LDS Freedom Forum

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 1:02 pm**

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... r?lang=eng

"“Lincoln somehow knew that this Constitution needed to be defended,” Andersen said. When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln could have just let them go. But he didn’t. Congress didn’t even put up much of a fight. But Lincoln knew that to preserve the Constitution, the country could not be divided.

Andersen quoted Church President Heber J. Grant: “We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, Feb. 1940).

He also shared the words of Elder Reed Smoot of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who spoke about Lincoln to the U.S. Senate on February 12, 1927. “It was [Lincoln’s] faith in God that made him a guide, a prophet, and a seer.” Somehow Lincoln knew the Constitution was in danger and what the consequences would be if we lost it, Andersen said.

One night James Murdock, a visitor to the White House, walked by President Lincoln’s bedroom and heard him praying, he said. “O thou God that heard Solomon in the night that he prayed for wisdom, hear me; I cannot lead this people, I cannot guide the affairs of this nation without Thy help.” That was the kind of man that was in the White House during this nation’s greatest crisis, Andersen said.

...

“Lincoln always felt that the end of the Civil War would bring a new birth of freedom, a new life, and great good would follow,” he said. “For our nation and for the gospel, he was right.”

--------------------------------------

Now for my comments. Lincoln was a human. He had flaws. Just like Trump. But he was certainly not pure evil as described by some of the pundits today.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 1:46 pm**

I am interested in this.
Do I need to read the first book? per the comment that more research has come to light over the last 18 years I think I can just read the second book.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 2:14 pm**

ori wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 1:02 pm https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... r?lang=eng

"“Lincoln somehow knew that this Constitution needed to be defended,” Andersen said. When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln could have just let them go. But he didn’t. Congress didn’t even put up much of a fight. But Lincoln knew that to preserve the Constitution, the country could not be divided.

This is utter rubbish. The Constitution would have survived. It just would have included less participants. Oh, and have you ever checked out the CSA Constitution? Virtually a carbon copy. The Confederates weren't anti-constitution, they felt they were being abused and taken advantage of under the current conditions and sought to govern themselves with virtually the same structures. It's called self-determination.

Andersen quoted Church President Heber J. Grant: “We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, Feb. 1940).

That's Heber's opinion. I believe Heber was wrong. This mystical "union" that is glued together by coercion is nonsense. There was a massive propaganda campaign post war in an effort to diefy Lincoln and that nasty war of invasion. We have all been subject to that propaganda, even our infallible leaders. Most of it is myth.

He also shared the words of Elder Reed Smoot of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who spoke about Lincoln to the U.S. Senate on February 12, 1927. “It was [Lincoln’s] faith in God that made him a guide, a prophet, and a seer.” Somehow Lincoln knew the Constitution was in danger and what the consequences would be if we lost it, Andersen said.

One night James Murdock, a visitor to the White House, walked by President Lincoln’s bedroom and heard him praying, he said. “O thou God that heard Solomon in the night that he prayed for wisdom, hear me; I cannot lead this people, I cannot guide the affairs of this nation without Thy help.” That was the kind of man that was in the White House during this nation’s greatest crisis, Andersen said.

Again, this is also based on heavy post-war propaganda, that Lincoln was a religious man. He used religion as a political tool when he found it expedient.
...

“Lincoln always felt that the end of the Civil War would bring a new birth of freedom, a new life, and great good would follow,” he said. “For our nation and for the gospel, he was right.”

Yes, a new birth or freedom, a centralized strong government to replace the old backwards ideas of decentralization and self determination. This reminds me of HL Mencken's observation of the Gettysburg address:

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.
--------------------------------------

Now for my comments. Lincoln was a human. He had flaws. Just like Trump. But he was certainly not pure evil as described by some of the pundits today.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 2:18 pm**

cappaccio wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 1:46 pm I am interested in this.
Do I need to read the first book? per the comment that more research has come to light over the last 18 years I think I can just read the second book.

You should be fine with this one. If you want to read more, you can always do so.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 3:41 pm**

Lincoln hated the Mormons

That's all we need to know

Also the Elders of Israel will save the Constitution not Lincoln

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 3:42 pm**

ajax wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 2:14 pm
ori wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 1:02 pm https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... r?lang=eng

"“Lincoln somehow knew that this Constitution needed to be defended,” Andersen said. When the southern states seceded from the Union, Lincoln could have just let them go. But he didn’t. Congress didn’t even put up much of a fight. But Lincoln knew that to preserve the Constitution, the country could not be divided.

