic terrorists as the group that needed to be ferreted out and brought down after the attack on 9-11

I didn't see that in the quote... are you talking about another one? At the very best it was an inference, and not 'perfectly clear'. I also doubt the President Hinckley meant to imply that radical muslims are the source of all or even most 'terrorism'.

The statement is ambiguous so that the masses of members who are intellectually lazy can easily draw the superficial inference that:

Radical Islam = Gadiantons

This idea does not, however, stand up to any kind of scrutiny based on what we know about the Gadiantons' methods, goals and objectives in both the Book of Mormon, and the nature of the Secret Combinations that would arise in our time as described by Moroni in Ether 8.

It is clear from Moroni's statements in Ether 8 and other scripture that the secret combination would gain significant power over the gentile nations. Now, if you believe that radical Islam is the fulfillment of this prophecy, you must maintain that at some point they will succeed to a great degree in subverting the freedom of all lands and nations. I find that to be very untenable, especially in light of the fact that President Benson said at General Conference

"testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 84:49-53; 1:14-16.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world."

Could Al Qaeda have fit this description at the time this statement was made? The organization did not exist, other than the individuals who would later be referred to as Al Qaeda were, at this time, under the direct control of the CIA at this tiem fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Remember that Jesus used parables when it became dangerous to his mission to speak openly and directly. In these parables there were deeper messages and meanings imbedded into statements that could be identified and discerned by those who are ready, and anyone else would only see the superficial meaning and therefore not be held accountable for the deeper meaning that was being taught.

This statement would also add credence to this idea:

"The Prophet Joseph Smith said the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as it were, by a thread. Modern-day prophets for the past several decades have been warning us that we have been rapidly moving in that direction. Fortunately, the Prophet Joseph Smith saw the part the elders of Israel would play in this crisis. Will there be some of us who won't care about saving the Constitution, others who will be blinded by the craftiness of men, and some who will knowingly be working to destroy it? He who has ears to hear and eyes to see can discern by the Spirit and through the words of God's mouthpiece that our liberties are being taken. ("Righteousness Exalteth a Nation" 517; also in TL 112-13; GFC 398-99; revised in TETB 623)"

If you are waiting for a CLEAR, DIRECT statement from Church headquarters such as "The consitution needs to be saved now" then it isn't going to happen. President benson wrote:

"The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever.

Here are a few samples:

First: "We really haven't received much instruction about freedom," the devil says. . . .

Second: "You're too involved in other church work," says the devil. . . .

Third: "You want to be loved by everyone," says the devil, "and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics." . . .

Fourth: "Wait until it becomes popular to do," says the devil, "or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done." . . .

Fifth: "It might hurt your business or your family," says the devil, "and besides why not let the gentiles save the country? They aren't as busy as you are." . . .

Sixth: "Don't worry," says the devil, "the Lord will protect you, and besides the world is so corrupt and heading toward destruction at such a pace that you can't stop it, so why try." . . .

And now as to the last neutralizer that the devil uses most effectively—it is simply this: "Don't do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution." This brings us right back to the scripture I opened with today—to those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are "compelled in all things" [D&C 58:26]. Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe.

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared it will be the elders of Israel who will step forward to help save the Constitution, not the Church. And have we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guidelines? Yes indeed, we have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program, who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be "commanded in all things" [D&C 58:26], used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle "in a good cause" [D&C 58:27] and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom's cause. . . .

Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and worldwide mission. The war in heaven is raging on the earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle? ("Not Commanded in All Things" 538-39; also in GFC 385-89)"

[Mark]

I didn't see that in the quote... are you talking about another one? At the very best it was an inference, and not 'perfectly clear'. I also doubt the President Hinckley meant to imply that radical muslims are the source of all or even most 'terrorism'.

