Hypothetical: BYU/LDS Church officially rejects Steven Jones

[LDS Patriot]

If you are an apostle for Steven Jones, and his work is rejected by BYU/LDS Church, i.e., rejection of the "insider” theory, what would you do? To put in another way, if BYU/LDS Church officially renounces Jones as a false teacher, would you:

A) Repent for following a false teacher
B) Apostasies from LDS Church
C) other

If A, ; and what would the repentance look like; how would you restore the “truth” to those deceived by Jones et al?

If B, why?

If C, then what?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Not to be contentious but though I support Steven Jones he acknowledged that he went too far in drawing conclusions and I agree although I SUSPECT that his conclusions are correct. If the church came out and said that he is a false teacher, I would have nothing to repent of. Believing what he has said requires no action. If the church said that he was wrong, then I would know that he was wrong.

Your question presupposes that believing all things and trying them as a seed is wrong.

If I were to act upon my belief and actively fight against the powers that be, only then would I have something to repent of in the eventuality that the church made that declaration.

What are you accusing us of? I guess I need to know that before I know what I am supposed to repent of. Are you accusing us of belief? Tell me how that is contrary to the churches teachings and I will repent. If the church said I was wrong repentance would be automatic and immediate in that I would no longer believe the theory.

By phrasing your question thus, you are insinuating that there are those whose loyalties lie in the theory above the church.

[Swmorgan77]

sry this was a double

[Swmorgan77]

If you are an apostle for Steven Jones, and his work is rejected by BYU/LDS Church, i.e., rejection of the "insider” theory, what would you do? To put in another way, if BYU/LDS Church officially renounces Jones as a false teacher, would you:

A) Repent for following a false teacher
B) Apostasies from LDS Church
C) other

If A, ; and what would the repentance look like; how would you restore the “truth” to those deceived by Jones et al?

If B, why?

If C, then what?

What would that "rejection" constitute? The rejection of the fact that traces of thermate were found?

Are you talking about some sort of adoption of the official Story of 9/11 as an article of faith?

Or just some sort of official denunciation of the general idea of government involvement in 9/11?

My answer would be different in each of those cases, but I find all of them unlikely given that 36% of Americans now suspect either active or passive complicity by elements of the government in the attacks, and worldwide the numbers are much higher.

I think that Elder Holland's comments today about the tendency in the church to dismiss statements of past church leaders to be "outdated" or "irrelevant" were very important.

[lundbaek]

I guess I gotta review what Elder Holland said. I listened to his entire talk, but somehow I missed whatever he said about the tendency in the church to dismiss statements of past church leaders as being "outdated" or "irrelevant". This comes with old age and senility. I'll look at it in the Nov. Ensign.

Some of us already had a similar occasion to question our beliefs when in Oct. 2001 Conference President Hinkley stated "Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation." Some took that to mean that President Bush is on the Lord's side, is not involved with any Latter Day Gadiantons or conspiracies to destroy our constitutional republic, and that he was justified in initiating military action in Afghanistan without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. On the other extreme, others, myself included, felt he was telling us that if our government gets into a war we are obligated to serve if called to serve, while at the same time allaying any concerns the LDGs might have about any possible official opposition the Church might have to the actions of th President, and hence the LDGs.

I expect the Church to try to distance itself from Prof. Jones' accusation of FedGov complicity in the 911 attacks, even if it means nit-picking to find fault with his report and allegations. I think the Church has a lot to lose by antagonizing the LDGs at this time, as I've written here before. Some folks think that's not a concern because the Lord could always intervene to protect the Church against any attacks by the LDGs. But that would require the Lord revealing himself to an extent that could be detrimental to the plan of salvation.

[WYp8riot]

If you are an apostle for Steven Jones, and his work is rejected by BYU/LDS Church, i.e., rejection of the "insider” theory, what would you do? To put in another way, if BYU/LDS Church officially renounces Jones as a false teacher, would you:

A) Repent for following a false teacher
B) Apostasies from LDS Church
C) other

If A, ; and what would the repentance look like; how would you restore the “truth” to those deceived by Jones et al?

If B, why?

If C, then what?

what exactly do you clasify as an apostle for steven jones? LOL I have to say the question is kind of confusing both inmenaning and intent. Perhaps you should clarifiy a little more.

Do you think the church should officially reject the idea of any involvement from within? Would that help you feel better about your beliefs or is there something else you are tying to get at. I am confused by the hypothetical questions?
Please help us understand more of what you trying to get at.

[WYp8riot]

delete duplicate post

[WYp8riot]

I guess I gotta review what Elder Holland said. I listened to his entire talk, but somehow I missed whatever he said about the tendency in the church to dismiss statements of past church leaders as being "outdated" or "irrelevant". This comes with old age and senility. I'll look at it in the Nov. Ensign.