This is utter rubbish. The Constitution would have survived. It just would have included less participants. Oh, and have you ever checked out the CSA Constitution? Virtually a carbon copy. The Confederates weren't anti-constitution, they felt they were being abused and taken advantage of under the current conditions and sought to govern themselves with virtually the same structures. It's called self-determination.

Andersen quoted Church President Heber J. Grant: “We honor Abraham Lincoln because we believe absolutely that God honored him and raised him to be the instrument in His hands of saving the Constitution and the Union” (Improvement Era, Feb. 1940).

That's Heber's opinion. I believe Heber was wrong. This mystical "union" that is glued together by coercion is nonsense. There was a massive propaganda campaign post war in an effort to diefy Lincoln and that nasty war of invasion. We have all been subject to that propaganda, even our infallible leaders. Most of it is myth.

He also shared the words of Elder Reed Smoot of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who spoke about Lincoln to the U.S. Senate on February 12, 1927. “It was [Lincoln’s] faith in God that made him a guide, a prophet, and a seer.” Somehow Lincoln knew the Constitution was in danger and what the consequences would be if we lost it, Andersen said.

One night James Murdock, a visitor to the White House, walked by President Lincoln’s bedroom and heard him praying, he said. “O thou God that heard Solomon in the night that he prayed for wisdom, hear me; I cannot lead this people, I cannot guide the affairs of this nation without Thy help.” That was the kind of man that was in the White House during this nation’s greatest crisis, Andersen said.

Again, this is also based on heavy post-war propaganda, that Lincoln was a religious man. He used religion as a political tool when he found it expedient.
...

“Lincoln always felt that the end of the Civil War would bring a new birth of freedom, a new life, and great good would follow,” he said. “For our nation and for the gospel, he was right.”

Yes, a new birth or freedom, a centralized strong government to replace the old backwards ideas of decentralization and self determination. This reminds me of HL Mencken's observation of the Gettysburg address:

But let us not forget that it is oratory, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it! Put it into the cold words of everyday! The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination — “that government of the people, by the people, for the people,” should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in that battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. What was the practical effect of the battle of Gettysburg? What else than the destruction of the old sovereignty of the States, i. e., of the people of the States? The Confederates went into battle an absolutely free people; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision and vote of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that vote was so effective that they enjoyed scarcely any freedom at all. Am I the first American to note the fundamental nonsensicality of the Gettysburg address? If so, I plead my aesthetic joy in it in amelioration of the sacrilege.
--------------------------------------

Now for my comments. Lincoln was a human. He had flaws. Just like Trump. But he was certainly not pure evil as described by some of the pundits today.

You are correct about the south being justified and HL Mencken's speech was beautiful. It wasn’t the lord’s will. You can also cry the same River about British colonizing the world, Joseph Smith hinted on it being the lord’s will by talking about their coats being red, they didn’t hide.

The lord’s will will be done.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 3:46 pm**

I think I'll go with what Brigham said:

“Abe Lincoln was no friend to Christ, particularly, he had never raised his voice in our favor when he was aware that we were being persecuted.” (Brigham Young, office journal, 2 March 1861, LDS Church History Library)

"Our present President [Lincoln], what is his strength? It is like a rope of sand, or like a rope made of water. He is as weak as water. What can he do? Very little. Has he power to execute the laws? No. I am an American-born citizen—born under the Green Mountains in Vermont, from whose summits you can look down upon the Atlantic States; and I feel chagrined and mortified when I reflect upon the condition of my nation. Of late, at times, I have almost wished that I had been born in a foreign nation. I feel disgraced in having been born under a government that has so little power, disposition, and influence for truth and right; but I cannot help it. What is the cause of their weakness and imbecility? They have left the paths of truth and virtue, they have joined themselves to falsehood, they have made lies their refuge, they have turned aside the innocent from their rights, and justified the iniquitous doers. They have justified thieving and lying and every species of debauchery; they have fostered those who have purloined money out of the public treasury—those who have plundered the coffers of the people, and have said, “Let it be so; you secrete my faults, you assist me to plunder and deceive, and I am with you to cover up your iniquity.” Shame, shame on the rulers of the nation! I feel myself disgraced to hail such men as my countrymen, though I think I shall live through it. I will endure it as well as I can; but the corruption, the iniquity, and the deception of men in high places no man can tell." (Brigham Young, JD 9:4)

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 3:50 pm**

Luke wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 3:41 pm Lincoln hated the Mormons

That's all we need to know

This is a bad way to read/interpret history. As much as I dislike Lincoln, that it the stupidest most insignificant reason why.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 3:56 pm**

ajax wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 3:50 pm
Luke wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 3:41 pm Lincoln hated the Mormons

That's all we need to know

This is a bad way to read/interpret history. As much as I dislike Lincoln, that it the stupidest most insignificant reason why.

