That was a good spin, Connor. Unfortunately, it isn’t accurate. But if it helps you sleep better at night, believe what you like.

Interesting to me is the fact that President Hinckley has not brought up the subject again in any General Conference talk since then, nor has any other speaker. This fact, in and of itself, ought to speak volumes. It is almost as if the speakers have avoided the subject on purpose.

In an interview with Larry King (or was it Dan Rather?) after his famous talk was delivered, President Hinckley was on record saying the war on Iraq has been a disaster.

I like it when a prophet of the Lord gives me not only permission, but a suggestion to voice my opinions on the matter - whatever they may be - as long as I don’t break any laws doing so.

But, it appears now that our Constitutional liberties of free speech to oppose the war and the Neocons’ imperialistic attempts of world hegemony are quickly coming to a close. Perhaps even my rights of free speech on this blog are vulnerable to wiretapping, and endanger me of being placed on some secret No Fly List in the future. But, if such ends up being the case, I can sleep well at night because a prophet of the Lord told me to voice my opinions on the matter.

Connor:

Congratulations on offering such a profoundly accurate summation on this topic. I am certain President Hinckley would emphatically concur with your assessment of his words. I certainly do and I believe anyone else who takes the time to ponder and consider your exhaustive research and efforts would feel likewise.

I was particularly pleased with the words of President Benson. They are so true and spot on with pure Constitutional understanding and logic. He was such a wise and judicious leader of the Lord’s Church as well as an asset to our government during his tenure with the Department of Agriculture. I am grateful to Heavenly Father for his work before, during and after his call to be the mouthpiece of the Lord. It would have been a tremendous blessing to this nation had it been possible to elect him as President of the United States.

Hopefully the people of the United States will realize just how much we need a man such as Ron Paul. I am confident he can turn this land around and convince the majority of the people to deny those who have been most destructive to our spiritual welfare any further control of our government. I believe his efforts are going to deliver a severe blow to the so-called top tier presidential candidates on the left and the right.

BTW, I appreciate knowing that I shall enjoy a restful and recouperative sleep tonight after reading your inspired and insightful commentary. Keep up the good work and may God bless the Republic of the United States of America.

How do you know that this interpretation is spin Dan? Perhaps your interpretation is spin.

Nice Post.

I hope others will find wisdom in the following:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…so help me God.”
– Oath taken to become a lawful American citizen

“We the people are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful woes of Republican government.– James Madison

“Americans think their danger is terrorists. They don’t understand the terrorists cannot take away habeas corpus, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution…. The terrorists are not anything like the threat we face from our own government in the name of fighting terrorism…. The American constitutional system is near to being overthrown.”
– Paul Craig Roberts

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficial.”
– Justice Louis Brandeis

“When the people fear their government, there is Tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
– Thomas Jefferson

“John Adams wrote, ‘Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.’ We stand at a defining moment for America. If we do not act now, we risk the freedoms that sweat, blood, sacrifice, and loyalty to inalienable rights have earned us over the past two-hundred thirty-one years.”
– Naomi Wolf Author of “‘The end of America: letter of warning to a young patriot.’

“When even one American — who has done nothing wrong — is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth, then all Americans are in peril.”
– Harry S. Truman

“To announce that there must 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 public.”
– Theodore Roosevelt

“The Greatest Enemy Of Knowledge Is Not Ignorance…
… It Is The illusion Of Knowledge”
– Stephen Hawking

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”
– William Casey, CIA Director (first staff meeting, 1981)

Finally, I found an article @ Meridian Magazine a few days ago entitled “RENOUNCE WAR AND PROCLAIM PEACE - Early Beginnings by Andrew C. Skinner. It was quite thought provoking and informative. It was Chapter One, and I will be looking forward to reading additional wisdom from this prolific author and man of wisdom and understanding. I have also found a web site with daily emails which is http://www.NewsWithViews.com.

Michael, you say - “finally” you found an article on peace at Meridian Magazine. I am not quite sure what you mean by that. Having at one time been a consistent reader at Meridian Magazine, I think I can interpret your word “finally.” I used to read Meridian for the religious content, but was very turned off by the pro-war stance of the site during the run-up to the Iraq War and the support of Bush in his lies of WMD. I even wrote an email about the blatant support for pre-emptive war and lies of WMD to the editor of Meridian, and received back a very short and to the point reply wherein he said to me in no uncertain terms that Bush and Republicans were pushing through God’s will in the Iraq War. I was very turned off, and quit at that point even going to Meridian Magazine anymore. But, at your suggestion of a good article on proclaiming peace, I went to Meridian Magazine for the first time in a couple years. I found the article and read it. It was a super-great article that expresses my desire for LDS Saints to proclaim peace, not pre-emptive war, and the article also stated my very firm belief that Satan is the one who wants war, not the Prince of Peace. Any endowed member ought to know from Temple teachings that Satan’s promise to us, as he was being cast out of the Garden, was to buy up armies and navies and use them to bring God’s plan to naught by the use of blood and horror (Shock and Awe).