Say what SW? Let me post for you the introduction of his talk up to the point that the prophet declared his support of the President. It is clear that President Hinckley was speaking in context of the terror attack that had just occurred on our soil and our retalitory strike against the taliban in Afganistan. Lets give President Hinckley some credit here. He was fully aware of this ongoing terror campaign waged by Islamic Jihadists around the world and his remarks were in context of his belief that these terrorist loving jihadists needed to be ferreted out and brought down.

Please remember that in the 20 years prior to 9-11 there were literally thousands of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by these radical Jihadist factions in many lands. Some were directed at our embassies in places like Beirut, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tazania, and Iran. These evil jihadists had attacked the world trade center in 1993 and the USS Cole along with our Marine base in Beirut. They claimed responsibility over and over again saying that America and Israel must be exterminated because we were the great Satan. How much clearer can the prophet be here?

Gordon B. Hinckley, “The Times in Which We Live,” Ensign, Nov. 2001, 72
"My beloved brethren and sisters, I accept this opportunity in humility. I pray that I may be guided by the Spirit of the Lord in that which I say.

I have just been handed a note that says that a U.S. missile attack is under way. I need not remind you that we live in perilous times. I desire to speak concerning these times and our circumstances as members of this Church.

You are acutely aware of the events of September 11, less than a month ago. Out of that vicious and ugly attack we are plunged into a state of war. It is the first war of the 21st century. The last century has been described as the most war-torn in human history. Now we are off on another dangerous undertaking, the unfolding of which and the end thereof we do not know. For the first time since we became a nation, the United States has been seriously attacked on its mainland soil. But this was not an attack on the United States alone. It was an attack on men and nations of goodwill everywhere. It was well planned, boldly executed, and the results were disastrous. It is estimated that more than 5,000 innocent people died. Among these were many from other nations. It was cruel and cunning, an act of consummate evil.

Recently, in company with a few national religious leaders, I was invited to the White House to meet with the president. In talking to us he was frank and straightforward.

That same evening he spoke to the Congress and the nation in unmistakable language concerning the resolve of America and its friends to hunt down the terrorists who were responsible for the planning of this terrible thing and any who harbored such.

Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways.

Our national economy has been made to suffer. It was already in trouble, and this has compounded the problem. Many are losing their employment. Among our own people, this could affect welfare needs and also the tithing of the Church. It could affect our missionary program.

We are now a global organization. We have members in more than 150 nations. Administering this vast worldwide program could conceivably become more difficult.

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 not a matter of Christian against Muslim. I am pleased that food is being dropped to the hungry people of a targeted nation. We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down."

PS. In just reading the other part of your post SW you also stated:

The statement is ambiguous so that the masses of members who are intellectually lazy can easily draw the superficial inference that:

Radical Islam = Gadiantons

This idea does not, however, stand up to any kind of scrutiny based on what we know about the Gadiantons' methods, goals and objectives in both the Book of Mormon, and the nature of the Secret Combinations that would arise in our time as described by Moroni in Ether 8.

I would just point you to 3rd Nephi Chapter 2 where we are told that the gadianton robbers had become so powerful in strength and destruction that both the Nephites and the Lamanites had to unite and take up arms against these gadiantons or they faced utter destruction because of these robbers. These gadianton robbers were not part of the Nephite government leaders but instead were a rogue bunch of mountain dwelling secret oath takers who continued to prey on the Nephites and plunder and kill their people.

The Nephites had become wicked and so these Gadianton robbers had power over them and were threatening to destroy them. It was only when the Nephites led by Gidgiddoni in Chapter 4 called upon the Lord and humbled themselves before him that they took strength and defeated these robbers outright and hung their leader Zemnarihah upon a tree. Of course Nephite humility turned quickly into pride and the destructions prior to Christs coming then began in earnest. Could there be some parallels here with our battles against these Jihadists terrorist gadiantons?

[Swmorgan77]

The more and more I read & learn (both here and elsewhere), the more I am convinced the President Bush is definitely a big part of the problem. However, what is even more scary for me is that as people begin to see this they are thinking that the only other alternative out there is the Democractic platform (whatever that is supposed to be?????).