Your opinion, although yes there are a plethora of other reasons why

But in terms of this being an LDS forum, the fact that he was against us should be a factor in our collective opinion of him

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 4:15 pm**

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 9:14 am
bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 8:20 am
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 9th, 2020, 10:32 pm Arguing about Lincoln and his issues is like arguing about Martin Luther King Jr. They both did the lord’s will.

Change my mind....
If you really believe that then there is very likely no changing your mind. Read The Real Lincoln. It's a great informational book. If that does not change your mind then you can go on believing what you want. However, I feel like you may have said this without any intentions to learn anything new on the subject.
You replied in a manner that might imply MLK was a good person, interesting.

From what I've studied, MLK is also not a good man. He was a communist that used the civil rights movement as his "sheep's clothing". I just don't have any specific books to reference and the thread itself was more geared toward Lincoln.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 4:23 pm**

bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:15 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 9:14 am
bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 8:20 am
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 9th, 2020, 10:32 pm Arguing about Lincoln and his issues is like arguing about Martin Luther King Jr. They both did the lord’s will.

Change my mind....
If you really believe that then there is very likely no changing your mind. Read The Real Lincoln. It's a great informational book. If that does not change your mind then you can go on believing what you want. However, I feel like you may have said this without any intentions to learn anything new on the subject.
You replied in a manner that might imply MLK was a good person, interesting.
From what I've studied, MLK is also not a good man. He was a communist that used the civil rights movement as his "sheep's clothing". I just don't have any specific books to reference and the thread itself was more geared toward Lincoln.

He also love to beat his white women of the night.

Lincoln and MLK both help fullfill the lords words, ie do his will....

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 4:35 pm**

Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:23 pm
bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:15 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 9:14 am
bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 8:20 am

If you really believe that then there is very likely no changing your mind. Read The Real Lincoln. It's a great informational book. If that does not change your mind then you can go on believing what you want. However, I feel like you may have said this without any intentions to learn anything new on the subject.
You replied in a manner that might imply MLK was a good person, interesting.
From what I've studied, MLK is also not a good man. He was a communist that used the civil rights movement as his "sheep's clothing". I just don't have any specific books to reference and the thread itself was more geared toward Lincoln.
He also love to beat his white women of the night.

Lincoln and MLK both help fullfill the lords words, ie do his will....

There is a difference between a man of God that does God's will (an instrument for God), and a evil man that God allows the agency to commit many horrible deeds. Hitler was not a man of God, nor was he used by God to accomplish God's will. But he did what he did regardless. Lincoln was not a man of God, but he was allowed his agency to do what he did. Both outcomes are not necessarily "God's will" to the extent that God is happy with them and happy to use them to accomplish His will... but he did allow agency to take its course and by that you might say it was "God's will" only in the sense that God is omnipotent and the outcome was allowed. But, that does not mean it was sanctioned.

Posted: **July 10th, 2020, 5:01 pm**

bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:35 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:23 pm
bbsion wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 4:15 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 9:14 am

You replied in a manner that might imply MLK was a good person, interesting.
From what I've studied, MLK is also not a good man. He was a communist that used the civil rights movement as his "sheep's clothing". I just don't have any specific books to reference and the thread itself was more geared toward Lincoln.
He also love to beat his white women of the night.

Lincoln and MLK both help fullfill the lords words, ie do his will....
There is a difference between a man of God that does God's will (an instrument for God), and a evil man that God allows the agency to commit many horrible deeds. Hitler was not a man of God, nor was he used by God to accomplish God's will. But he did what he did regardless. Lincoln was not a man of God, but he was allowed his agency to do what he did. Both outcomes are not necessarily "God's will" to the extent that God is happy with them and happy to use them to accomplish His will... but he did allow agency to take its course and by that you might say it was "God's will" only in the sense that God is omnipotent and the outcome was allowed. But, that does not mean it was sanctioned.