I hope Meridian’s editor is coming around to see that pre-emptive war is not the answer.

As for NewsWithViews, I have also visited there from time to time. It is at this site where I learned to love the articles of one of the contributors there - Deanna Spingola. She is LDS, and is one of USA’s brightest minds in political things. I would recommend everybody - LDS or not - to visit her site at http://www.spingola.com/my_articles.htm

In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle………

I believe that Pres. Hinckley was referring specifically to Saddam Husein here; how ironic that the statement might equally well apply to Bush/Cheney and friends…..

Are there not innocent people who stand in the path of destruction in every war?

A fair question, but a naive one. The business of war is death; a colt revolver is the great equalizer. War doesn’t discriminate between guilty or innocent, good or bad. Most of the time it doesn’t really discriminate between friend and foe; a gun doesn’t care who it is pointed at. In essence, the only point of war, is for one group of people to destroy another.

Now, I am not saying this to condone unethical and criminal wartime behavior. I am saying that by starting a war, you are presuming that and that the rest is just details. You are presuming that all the alternatives to going war, are even worse….

That was a good spin, Connor. Unfortunately, it isn’t accurate…….

How so, Dan? Please elaborate?

Sure, this site is, in fact, a blog, a freelance editorial. As such most of the content should be considered at least partly a matter of personal opinion. I’d rather see Connor, or other posters on this site, accused of fallacious reasoning, or of using false information, or taking quotes out of context; I don’t really care about “spin.”

Connor, I only disagree with one thing you said.

“A president who abuses his power deserves neither our respect nor our allegiance.”

I do not believe in the notion that respect must be earned. I believe that we are required to give respect freely to all of God’s children, whether we disagree with them or not. That is the example that the Savior taught, as beautifully illustrated in the story of the adultress who was caught in the very act.

I respect George W. Bush. I think he’s an awful president. But he is my brother and child of God.

Jay

Kelly

My reference to “finally” indicated I was about to finish my commentary. However your point is well taken.

I, too, have stopped receiving daily email feeds from some organizations when they began to mix political spin in with their typical format. I consider the overall content of Meridian Magazine to be to my liking so I therefore continue to receive it as a daily feed. That being said, I have been rather put-off by the Proctors lately since they seem to be in the Mitt Romney camp personally, and it seems they are actively seeking second-hand negative rhetoric concerning Ron Paul. I even emailed them with my concerns, but it was not delivered. It is likely due to my ineptness in doing some of the things I attempt to do, but I am uncertain. The Andrew Skinner article is just one of the many articles I have considered which will keep me going back for the goodness of the site. Besides I have found that when I reject a site simply because I do not agree with the stand they foist upon me, I am losing touch with my constitutional understanding as well as denying myself the benefit of worthy reading.

I receive NWV as a daily Email Alert and I recommend this to all. Deanna Spingola is one of many contributors who have done and do a great deal of research to offer readers an alternative to so-called mainstream news. I rely on my daily feeds from many sources to help be better understand where I need to study more to be certain I am an effective force in the fight for restoration of our freedoms and liberty. I also believe the Lord would want us to consider the views of others outside of our faith. That is especially true when they are Christians who are fighting to save the Constitution as well. One of my favorites is Pastor Chuck Baldwin who believes in the Mormon cult theory. He is for Ron Paul all the way, and his understanding of the Constitution is exceptional.

May God bless the Republic of the United States of America and the Ron Paul Revolution.

Excellent post Connor.

“If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled away into a false security.” (April 1968, General Conference Report)

“If the Gentiles on this land reject the word of God and conspire to overthrow liberty and the Constitution, their doom is fixed, and they ’shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant’ (1 Nephi 14:6; 3 Nephi 21:11, 14, 21; D&C 84:114-115, 117). (God Family, Country, p. 345.) (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson p. 618-119.)

Let me explain why I see Connor’s thesis here as spin. It actually starts with Connor himself, who was opposed to the war in Iraq (I’m guessing from the start, but I don’t know that. At least he is opposed to it now). He considers the war in Iraq to be illegal and unconstitutional. As such, he probably considers our president to have violated the Constitution, and worthy to be subject to war crimes trials. That is an assumption, and I’m getting a bit ahead of myself. In any case, Connor sees the war in Iraq as the wrong thing to have done.