I guess my question then is what is an alternative answer? I would like to see one of two things (I talked about this on another thread). Either we really use the "ferreting out terrorists" approach and get things done (this includes Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, any other government that harbors terrorists--feel free to add to this list)--Moroni did talk about this approach in Alma. Or else we close up our borders and really take care of ourselves (and let others take care of their own problems)--this was the most consistent approach used in the Book of Mormon by those following the prophet. I am sad that I don't think either one of these options are viable (please correct me if I'm mistaken).

So I come back instead to the only other alternative I see of just trying to be at peace with those that I trust (I'm hoping that includes many of you), living the best I can in following the commandments, preparing for the worst, trusting in God and just waiting (that's the real hard part).


P.S. If we did finally agree that President Bush is part of the problem, then does anyone have any ideas of something else we could do to address that problem besides just voting Democrat (which again I'm scared is what's going to happen as the alternative instead of something better)?

You have got to break out of the two-party paradigm...

First of all, there ARE viable alternatives like the Constitution Party.

Also, there are good constitutionalists in both parties, though few and far between. We should work within any party we choose and be the voice for constitutionalism in those parties.

My mother is a Democratic State Representative, and while she has always been very conservative, I have been working on her quite a bit lately and she is really coming around to a constitutional mindset (and has been targeted by party leadership as a result).

In short, I guess what I am saying is.. our loyalty needs to be to revealed, Constitutional principles and not to a party. We should niether support nor dismiss a candidate based on party affiliation alone.

[Swmorgan77]

Say what SW? Let me post for you the introduction of his talk up to the point that the prophet declared his support of the President. It is clear that President Hinckley was speaking in context of the terror attack that had just occurred on our soil and our retalitory strike against the taliban in Afganistan. Lets give President Hinckley some credit here. He was fully aware of this ongoing terror campaign waged by Islamic Jihadists around the world and his remarks were in context of his belief that these terrorist loving jihadists needed to be ferreted out and brought down.

Please remember that in the 20 years prior to 9-11 there were literally thousands of terrorist attacks committed worldwide by these radical Jihadist factions in many lands. Some were directed at our embassies in places like Beirut, Saudi Arabia, Kenya, Tazania, and Iran. These evil jihadists had attacked the world trade center in 1993 and the USS Cole along with our Marine base in Beirut. They claimed responsibility over and over again saying that America and Israel must be exterminated because we were the great Satan. How much clearer can the prophet be here?

I am giving him all the credit in the world. It is ultimately very wise and reflects his level of understanding that he did not specifically blame or single out "Islamic terrorists" in these comments. This allows individuals like yourself to see the intellectually and spirtually shallow interpretation that they want and go on with their blind support for an administration that is morally bankrupt and subverting the Constitution. The terrorist orginizations DO need to 'ferreted out' and brought down. Now I would ask you... "ferreted out" of what? It is my judgement that the terrorist orginizations are imbedded into our own political structure and must be ferretted out.

This may not be consistent with the particular account of the gadiantons that you referred to, but it is consistent with other Book of Mormon accounts where Gadiantons DID attempt and succeed to covertly take control of the Nephite government, and even more importantly it is consistent with Moroni's description of the nature of the Secret Combination that would arise in OUR TIME, which would be similar to those in his time but as he made clear would be MUCH WIDER in its ambition and success, which is clear from 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 apower and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of bdestruction 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 asecret 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 afreedom 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 bbeguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning;

President Benson used the very same terminology in his General Conference address, and stated that this secret combination was already growing in power and influence over America and "all nations". You did not address this point... there is no way he was referring to Al Qaeda at that time or Islamic terrorism in general.