I understand what you are saying. I don’t agree with you in the since that the lord’s saints were not the one to act. The lord had to find someone else to act, ie his will

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 6:51 am**

ChooseTruth wrote: ↑July 9th, 2020, 2:57 pm While I haven’t read this, I’m guessing the cliff notes version is something like this.

Lincoln was first and foremost a big government politician that wanted to keep the union together in pursuit of that goal. He had pledged several times to uphold slavery to please the southern states and keep the union together. When that failed, he only freed the slaves in an effort to win the war. He was a very shrewd and conniving politician at heart.

I believe the above to be true at a high level. Obviously, it doesn’t square with the Lincoln we are traditionally taught.

You're spot on, but I think you missed one part. To understand it, one must understand the most basic tenet of the Constitution, as set forth in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's all about the "union": the United States exist because of the agreement of the several states giving their permission to be United. Secession is rightly construed to be a state right; remember the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Those were the very reasons we separated from Britain, and one of the reasons we celebrate Independence Day.

Back on topic, in the eyes of the South, they could no longer grant their government their permission to form a union, and so they seceded from the Union. Lincoln probably didn't want to be remembered as the president under whose watch the Union was dissolved, so he called on the U.S. Army to subdue the South: in some very basic ways, it was like Bush sending the military into Iraq to capture Hussein. The Civil War was NEVER about slavery, it was NEVER about keeping the Union together, but it WAS all about about destroying States' rights, and he used the might and power of government and the military, over which he was commander in chief, to subdue and pillage the South. And after the war, the pillaging continued: reparations were unjustly required from the South and they were forced for several years to endure post-war measures meant to punish, humiliate and control them for having chosen to secede.

For what it's worth, the Union soldiers had the numbers, but the South was more tactically brilliant. Robert E. Lee gave Grant fits, and Grant respected him for that. That's why, at Lee's capture, Grant order his men to doff their hats in respect. Notice that, today, the South makes up a much larger portion of the military. I don't think they've forgotten what Lincoln did to them.

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 7:39 am**

You also forget that the south attacked first to claim a fort contested on the border that Lincoln refused to give them. Up till that point, he let them do as they please and did give them control over several forts along the border.

Note: this is coming from a southerner who grew up in Texas.

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 8:19 am**

ajax wrote: ↑July 10th, 2020, 9:45 am
Bronco73idi wrote: ↑July 9th, 2020, 10:32 pm Arguing about Lincoln and his issues is like arguing about Martin Luther King Jr. They both did the lord’s will.

Change my mind....
So you believe that forcing political union between parties that no longer wish to be in said union (which was voluntary to begin with), that led to one section militarily invading the other resulting in nearly 1 million casualties, 50,000 civilian deaths (southern), mass property destruction and starvation, all because of the abstract idea of "union", was the lord's will?

Regarding the why of the difficulty of the civil war the Lord is replete In explaining in the D&C... To be righteous merits the blessings of heaven. To forsake God, especially in this set apart land— is to incur cursing / judgement. That said—-the U. S. of A. has been blessed preserved and prospered above still yet —all of its foes. Which does NOT speak well for the rest of the world when you reflect upon our own difficulty... the Civil war etc were beginning tribulation events that will ultimately culminate in desolation of abominations... in short, Lincoln did not control events they controlled him “I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled-me." and lucky we were that he sought the aid of heaven to steady the volatile ship during such times...

I love the constitution as much as most. But, it is not the superseding / paramount instruction to be followed for the preservation of this land. It is a catalyst / facilitator to hunger and thirst after righteousness and to usher in the proper government as a result of such freedoms...

Eventually when Jesus reigns as king of kings and Lord of Lords and “all shall know the Lord“ his government will reflect hardly any vestiges that reflect a government in conformity of our constitution. Why is this the case—because we will in a purified state of living having been cleansed by the blood of Jesus finally be able to live with out enmity. In such a government we will have have all things in common etc...

Turning to Jesus and striving for reconciliation through Jesus, Lincoln got that as much if not more than any living President.

“At this second appearing to take the oath of Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of this great conflict which is of primary concern to the nation as a whole, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.[7]
—Abraham Lincoln

If any one is looking to cleanse their understanding of the disparagement of Lincoln on this thread and Learn of who Lincoln was regarding the true strength of his position being ultimately a disciple of Jesus in his “incomings and outgoings” / responsibilities — please read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle- ... 1480506427

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 9:21 am**

Durzan wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 7:39 am You also forget that the south attacked first to claim a fort contested on the border that Lincoln refused to give them. Up till that point, he let them do as they please and did give them control over several forts along the border.