Connor also take the word of the prophets very seriously. If indeed the prophet were to have fully supported the war, that means that he should too, because in his eyes, whatever the prophet says, goes. He’s said that before, on several occasions. Follow the Prophet, right?

So we have Connor against the war in Iraq, and Connor believing in the word of the prophet. Now that we have that angle covered, we can move on to President Hinckley’s talk. See, if President Hinckley’s talk in any way shape or form approved the war in Iraq, that means that Connor must approve of the war in Iraq. And to do so would either mean that Connor and the Prophet are going against the Constitution, or Connor’s beliefs can’t handle this apparent paradox. It cannot be the latter, because that would destroy all Connor believes in. And it cannot be the former, because that also would destroy all Connor believes in. So it must be something else.

It must be that President Hinckley somehow did NOT support the war in Iraq. Of course President Hinckley is a much kinder, more subdued man than Connor’s favorite prophets, Ezra Taft Benson etc, who don’t mince their words. President Hinckley was supposedly subtle about his non-support. See, it doesn’t matter that most everybody else who listened to his talk agree that President Hinckley, while chiding empire-building, gave Captain Moroni-type support to the actions America had just undertaken.

But, just, what IF President Hinckley indeed supported the war in Iraq? What if indeed he, stating his personal opinions on the matter, felt it was the right thing to do? Can Connor continue supporting a man like Ron Paul who has been clearly against the war? How could he when his prophet was supporting the war?

Now, let’s get to his talk and Connor’s commentary. To understand President Hinckley’s talk best, we need to read some of his comments from his October 2001 talk called “The Times In Which We Live.” In that talk, President Hinckley states:

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.

To this point, everything is cool. We’re going after the bad guys who actually attacked us. They were all in Afghanistan (even though they mostly came from Saudi Arabia, but we’re not going to open that can of worms now).

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.

This argument has been made before, that today’s terrorists are like the long ago Gadianton Robbers. (I wonder what President Hinckley personally thinks about how the Nephites took care of the Gadianton Robbers in 3 Nephi 3:20-21. I’ve always been curious about that). He continues:

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).

Now here is where we start getting into trouble. Standing up for right and decency is one thing, and Captain Moroni was a worthy man to follow. But…well…the problem is that Captain Moroni never once took Nephite soldiers into Lamanite territory to “stop indecency.” Captain Moroni defended his country when his country was attacked. Once repelling his enemy’s forces from their territory, he did not pursue them to their homes to wipe them out. And in 3 Nephi 3:20-21, we read the following about how the Nephites took care of the Gadianton Robbers who kept terrorizing them:

20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.
21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

The people wanted revenge. They wanted to go into the lands of the Robbers and wipe them out. The prophet said, no, for if we were to go to them, they would kill us. But if we wait here in our land, they will come against us and lose.

Now, why would President Hinckley use two examples from the Book of Mormon that DO NOT fit with our actions today? We weren’t defending America by going into Afghanistan. We were going into the lands of our enemies to wipe them out. In both examples, taking out the Gadianton Robbers, and defending against Lamanite encroaches, both actions were done IN NEPHITE COUNTRY. How can those be used as justification for action anywhere else in the world? They can’t. Not justifiably.

In any case, he was speaking to an audience that wanted blood.

No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time.

It didn’t have to be like this, President Hinckley. We were merely going after terrorists. This is nothing at all in the same scope as say World War I or World War II. Why make it larger than it was?

Now the following is what should send chills down your spine, Connor. You and the rest of your libertarian friends. A prophet of the Lord just said the following in October 2001:

Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another. But God our Eternal Father will watch over this nation and all of the civilized world who look to Him. He has declared, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Ps. 33:12). Our safety lies in repentance. Our strength comes of obedience to the commandments of God.

He just gave tacit approval of curtailing liberties. I wonder which liberties he meant? How about being spied on by our government? What about torture? What about free speech? What liberties are worth the price, President Hinckley? These are the words of neo-conservatives here, not libertarians. These are the words of the enemies of the likes of Mr. Ron Paul.

So now that we have that in mind, we can move on to President Hinckley’s War and Peace talk from April 2003, a mere two weeks after we invaded Iraq. It would be the following week that we would officially “win” the battle, and the following month that President Bush would strut around like a peacock on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

So what does President Hinckley say about the war in Iraq?

And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.

Note what is imporant here. This war in Iraq is an extension of the war in Afghanistan. What was the war in Afghanistan about? Let’s read President Hinckley’s words again:

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.