It is also very interesting that you would bring up the 1993 world trade center bombing, because if you look at the undisputed evidence and details of the case, it is a perfect illustration of how enemies within our own government structure pose a much greater threat. The whole plot was engineered by a paid FBI informant in what he thought was a sting operation. The FBI also supplied the explosives for that bombing and then instructed their informant to CARRY OUT THE ATTACK. Upon receiving those orders he became very wary and began recording his conversations with intelligence officials. A lot of people owe their lives to the fact that the FBI's informant did NOT follow the orders given him by the FBI and chose to detonate the explosives at a location other than the support column where he was instructed to. Watch this video for details:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... orld+trade

You see this entire history of "Radical Islam", if you look closely and get beyond the superficial propaganda, is tied extensively to western intelligence agencies. These radical Islamists, who before the middle of the 20th century were virtually nonexistent and were shunned by Muslim clerics, were funded and radicalized by western governments to be usefel in certain situations - whether it was against the Soviets in Afghanistan, or the use of Al Qaeda operatives in Bosnia to attack the Serbs or against Mosadeq in Iran.

The enitre "history" of Islamic terrorism that you cited is a big lie. Not a lie in the sense that those events didn't happen, but a lie in terms of the nature of the terrorist orginizations, their motivations and their capabilties.

It is a matter of interpretation, Mark and as much as I am sure you hate to admit it, President Hinckley's comments are not at all inconsistent with my interpretation of them, or my identification of who the modern equivalent of the Gadiantons are.

[John Adams]

You have got to break out of the two-party paradigm...

First of all, there ARE viable alternatives like the Constitution Party.

Also, there are good constitutionalists in both parties, though few and far between. We should work within any party we choose and be the voice for constitutionalism in those parties.

I perfectly agree. I was just making the point in relation to conversations I've had with others and also to bring out that as we help educate others of the things that the Bush Administration is doing wrong, we need to give them other alternatives or else they also just go back to the two-party paradigm and default to Democrat. Which of course is just the same old, same old.

[Swmorgan77]

You have got to break out of the two-party paradigm...

First of all, there ARE viable alternatives like the Constitution Party.

Also, there are good constitutionalists in both parties, though few and far between. We should work within any party we choose and be the voice for constitutionalism in those parties.

I perfectly agree. I was just making the point in relation to conversations I've had with others and also to bring out that as we help educate others of the things that the Bush Administration is doing wrong, we need to give them other alternatives or else they also just go back to the two-party paradigm and default to Democrat. Which of course is just the same old, same old.

Well, I will say this.. and please understand I have NEVER voted for a Democrat other than my Mother, who is a DINO

It WOULD be better at this point (Representative Ron Paul has said the same thing) for Democrats to gain control of one or both houses of congress this year. Not by virtue of their policies, but by virtue of the fact that there would potentially be some opposition to this out-of-control Executive.

That opposition should have come just as readily from the Republicans that are there now, since they all took an Oath to defend Constitution, but it has not. It would also send the message to Republicans that they can not be big-government liberals during their whole terms and then expect to be reelected by conservatives simply because they are the 'lesser of two evils'.

[John Adams]

Mark,

Just to clarify, do you feel that this type of web site--or at least these types of threads (that bring up the possibility that Bush is as much a part of the problem as everything else)--is going against President Hinckley's counsel?

I am completely willing to admit that Radical Islamist Terrorists are a big part of the problem in the world, but I also believe that our own government (both Republicans & Democrats & President Bush) are a huge part of the problem as well. What I like talking about instead is other alternatives.

I still get the sense from you that you think that somehow all of the American people rallying around Bush would solve this "terrorist" problem. I just don't think that is possible anymore. We need a new solution (or actually probably an old solution--returning to the original Constitutional principles). Please clarify.

[John Adams]

Well, I will say this.. and please understand I have NEVER voted for a Democrat other than my Mother, who is a DINO

It WOULD be better at this point (Representative Ron Paul has said the same thing) for Democrats to gain control of one or both houses of congress this year. Not by virtue of their policies, but by virtue of the fact that there would potentially be some opposition to this out-of-control Executive.