Note: this is coming from a southerner who grew up in Texas.

1-you being a southerner who grew up in TX is irrelevant
2-that the South "attacked first" that resulted in ZERO casualties, is NO justification to then call up the army and subdue the South. It was at this point (the calling up of troops) that the last 4 states seceded: Virginia, Arkansas, NC and Tennessee. That Lincoln was just innocently standing by as the South fired is nonsense. He was maneuvering for the pretext. And even though the pretext resulted in ZERO casualties, he got what he needed.
Read chapter 2, starts on page 33: https://cdn.mises.org/Century%20of%20War,%20A_3.pdf

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 10:02 am**

diligently seeking wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 8:19 am
Turning to Jesus and striving for reconciliation through Jesus, Lincoln got that as much if not more than any living President.

If any one is looking to cleanse their understanding of the disparagement of Lincoln on this thread and Learn of who Lincoln was regarding the true strength of his position being ultimately a disciple of Jesus in his “incomings and outgoings” / responsibilities — please read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle- ... 1480506427

Yeah, disciple of Jesus Lincoln: waging war on fellow Americans and civilians causing mass death and suffering, subverting the Constitution and the original order of the nature of the union.

But he liked to quote scripture sometimes.

Reality vs Rhetoric.

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 10:03 am**

Just got the book (The Problem with Lincoln) today. Looking forward to diving in.

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 1:21 pm**

ajax wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 10:02 am
diligently seeking wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 8:19 am
Turning to Jesus and striving for reconciliation through Jesus, Lincoln got that as much if not more than any living President.

If any one is looking to cleanse their understanding of the disparagement of Lincoln on this thread and Learn of who Lincoln was regarding the true strength of his position being ultimately a disciple of Jesus in his “incomings and outgoings” / responsibilities — please read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle- ... 1480506427
Yeah, disciple of Jesus Lincoln: waging war on fellow Americans and civilians causing mass death and suffering, subverting the Constitution and the original order of the nature of the union.

But he liked to quote scripture sometimes.

Reality vs Rhetoric.

So said they who proclaimed supposed hypocrisy Of Captain Moroni for his reason’s in the swift death of those who would usurp freedoms...

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 3:02 pm**

ajax wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 10:02 am
diligently seeking wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 8:19 am
Turning to Jesus and striving for reconciliation through Jesus, Lincoln got that as much if not more than any living President.

If any one is looking to cleanse their understanding of the disparagement of Lincoln on this thread and Learn of who Lincoln was regarding the true strength of his position being ultimately a disciple of Jesus in his “incomings and outgoings” / responsibilities — please read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle- ... 1480506427
Yeah, disciple of Jesus Lincoln: waging war on fellow Americans and civilians causing mass death and suffering, subverting the Constitution and the original order of the nature of the union.

But he liked to quote scripture sometimes.

Reality vs Rhetoric.

Or just read The Real Lincoln, or just search for it and you can read many, many excerpts from the book online.

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 3:04 pm**

diligently seeking wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 1:21 pm
ajax wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 10:02 am
diligently seeking wrote: ↑July 12th, 2020, 8:19 am
Turning to Jesus and striving for reconciliation through Jesus, Lincoln got that as much if not more than any living President.

If any one is looking to cleanse their understanding of the disparagement of Lincoln on this thread and Learn of who Lincoln was regarding the true strength of his position being ultimately a disciple of Jesus in his “incomings and outgoings” / responsibilities — please read this book.

https://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Battle- ... 1480506427
Yeah, disciple of Jesus Lincoln: waging war on fellow Americans and civilians causing mass death and suffering, subverting the Constitution and the original order of the nature of the union.

But he liked to quote scripture sometimes.

Reality vs Rhetoric.
So said they who proclaimed supposed hypocrisy Of Captain Moroni for his reason’s in the swift death of those who would usurp freedoms...

Here you go: https://bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com ... -by-grego/

Posted: **July 12th, 2020, 3:10 pm**

"First, a few things need to be set straight:
1. The War Between the States (what most refer to as “The Civil War”) was not about the North being righteous and against the bad treatment of Black slaves.

Charles Dickens summed it up well: “Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

A congressman from Texas, Reagan, said (on 15 January 1861): “You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue law, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions.”