The war in Afghanistan, in President Hinckley’s words, was about confronting and holding accountable those who attacked us, to “ferret” out and bring down those terrorist organizations.” So if Iraq is a continuation of that war, then President Hinckley agreed with President Bush who made it his business to tie the two wars together, who desperately worked to convince Americans that Al-Qaeda and Saddam had the closest of relationships. It sure looks to me like President Hinckley bought the rationale.

Twice he goes on to quote the war in heaven, using the book of Revelation as his guide. Both in this talk and in the October 2001 talk. He really believes that the current conflict is a continuation of THAT conflict. If he didn’t, then he would not bring it up.

Isaiah speaks further concerning that great conflict (see Isa. 14:1220). Modern revelation gives additional light (see D&C 76:2529), as does the book of Moses (see Moses 4:14), which tells of Satan’s plan to destroy the agency of man.

He continues with that line, which is where Connor gets off track and begins his spin of what President Hinckley believes about Iraq. Connor states:

In an effort to apply such things to ourselves, the question should be asked: do we glorify any current empires? Are we nationalists who support or ignore the “darker side” of modern empire, or patriots who bind our leaders down to the Constitution? While there are various types of governments throughout the world (some quite oppressive), even a Republic can produce “brutal conquest”, “subjugation”, “repression” and “astronomical cost in life and treasure”. Surely we’ve seen such things in our own land.

And

There are two important things of note here. The first is that a characteristic of a tyrant is one who oppresses his own people and threatens the world. In our day of the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, domestic wiretapping, insanely high deficit spending, and all sorts of other repressive political policies, one might consider our own government oppressive (in some cases physically so, in most others, economically/socially). And the fact that we have soldiers and bases established in over 130 countries lends credence to the argument that we threaten the world through our hegemony.

I don’t think Connor understood President Hinckley’s words well. When President Hinckley was talking about tyrants who oppress their own people, he was NOT talking about America. See, the Revelation talk should have given it away. But Connor needs to cover his butt, sort to speak. President Hinckley believes America is continuing the “good fight” from the war in heaven against today’s tyrants who oppress their own people. After all, if Connor had read President Hinckley’s October 2001 talk well enough, he would have realized that President Hinckley gave his tacit approval of “curtailing civil liberties.” Personally, I doubt President Hinckley realized his good friend Mr. Bush would have taken it so far. But that’s what happens when you have blind trust in your political leaders.

In any case, let’s continue on with President Hinckley’s approval of the war in Iraq. We read:

There have been casualties in this terrible conflict, and there likely will be more. Public protests will likely continue. Leaders of other nations have, in no uncertain terms, condemned the coalition strategy.

This is another key evidence to show that he does NOT condemn the coalition strategy, by stating that other leaders have, “in no uncertain terms” condemned the strategy. If President Hinckley were truly speaking out AGAINST the war, wouldn’t he join these and in “no uncertain terms” say something against the strategy? But he doesn’t. Instead, he begins to use again the Captain Moroni justification. Before he does that, however, he states:

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally

This is his ultimate failing in this war. He trusted that his government leaders 1) actually DID have access to greater political and military intelligence, and 2) would not have used it to take advantage. This is where his whole rationale about supporting the war fails. If our political leaders actually had access to better intelligence, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY would not be using it for nefarious reasons, then truly President Hinckley is correct. However, unfortunately, as Joseph Smith taught us in D&C 121, with even a small amount of authority, we begin to abuse it. And please, who in their right mind would ever trust a man like Bush with the protection of the nation?

Personally I have never once given my support to President Bush. I was one of the 9% of Americans who disapproved of him after 9/11. I knew right from the start he would abuse that power he got with 9/11. NEVER trust your political officials with such power. President Hinckley should have known better.

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, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

Now we get to his personal loyalties. It is interesting that he said “loyalties” and not “opinions.” Why loyalties? In any case, he speaks about one group, the ones who have been dissenting “emphatically.” He does not belong to that group. He says, “However,” we must be mindful to a “responsibility” which governs his “loyalties.” What is this responsibility that supposedly war critics weren’t watchful of? What is it about dissent that doesn’t support this “responsibility” vis a vis this particular war?

It is here he gets into the Captain Moroni justification. After quoting the account of Captain Moroni, he says:

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.

Unfortunately, President Hinckely is incorrect. While this account does justify an obligation to “fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat and oppression,” it does NOT justify taking this kind of fight to ANOTHER COUNTRY, especially one we are not at war with, and one that is not an actual threat to “our family, our liberty,” a nation that may be tyrannical and oppressive, but it does not threaten us, nor is tyrannical towards us, nor oppresses us. Ironically, we’ve been oppressing them!