That opposition should have come just as readily from the Republicans that are there now, since they all took an Oath to defend Constitution, but it has not. It would also send the message to Republicans that they can not be big-government liberals during their whole terms and then expect to be reelected by conservatives simply because they are the 'lesser of two evils'.

This is the part I was getting at. I'm not sure if I agree with you or not (I'm still thinking this alternative through). Sometimes I think the new 'lesser of two evils' might very well be going back to some balance with the Democrats controlling Congress (I can't believe I just said that ). However, what scares me even more is that if they do get control I don't think they will do anything helpful and instead will just focus all their efforts on impeaching Bush or something like that. Legitimate change needs to happen soon (if it's not already too late). Just more checks that ends in no significant change isn't going to cut it.

[WYp8riot]

quote: "Now we are at war. Great forces have been mobilized and will continue to be. Political alliances are being forged. We do not know how long this conflict will last. We do not know what it will cost in lives and treasure. We do not know the manner in which it will be carried out. It could impact the work of the Church in various ways.

Our national economy has been made to suffer. It was already in trouble, and this has compounded the problem. Many are losing their employment. Among our own people, this could affect welfare needs and also the tithing of the Church. It could affect our missionary program. "

thats a profound statement I believe.

[Mark]

This Walter Williams column sums up where we are at in this war of civilizations. I am just trying to see the big picture here and realize that the West is in for the battle of its life. Jihadists are just proxy agents for the terrorist sponsoring nation states around the world that want to see the West destroyed just as the gadianton robbers wanted to destroy the Nephites. The Russian and Chinese communist leaders continue to arm and fund these radical nation states because the common goal that all share is the elimination of Israel and America. If we don't wake up and smell the roses here we will appease our way into oblivion and will be set up for the destruction of western civilization and the goals espoused by those who want to rule the earth by the barrel of a gun. Just remember the words of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 to the Soviet Politburo before the so called fall of communism when He said:

"Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our aim is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep."

All the while I lament that the only thing many here on this board want to focus on as our primary concern to freedom is the actions of George Bush and Co. This is a red herring being dragged across the screen and serves as a distraction to the more severe life and death threats we are facing to our civilization. If the Jihadists and the communists are successful in their long term goal we won't have the liberty of discussing politics and complaints about George Bush and those limp wristed Republicans and all their faults. We will all be to preoccupied dealing with death and torture being handed out to our families. Does this answer your question JD?




Appeasement: Not in WWII vocabulary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2006

Does the United States have the power to eliminate terrorists and the states that support them? In terms of capacity, as opposed to will, the answer is a clear yes.

Think about it. Currently, the U.S. has an arsenal of 18 Ohio class submarines. Just one submarine is loaded with 24 Trident nuclear missiles. Each Trident missile has eight nuclear warheads capable of being independently targeted. That means the U.S. alone has the capacity to wipe out Iran, Syria or any other state that supports terrorist groups or engages in terrorism – without risking the life of a single soldier.

Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it. Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.


Such an argument would have fallen on deaf ears during World War II when we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan. The loss of lives through saturation bombing far exceeded those lost through the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the battle of Midway, and the long string of Japanese defeats in the Pacific, including Guam, Okinawa and the Philippines, had today's Americans been around, they'd be willing to negotiate with Japan for peace, pointing to the additional loss of lives if we continued the war. More than likely they would have made the same argument in 1945, when German defeat was imminent. Of course, had there been a peace agreement with Japan and Germany, all it would have achieved would have been to give them time to recoup their losses and resume their aggression at a later time, possibly equipped with nuclear weapons.

We might also note that the occupation of Germany and Japan didn't pose the occupation problems we face in Iraq. The reason is we completely demoralized our enemies, leaving them with neither the will nor the means to resist.