Some of us already had a similar occasion to question our beliefs when in Oct. 2001 Conference President Hinkley stated "Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation." Some took that to mean that President Bush is on the Lord's side, is not involved with any Latter Day Gadiantons or conspiracies to destroy our constitutional republic, and that he was justified in initiating military action in Afghanistan without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. On the other extreme, others, myself included, felt he was telling us that if our government gets into a war we are obligated to serve if called to serve, while at the same time allaying any concerns the LDGs might have about any possible official opposition the Church might have to the actions of th President, and hence the LDGs.

I expect the Church to try to distance itself from Prof. Jones' accusation of FedGov complicity in the 911 attacks, even if it means nit-picking to find fault with his report and allegations. I think the Church has a lot to lose by antagonizing the LDGs at this time, as I've written here before. Some folks think that's not a concern because the Lord could always intervene to protect the Church against any attacks by the LDGs. But that would require the Lord revealing himself to an extent that could be detrimental to the plan of salvation.

Heavenly father could have helped those that died get across to the Salt Lake Valley. He didnt and I dont find that as reason to become apostate.
Additionally there is the subject of Polygamy, and perhaps this is what the thread was refering to? Obviously as history proves LDG's exist as well as conspiracies, likewise there are those that have apostasized when they were commanded in a manner that they felt was contrary to thier mortal understanding and knowledge. So if the post was meant as a thought provoker it came accross a little confusing. I suspect some may have taken at a shallow attack?

[lundbaek]

I was trying to respond to multiple statements, and I caan see now that it might be confusing. If what I wrote doesn't make sense, just ignore it. I wasn't attacking any previous post or even trying to provoke thought.

[LDS Patriot]

I’m perplexed why the post has caused so much confusing. I’ll elucidate the thoughts behind it.

Jones wrote near the end of the article. "The case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up."

Dr. Jones is a terror-denier. He has accused Americans in the US Govt. to be the culprit and cause of 9/11. To be short, he has made a false witness against Americans in the US Govt., i.e., shameless breaking the 9th commandment.

Dr. Jones work insults all the immediate (those who died) victims of 9/11, their family and friends, and the rest of the US and the world in general.

Dr. Jones work promotes that Americans in the US Govt. are the enemy, not Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work promotes confusion and dissension and division when it should be a time of unity.

Dr. Jones work puts the blame on the wrong group, thus making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent; i.e., thus victimizing the victims again by denying the guilty party, and insults the vital need for justice by holding accountable the guilty party; blaming America, exonerating Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work is a waste of precious time and effort. Those that buy into the "inside job" theory would have little motive to learn about militant Islam and the Jihadists who are the real culprits of 9/11. Thus, the real threat, the true enemey, is not understood, and such ignorance leaves us vulnerable to futher attacks. We need the moral and intellectual clarity and courage to define and defeat the real enemy, not a fictitious enemy; to know thy enemy is crucial to defeating ones enemy.

Clear?

See The Dangers of 9/11 Conpsiracy Theories http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/ ... d4e788c7f5

See Beware the Truthers. Don't Ignore Them: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/colu ... 006&page=1

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Let me ask you some questions. If it turns out that us wacko nut jobs are correct, will you repent or apostatize? False accusation you know!

Do you have a lightnong rod on your car? Or is it only this bellicose threat that gets you worked up?

What has your beloved done for your rights and constitution lately?

Or is turnabout not fairplay?

I apologize to all for taking the bait and will now move on.

[79scholar]

Choosing option B is extraordinarily foolish.

I would not choose option A either if I believed Steven Jones to be accurate.

I choose C) support Steven Jones just as I do Alex Jones ... and remember God's commandment through Moroni in Ether 8:23-25.

[79scholar]

Dr. Jones is a terror-denier. He has accused Americans in the US Govt. to be the culprit and cause of 9/11. To be short, he has made a false witness against Americans in the US Govt., i.e., shameless breaking the 9th commandment.

Dr. Jones work insults all the immediate (those who died) victims of 9/11, their family and friends, and the rest of the US and the world in general.

Dr. Jones work promotes that Americans in the US Govt. are the enemy, not Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work promotes confusion and dissension and division when it should be a time of unity.

Dr. Jones work puts the blame on the wrong group, thus making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent; i.e., thus victimizing the victims again by denying the guilty party, and insults the vital need for justice by holding accountable the guilty party; blaming America, exonerating Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work is a waste of precious time and effort. Those that buy into the "inside job" theory would have little motive to learn about militant Islam and the Jihadists who are the real culprits of 9/11. Thus, the real threat, the true enemey, is not understood, and such ignorance leaves us vulnerable to futher attacks. We need the moral and intellectual clarity and courage to define and defeat the real enemy, not a fictitious enemy; to know thy enemy is crucial to defeating ones enemy.