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments

That’s a fine argument.

Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy.

That is NOT. Captain Moroni was NOT “committed to the defense of liberty WHEREVER it is in jeopardy.” Ironically, there was no liberty in “jeopardy” in Iraq, because, hey, there WAS NO liberty to begin with!

This is the most neo-conservative argument of President Hinckley’s, that we’ve gotta use our might for the fight of freedom ‘wherever it is in jeopardy.’ How can someone who supports Ron Paul agree with this? Or better yet, how can someone who supports the Prophet support someone like Ron Paul who criticizes this VERY KIND of philosophy?

It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

President Hinckley then sends a warning to the likes of me who will do anything I can to bring the troops back home from this reckless war which he calls “a contest with forces of evil and repression.” Do you really want more evidence that President Hinckley approved of the war in Iraq? When he states something like this, this should be evidence enough!

Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. 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.

This is a nice belief, President Hinckley, but I’m sorry to say that your silence on the topic since your War and Peace talk has been deafening, and not enough at all to keep members of your church from lashing at each other over political differences. I really wonder why you have not spoken on the topic since. After all, it is the topic the whole world is interested in. Maybe we could use a little inspired divine counsel on it. Maybe we could use some more words of comfort and guidance, so as to not have members of the church barking at each other over differences of opinion regarding the war you once supported. All we get is a vague reference from your good friend Mike Wallace that you think the war in Iraq is going badly. That’s not enough from the Prophet of the Lord, President Hinckley.

We can hope and pray for that glorious day foretold by the prophet Isaiah when men “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. 2:4).

It won’t be anytime soon. Not as long as our prophet continues to be silent about the wars going on around us. Either we work to make a world where swords become plowshares, or we sit back and hope it becomes so. One will make it happen, the other will not.

Now, where does Connor get it completely wrong? Let’s start here:

Again, President Hinckley defers judgment to those with access to such intelligence (or lack thereof, some might argue). Rather than openly stating his approval of the war or its proposed reasons, he shifts accountability to those who have acted on the information they had.

That is in reference to President Hinckley stating that political leaders have access to greater intelligence. While Connor may believe President Hinckley “shifts accountability” to political leaders, he is wrong, because President Hinckley, by stating so, puts his trust that what he is about to say will be valid because his political leaders say so. That’s like saying Colin Powell wasn’t at fault for his faulty UN speech. After all, it was a drunk taxi driver aptly named “Curveball” who gave him the false information. Colin Powell SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. And sorry, Connor, but yes, indeed President Hinckley SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Heck YOU even say so yourself:

But it is also true that such intelligence can be skewed, suppressed, misinterpreted, manipulated, and fabricated. Such has clearly been the case with the Iraq war, showing that those who adjudged that Saddam had WMDs were either lying or completely misinformed.

What, did President Hinckley somehow NOT know this? How come a 22 year old boy know more than a 90 year old well travelled well learned prophet?

And now we come to the ultimate paragraph of spin. This is where Connor must dance around his competing conflicts. The prophet must somehow not be supportive of the war in Iraq. Connor must still find a way to justify his own conflicting positions. He must support whatever the prophet says, and he must support his political views which are against the war in Iraq. So here he goes:

One might opine that President Hinckley was indirectly stating that he supported the Iraq war, as a war to fight for liberty, against tyranny, and topple a dictator. Even if that was his exact opinion at the time, he previously stated that it was based on the judgment of our leaders who had stated such to be the case. At no time did he express approval in general of the current policy, nor dictate that our support should be given down the road when new information was discovered or our cause, once thought to be noble, was learned to be fraudulent and pre-planned.

See, President Hinckley was NOT supporting the war in Iraq. You see, his view was “based on the judgment of our leaders who had stated that to be the case. At no time did he express approval in general of the current policy,” and so on. See, President Hinckley didn’t give us marching orders. He was subtle, see. Therefore, no support of the war. It’s a nice dance, Connor, but doesn’t pass muster.

So when President Hinckley says that we are committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy, is he suggesting that we are morally authorized to go around the world “spreading democracy”? I don’t think so. Rather, I think that he’s suggesting that Americans can defend liberty in America, Spaniards can do so in Spain, Afghans in Afghanistan, etc..

And here again, when faced with the possibility that President Hinckley’s views are not his own, Connor chooses a middle ground that does not exist. In no way shape or form was President Hinckley restricting our “fight for freedom wherever in jeopardy” to the Americas for the Americans, etc. Please, Connor, stop the spin.