Our adversaries in the Middle East have advantages that the Axis powers didn't have – the Western press and public opinion. We've seen widespread condemnation of alleged atrocities and prisoner mistreatment by the U.S., but how much media condemnation have you seen of beheadings and other gross atrocities by Islamists?

Terrorists must be pleased by statements of some members of Congress, such as those by Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who recently said, "I don't take sides for or against Hezbollah." Hezbollah, backed by Iran, is responsible for the 1983 bombing of Beirut barracks, killing 241 U.S. service members.

I'm not suggesting that we rush to use our nuclear capacity to crush states that support terrorism. I'm sure there are other less drastic military options. What I am suggesting is that I know of no instances where appeasement, such as the current Western modus operandi, has borne fruit.

What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid-'30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.

Anyone who thinks current Western appeasement efforts will get Iran to end its nuclear weapons program and end its desire to eliminate Israel is dumber than dumb. Appeasement will strengthen Iran's hand, and it looks as if the West, including the United States, is willing to be complicit in that strengthening.

[lundbaek]

"The Russian and Chinese communist leaders continue to arm and fund these radical nation states because the common goal that all share is the elimination of Israel and America."

OK, who armed and funded the Russians and Chinese to where they became the formidable enemy they are now? Now there's a homework assignment for anyone interested. Being the Mr. Nice Guy that I am, I'll get you started.

The Soviet state's technological and manufacturing base, which during the Korean War and the Vietnam War engaged in supplying the communist forces with the armaments and supplies to kill and wound American soldiers, was built by US firms and mostly paid for by the US taxpayers. From their largest steel and iron plant, to automobile manufacturing equipment, to precision ball-bearings and computers, basically the majority of the Soviet's large industrial enterprises had been built with the United States help or technical assistance. Technology and manufacturing assistance for some of the most formidable weapons American forces have confronted since WW2 was supplied by the U.S.A. and to a lesser extent some of its “allies”. Also, illegal exports and reverse engineered hardware have contributed greatly to the development of Soviet weapons. Among the earlier weapons with which I became familiar were:

Soviet aircraft engines, including the Rolls Royce turbojets for the MIG-15, Wright Cyclone engines, the NASA Space Shuttle engine, and the U.S. C5A turbofan engine.

Soviet armoured vehicles. From a number of purchased Western tanks, and with technical assistance agreements, the Soviets developed a formidable tank force using Western designed engines, the American Christie suspension system, and even armour plate imported from the U.S.A.

Certain American leaders supported the Communist forces of Mao Tse-tung in their war against Chiang Kai-shek and actively worked behind the scenes to bring about the Communization of China.

RememberChinagate? It involved not merely a few instances in which clever foreigners sneaked illegal campaign contributions past lackadaisical or errant Clinton underlings. It concerned massive corruption and bribery in which an unprecedented, ceaseless parade of criminals and agents of a totalitarian power hostile to the United States has wended its way through the White House -- with tons of unlawful funds in tow. And President Clinton, in wanton and willful disregard of the obvious threat to America's vital defenses, dramatically altered U.S. foreign policy, eviscerated our security procedures, and threw open the gates to our most sensitive military secrets and technology. The ensuing flood of technological transfers has enabled the People's Republic of China, run by a rigid Communist oligarchy that has repeatedly declared the U.S. its enemy, to achieve stunning military advances in a few short years, including the ability to target U.S. allies -- and the U.S. itself -- with intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Russia and China would not be the powerful forces they are today without the massive help received from the United States government.

As for actions of President Bush & Co., here's just one that is getting increasingly closer to my home. In spite of recent talk, they are still promoting the blending of our culture with that of Mexico. U.S. law enforcement and military forces could stop the illegal immigration if assigned the task. They are being prevented from doing so. We now learn that border patrol agents are forbidden to pursue illegals and suspected drug smugglers.

[79scholar]

But how does one stop a mega-rich traitor in a capitalistic oligarchal society?