While it is true that the US has many outside enemies, all these things that you accuse of Steven Jones are false, and grieve the Spirit.

[WYp8riot]

I was trying to respond to multiple statements, and I caan see now that it might be confusing. If what I wrote doesn't make sense, just ignore it. I wasn't attacking any previous post or even trying to provoke thought.

Your post was clear, my apologies it was me that responded confusingly as well. I was questioning the original post ion the thread and what the inten t was because i was confused by it.

[WYp8riot]

I’m perplexed why the post has caused so much confusing. I’ll elucidate the thoughts behind it.

Dr. Jones work insults all the immediate (those who died) victims of 9/11, their family and friends, and the rest of the US and the world in general.
......

Dr. Jones work puts the blame on the wrong group, thus making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent; i.e., thus victimizing the victims again by denying the guilty party, and insults the vital need for justice by holding accountable the guilty party; blaming America, exonerating Jihadists.
Clear?
See The Dangers of 9/11 Conpsiracy Theories http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/ ... d4e788c7f5

See Beware the Truthers. Don't Ignore Them: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/colu ... 006&page=1

When you try and speak for the victims and thier families you make some false assumptions. These women who lost loved ones clearly show contradiction to you false speaking in thier behalf.........

http://www.latterdayconservative.com/fo ... .php?t=245

[Swmorgan77]

delete duplicate post

Sorry, I was trying to figure out how...

[Swmorgan77]

I’m perplexed why the post has caused so much confusing. I’ll elucidate the thoughts behind it.

Jones wrote near the end of the article. "The case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up."

Dr. Jones is a terror-denier. He has accused Americans in the US Govt. to be the culprit and cause of 9/11. To be short, he has made a false witness against Americans in the US Govt., i.e., shameless breaking the 9th commandment.

Dr. Jones work insults all the immediate (those who died) victims of 9/11, their family and friends, and the rest of the US and the world in general.

Dr. Jones work promotes that Americans in the US Govt. are the enemy, not Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work promotes confusion and dissension and division when it should be a time of unity.

Dr. Jones work puts the blame on the wrong group, thus making the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent; i.e., thus victimizing the victims again by denying the guilty party, and insults the vital need for justice by holding accountable the guilty party; blaming America, exonerating Jihadists.

Dr. Jones work is a waste of precious time and effort. Those that buy into the "inside job" theory would have little motive to learn about militant Islam and the Jihadists who are the real culprits of 9/11. Thus, the real threat, the true enemey, is not understood, and such ignorance leaves us vulnerable to futher attacks. We need the moral and intellectual clarity and courage to define and defeat the real enemy, not a fictitious enemy; to know thy enemy is crucial to defeating ones enemy.

Clear?

See The Dangers of 9/11 Conpsiracy Theories http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/ ... d4e788c7f5

See Beware the Truthers. Don't Ignore Them: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/colu ... 006&page=1

To call Dr. Jones a "terror-denier" is just silly, and is a transparent attempt to associate him, through sensationalist language, with anti-semitism so STOP IT. He is not denying that the horrible acts of terrorism took place, and certainly whoever was responsible is, by definition, a terrorist. He has not even said, to my knowledge, that Al Qaeda itself was not invovled, but simply acknowledges the implications of his research that the demolitions of the towers requires a level of access that Al Qaeda, acting alone as an Islamic terrorist group without any assistance, could not accomplish.

The only one "denying" factual information here is you. Are all the documented connections between Al Qaeda, CIA, ISI and MI6 just irrelevant? We KNOW that our government used Bin Laden and his operatives for their purposes as recently as in Bosnia, and there are reports of him meeting with the CIA as late as July 2001 from very respected journalists with mulitple sources.

While there is no hard evidence (as the FBI admits) for Bin Laden's involvement specifically in 9/11, even if you think that he was you have to take into account the information above. When did he CEASE to be a CIA asset and begin fighting them, and what is the evidence thereof?

Furthermore, I disagree with the general premise of this post. I think there is MUCH more to fear from falsely mobilizing against a perceived "outside threat", and potentially succumbing, as President Hinckley puts it "to the evil designs of scheming rulers".

I think the safest course of action with relationship to terrorist events is this:

We begin with the A Priori assumption (as we certainly well should based on even US History alone) that elements in our government are involved, in an attempt to stampeed us into greater controls and/or a war footing. Then upon careful, objective examination of evidence follow that evidence where it leads. If at any point, there is an attempt by US agencies to obstruct that effort (as has been the case with 9/11) then that should serve to confirm our A Priori assumption. If the investigation leads to invovlement of other orginizations independent of the US, then we act accordingly.