Additionally, I might add that being “committed to the defense of liberty” does not necessarily imply military force. Can we not as a people unite in prayer, monetary support, and vocal action to defend liberty and urge change? I’m very committed right now to the defense of liberty in Darfur, but you don’t see me joining up with the UN police forces to patrol the streets and stop the bloodshed. Does that mean I’m not truly trying to defend liberty wherever it is in jeopardy?

That’s all nice, but unfortunately President Hinckley is not only talking about our action in Iraq, but he’s sure quoting a lot of military letters, and comments. He’s quoting a military leader (Captain Moroni) who used the military to “defend their homes, and liberty.” Sorry, Connor, but it is not the case that he was speaking generally about “defending liberty.”

And there you have it. I find this to be a masterful discourse by our Prophet, and am saddened to see it being twisted both to the left and the right, used by both sides to advance their agendas and claim prophetic endorsement.

And I find it saddening that some people would go out of their way to spin this into something it isn’t. You don’t think I was hoping that in April 2003 he would speak out forcefully against the war? I’ve been silently praying every conference that President Hinckley would finally denounce the war. Unfortunately all I’ve heard is silence, and this one and only talk of support. At least I’ve come around to accepting that our prophet supported the war. I wonder if you ever will, Connor.

“At least I’ve come around to accepting that our prophet supported the war.”

Until he says that he supported the war, it’s just speculation and you are certainly entitled to speculate.

Jay

Jay,

Like I said, president Hinckley is a subtle man, unlike Benson. But he did support the war. His language matches that of war supporters. Fight for freedom wherever in jeopardy. Fight against tyranny. Look Captain Moroni did it, so can we. This is a continuation of the war in heaven. It is the same language all Mormon war supporters have used time and time again.

Connor I really enjoyed your article. I saw your link from the RKY web site, where you can find me posting under my “19.5 Mysteries” moniker

I am one who has chosen to interpret his words as speaking against Bush and war (as the metaphor/ puppet for the powers that be).

However, hard as I try, I can’t get around that the 2003 conference talk was a supporting statement for that war action, as hard as I try to read into it otherwise.

I think what you are doing is looking for the correct interpretation of what is the correct position. However, I don’t think that in this instance we can go to statements by other people, up to 60 years earlier, and subsequent statements, to clarify what he meant while the context of it was apparent.

We were facing a brutal war where 60 million people had marches globally saying there are no WMD’s and a million Iraqis may die in this instance of shock and awe.

I feel that your excellent work was undone by the neglect to explore one small bit, which I feel is central to the context of what he said. That was invoking the story of the US soldier and his mother and the freedom, sand, flies bit, and also invoking Captain Moroni. Invoking this was a clear position that one side was fighting for freedom, for their wives, freedom, liberty, god, religion.

When I get a moment (with the markets crashing who gets a moment anymore in my game) I’ll send through my edits to that speech, which lean more to the left..(or right??) of what you have said, and suggests that the Iraqi’s were/ are justified in fighting for their freedom, for their wives, for their liberty, god, religion. But in any regards its just my interpretation of it.

Like I say, I agree with your position when looked over the subsequent 4 years, but at that point in time I do feel that he stated a position as at that point in time.

Having said that, you correctly picked up on 2 key words/ phrases. First was adjudged. That was critical. The second was about “that governs my feelings at this time” (words to effect).
I
was disappointed at the time- and still scratch my head before I defer to his greater wisdom/ judgement/ inspiration/ keys etc- as to why anyone’s opinion has a place at the rostrum- especially when so many Warmongering LDS will take those words as a fully sanctioned advocation for that war. I say this as we have countless talks in years gone by and also the D&C98 as our guide.

If there was no inspiration for whatever reason as you allude to, then surely the safest bet was not to be ambiguous but revert to our doctrinal position- that no one can go to war unless the lord tells the prophet. D&C98 is pretty clear on that one.

So, to that end, I say I am confused and remain confused, as subsequent events including accepting the Presidential Medal of Freedom from George Bush and awarding Dick Cheney with an honourary doctorate from BYU for services to humanity, or whatever it is, allude to tacit support of the US administration and their foreign policy.
Having said this, instead of questioning the Prophets for speaking out less about one principle than they did before, I prefer to question why the Lord is causing His servants to be very cautious about what they say on the subject of Gadiantons today. I have to believe that greater good is being served by doing this? Perhaps the Lord has shown the Prophet what would happen to the Church if this subject was emphasized today with the eyes of the world upon us? Is it possible that the Gadianton influence is so pervasive that it would do more harm than good to speak directly out against it at this time?