The North was forcing the South to keep the government and country afloat in funds. One major way was the North forced the South to buy manufactured goods from them at high prices, or pay a very high tariff on imported manufactured foreign goods. Then the money collected was spent mostly on the North. The South protested, but to no avail. Yes, slaves certainly had a lot to do with this, but it was a double slavery—Blacks to mostly Southern owners, and all Southerners to the Northerners.

It’s clear that Lincoln didn’t plan to free the slaves unless it became a political necessity, and never considered Blacks on his level; for him, “all men are created equal” did *not* apply to the Blacks. Compare his views and what he did, with the views and proposition of Joseph Smith regarding resolving the release of Black slaves quickly, with fairness for both sides, without arms or blood, and good will.

2. Lincoln didn’t feel nor demonstrate much love for the Saints:

Lincoln spoke against polygamy. In fact, as president he signed into law the Anti-Polygamy Act (in 1862). Luckily for the Saints, Lincoln didn’t enforce the law (with a war ready to get started and all, he had other things to take care of first), but it set the stage for further trouble for the Saints, in the same line as constitutional meddling a la Lincoln.

When asked about the Saints in 1863, Lincoln said: “…when I was a boy on the farm in Illinois, there was a great deal of timber on the farms which we had to clear away. Occasionally we wou[l]d come to a log which had fallen down. It was too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plowed around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.”

So, Mr. Lincoln, I’ve been thinkin’… What if the “LDS log” *hadn’t* been “too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move”? Would you have “coerced” the Saints, as he had opined earlier that he would? Would he have “taken care of” the LDS like he “took care of” the South?

So did Lincoln keep his word?

Not really. After the Saints were in Utah, Lincoln sent three federal judges there; if I recall correctly, two of which were openly anti-LDS (before Lincoln appointed them, and afterwards, too), and one which was neutral.

Lastly, folks, think: Nauvoo, Illinois. Lincoln, backwoods boy from… Illinois. Where was Lincoln, with the assassinations of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, and the driving out of the Saints? The LDS Church criticizes Martin van Buren for not helping the Saints; what about Abraham Lincoln? Though others might think so, I personally don’t really think Lincoln was doing a “greater work”.

Here’s from the Doctrine and Covenants 87:
1 Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

What was so special about this war, that “war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place”? Is there a connection. I believe so, and it is an important key, and I will answer that shortly. Note that there is nothing in the verses (or the others in the section) about who is right or wrong in the war (the “Civil War”). Note that the slaves that are being talked about in verse four are not Blacks in the war between the North and the South, for a few reasons: the placement of the verse, the timing, and historical reality.

Did the LDS Church ever strongly support the North, especially on principles? Or did the LDS leaders ask the Saints to serve in the North only when called upon (wait, I thought Lincoln was going to leave them alone?) and then give a promise that the soldiers wouldn’t have to shoot others, in order to avoid being labeled rebels by the North and to garner safety against an otherwise sure destruction that such a label would bring? Remember, the Saints had already been through the Utah War of rebellion a few years earlier (1857-8), and knew that the next time it wouldn’t end so well, especially for the Saints. Generally, both the North and the South had rejected the Saints and their plight (search for some Brigham Young quotes about that). In a recent Ensign article, we read: “Dr. Wall Southwick recounted a meeting he had attended in Carthage, Illinois, wherein the enemies of the Prophet had gathered together from every state in the Union but three. They were concerned that Joseph’s “views on government were widely circulated and took like wildfire.” According to Southwick, they believed that if the Prophet “did not get into the Presidential chair this election, he would be sure to the next time; and if Illinois and Missouri would join together and kill him, they would not be brought to justice for it.” (History of the Church, 6: 605–6). Doesn’t sound like just Southerners to me…

Some (most all, probably) of you reading this might be thinking, well, so what? There’s nothing really strong against him there, and the tone here is really disrespectful of him."

https://bookofmormonnotes.wordpress.com ... -by-grego/

Posted: **July 14th, 2020, 5:24 pm**

Some very fascinating essays about Abraham Lincoln, slavery, Joseph Smith, and the church:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100415023 ... sviews.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080704194 ... andlds.htm

https://web.archive.org/web/20080707033 ... erlain.htm

After I read these essays, I began to see the Civil War and slavery in a different light. As well as Lincoln. History's not always so clear-cut when observed from both sides.

Posted: **July 14th, 2020, 5:35 pm**

It seems that Lincoln is a sacred cow for some.

LDS Freedom Forum

Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill

Re: Taking the 'Truth About Lincoln' Red Pill