Remember it took 2 months or so before we actually launched into Afghanistan. Its not as if we were in there right away killing the terrorists who were in the act of attacking us. Why was there no investigation during this time, or evidence to actually substantiate the premise of Bin Laden and 19 hijackers independently carrying out this attack?

What would be the harm? that citizens would be overly suspicious, scrutinizing and vigilant of their government? If citizens are mistrustful of their government is because either A) They understand the historical nature of governments or B) The government has failed to earn that trust. In either case, I can not see any value in placing an amount of trust in our elected officials that is not supported by reality, or that would have us ignore their failures.

On the other hand, consider the potential harm in the opposite approach to terrorism, or the one we have taken since 9/11:

We are hit by a horrifict act of terrorism. Our government responds immediately with a narrative that it later admits there is no evidence for, and with sweeping legislation which eviscerates the Cosntitution. Any criticism is labeled as, itself, a potential threat. Constant terror threats, real or fabricated serve to catalyze and manipulate political outcomes. The Islamic world is increasingly radicalized and mobilized against us, increasing the actual threat of Islamic terrorism.

I think there is far more potential for danger in the latter approach. Furthermore, the idea that "Unity" and "Security" are too overridingly important to allow for dissent, pursuit of truth or scrutiny of government is the Clarion call of Tyranny.

9/11 Timeline Pages:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... orBinLaden
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/time ... mFinancing

[Swmorgan77]

Dr Jones' statement of government involvement did NOT amount to false witness. He was drawing, frankly, what is the only logical conclusion based on evidence that he has observed.

Also, would not the statement of Bin Laden's invovlement constitute false witness in light of this quote from Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative publicity for the FBI on 6-5-06:

The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin laden to the 9/11 attacks

Now, what about false witness that is used as the pretext for two foreign wars, thousands of civilian deaths, and the complete reoirienting of our domestic policy - including the inspired Constitution?

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Maybe we are all thinking too rationally in a time of an irrational tragedy!

LDS Patriot Act wrote "it should be a time of unity." George Bush agrees, so does David Rockefeller, so does Rupert Murdoch, so does Ted Turner, so does...

Clearly LDS Patriot Act is correct in calling for the type of unity that unites us all into a New World Order. After all of the terror I'm convinced, where do I sign up? Anyone else wanna join the coolest, newest club?

[Swmorgan77]

Maybe we are all thinking too rationally in a time of an irrational tragedy!

LDS Patriot Act wrote "it should be a time of unity." George Bush agrees, so does David Rockefeller, so does Rupert Murdoch, so does Ted Turner, so does...

Clearly LDS Patriot Act is correct in calling for the type of unity that unites us all into a New World Order. After all of the terror I'm convinced, where do I sign up? Anyone else wanna join the coolest, newest club?

You forgot Kissinger, who as Woodward reveals in his new book, is a key architect of the war on terror:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government.

Henry Kissinger, Speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Yeah, he is without a doubt a player, as are others. Imagine how many are on the international list!

[Shoemaker]

[ Furthermore, the idea that "Unity" and "Security" are too overridingly important to allow for dissent, pursuit of truth or scrutiny of government is the Clarion call of Tyranny.

Amen and amen!

[Swmorgan77]

Oh and on the idea of "Standing with the President", I would recommend this section of audio from Ezra Taft Benson when he describes some of the instances in which, out of Christ-like love, loyalty and genuine concern, he and others urged Presidents to alter or reconsider their decisions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... zra+benson

I mean, come on! We don't sustain our church leaders to go against eternal principles... when a worthy woman enters the marriage covenent it is based on "hearkening unto her husband AS HE HEARKENS TO THE LORD". It is NOT absolute or unquestioning fealty in the case of our eternal covenants and priesthood leadership. Literally NO PART of the Lord's kingdom or the gospel is based on the authoritarian principle, meaning loyalty or obedience by virtue of authority alone (section 121).

Why then, would we hold ourselves to such a standard of loyalty to a President?

To me, this is just common sense.

[Shoemaker]

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official,
save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar
as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency
or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth,
whether about the president or anyone else."
Teddy Roosevelt


AND


“To announce that there should be no criticism
of the president, or that we are to stand by the president,
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American people.”
Teddy Rossevelt

[John Adams]

Shoemaker,

Great quotes by President Roosevelt. I need to show these to my dad.

My dad and I were arguing about this the other day (the whole supporting our president thing).

In the end we agreed that we support the "office" of the President of the United States of America (therefore I don't like it when Hugo Chavez and others take pot shots at President Bush because I respect the office), but that I still expect the person (right now George W. Bush) to fill that office worthily and if/when he doesn't then we as concerned citizens voice our criticisms, oppose where he seems to be trying to lead us, etc.