As frustrated as I geet because the church appears to not stand against the Gadiantons, I remember the following statement from Elder Benson in 1978 (emphasis mine)

“Why is the Church not doing more to expose the evils of society?”

Ezra Taft Benson, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “May the Kingdom of God Go Forth,” Ensign, vol. 8, no. 5 (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, May 1978 pp. 32–33

We may not be too far from the day prophesied by Heber C. Kimball, grandfather of President Spencer W. Kimball and member of the First Presidency. He said:

“The Saints will be put to tests that will try the integrity of the best of them. The pressure will become so great that the more righteous among them will cry unto the Lord day and night until deliverance comes.” (“Prophecy of Heber C. Kimball,” Deseret News, Church Section, May 23, 1931, p. 3.)

But remember the Lord has said in modern revelation, “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear.” (D&C 38:30.) Are we prepared? God help us to be so for the tests of the days ahead.

With these prophetic warnings and assurances before us and evidences of evil increasing, Church members are asking: “Why is not the Church doing more to expose the evils of our society?” “Is there a great conspiracy?” “What can I do to fight false philosophies which have crept into our school systems and society in general?” …

The Church will always stand for that which is honest, virtuous, true and praiseworthy. Such a pronounced stand for righteousness constitutes a repudiation against every evil and all false philosophies. The First Presidency and the Twelve are not oblivious to false philosophies and evils and will continue to warn the world and the Saints as the Lord directs.

Yes, there is a conspiracy of evil. The source of it all is Satan and his hosts. He has a great power over men to “lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken” to the voice of the Lord. (Moses 4:4.) His evil influence may be manifest through governments; through false educational, political, economic, religious, and social philosophies; through secret societies and organizations; and through myriads of other forms.

Is it possible that the Gadianton influence is so pervasive that it would do more harm than good to speak directly out against it at this time?

I believe that has something to do with it.

Here is an excerpt from the “Brother Law fireside.”

“I was a member of the police commission in Calgary and in Canada and much involved in the anti-Communist activities, in fact, I was the first director of the Freeman Institute in Provo, Utah with Cleon Skousen. But I left that association and that activity because of President Lee’s request that we not tweak the tail of the beast. He told Bro. Skousen his whole program, the prophet is under constant pressure to protect the church against our own government. He said the beast is alive and thriving and he said we are threatened constantly with annihilation of the church, its properties, its ways of doing things, by our own system of government. He asked Bro. Benson to give no more anti-Communist talks and you have not heard him since that time. It’s kind of interesting; we have to be aware that when the prophet is changed, that often the direction of the church is changed.”

You may read the rest of the talk here.

I really enjoyed reading your response. If it were a debate I think you’d get the points over connor, as much as I want to believe his account. I think over time with the benefit of past speeches and later comments, Connors interpretation may prove to be correct in regards to the deliberate ambiguity, however, as at that time, and in isoltation- with the 2001 address as reference, context, and the invasion starting a few weeks earlier, I think you are on the money.

You still sounds like you are active LDS? If so, you must have come to terms with it for various reasons. I know I have. It did take me 2 years to renew my TR though. If you go to http://www.latterdayconservative.com.au and search for posts from AussieOi you will see much of this has been explored and some good (positive) conclusions have emerged.

As much as I personally believe that legally, morally & scripturally the pro-war position was wrong, and is wrong, I am also fundamentalist enough to believe- I have to believe- that there must be a greater reason as to why it was allowed to go and stand.

I comment on a few of your comments.

>>>>>>>>Now, brothers and sisters, we must do our duty, whatever that duty might be. Peace may be denied for a season. Some of our liberties may be curtailed. We may be inconvenienced. We may even be called on to suffer in one way or another.

…………..He just gave tacit approval of curtailing liberties. I wonder which liberties he meant? How about being spied on by our government? What about torture? What about free speech? What liberties are worth the price, President Hinckley? These are the words of neo-conse

It is possible he is telling those who understand that it is their duty to stand against those who are removing our liberties in our own government?

>>>>>>>What was the war in Afghanistan about? Let’s read President Hinckley’s words again: 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…..It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.

……………I don’t think Connor understood President Hinckley’s words well. When President Hinckley was talking about tyrants who oppress their own people, he was NOT talking about America.

I hope that he was talking about the gadiantons. I have decided to believe this. But it does appear it was referring to Saddam. Gosh I hope not.

>>>>>>NEVER trust your political officials with such power. President Hinckley should have known better.

I can only hope that he does and did. Prophets of the last dispendation could surely not defer foreign policy of such critical consequence to political hacks, aides, agencies and think tanks, which brings us to

>>>>>>>It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

This is a nice belief, President Hinckley, but I’m sorry to say that your silence on the topic since your War and Peace talk has been deafening, and not enough at all to keep members of your church from lashing at each other over political differences.

Don’t I know it. At RKY (as 19.5) I sure get a heap for voicing a connor style interpretation.

Which is what makes it so hard. Add lining up with those other false priests and accepting the Presidential Medal Of Freedom from Bush pre the 2004 election to their justification. I wondered if Samuel would have lined up next to the priests of Baal to accept a medal from Nebudchanezaar (or whoever/ whenever but you get my point)? Dittto Cheney at BYU and the honorary doctorate. That one really hurt.

All I can hope is that there is greater reason. Personally I think there is. It is because the truth about this right and wrong is so bleedingly obvious that the heavens may have decided to remain silent.

I mean, if one cannot see the depleted uranium, cluster bomb, abu ghraib, habeus corpus, white phosphorous, blackwater, guantanamo, secret rendition shock and awe horror that is being perpetrated in our name is purely a manifestation of satan on earth (gold, money, armies, navies, priests, tryants, oppress) then one must be are a blinded warmonger who does not even know their own scriptures- especially D&C98 v 30’s.

I wonder if the membership is being sifted throug this?

I hold that that prophet holds all the keys, does receive revelation and will never lead us astray. I also believe that he is not infallible either, for whatever reason that may entail.

I wonder if the membership is being sifted throug this?

Oh, most definitely. We’re at the point where if you don’t know your scriptures and have a keen sense of right and wrong, you’re hopeless.

I don’t expect the prophet to say much if anything more about the “war on terror.” It’s up to us as church members to seek the truth individually by the Spirit.

I am reminded of the fact that there is one Bible as the foundation of literally thousands of different denominations. Each denomination spins the Bible to their own interpretation.

There is one War and Peace talk, and now there are seemingly many different interpretations thereof.

I take comfort in the fact that we are trying to analyze a prophet’s “personal opinion” and not the Lord’s official declaration to us. It is pretty clear from all the discussion on this one talk, that the Prophet was speaking as an individual, not as a mouthpiece of the Lord demanding that we should support Cheney as His divine tool to ferret out terrorists from you and me here at the WTC.

Something else I take comfort in is our luxury of hindsight. I think most LDS can now see that Bush has squandered any legitimacy he once had, at least LDS who live in parts of the world outside of Utah.

In fact, most people outside of Utah can now in hindsight see that even the premise of rooting out terrorists who attacked the WTC on 9/11 was totally wrong because there has never been any proof yet that shows this attack was caused by a man in a cave and 19 Saudis with boxcutters.

The “terrorists” who perpetrated 9/11 were in fact part of the Book of Mormon’s prophecied “Gadiantons” and Secret Combinations. Since the USA has not successfully captured or prosecuted anyone yet for the crimes of 9/11, those who DID perpetrate these crimes are still out there.

I propose with all the sobriety I can muster, that the Prophets at the head of our Church actually do know who those perpetrators are! They are protecting the flock of God by speaking in subtelties. It is our obligation to follow their counsel. If we obey the commandments we will be blessed. Our obedience to living prophets is our only hope as we are called upon to weather the Constitution’s hanging by a thread. It appears to me that when good people are called upon to save our Constitution from the snapping thread, both Connor and Dan are well-equipped to help save it.

AussieOi,

I came to terms of his support of this war as basically that it was in the best interest of the church to go in that direction. I didn’t care for his warning that the Lord would hold those accountable who would try to impede those in this fight “against evil and repression.” That part was a sign to me that it was more than just about the best interest of the church. But the fruits of this war are NOT of God. They are reprehensible and evil.

I propose with all the sobriety I can muster, that the Prophets at the head of our Church actually do know who those perpetrators are! They are protecting the flock of God by speaking in subtelties. It is our obligation to follow their counsel. If we obey the commandments we will be blessed.

I believe that is very true Kelly. The Gadiantons have gained enough strength to constitute a grave threat to the church. I believe that is why we haven’t heard much about them from the pulpit since Ezra Taft Benson.

It is now our duty as individual members to do all we can to warn our neighbors about the threats to our liberty from secret combinations.

KELLY

>>>I propose with all the sobriety I can muster, that the Prophets at the head of our Church actually do know who those perpetrators are! They are protecting the flock of God by speaking in subtelties. It is our obligation to follow their counsel. If we obey the commandments we will be blessed. Our obedience to living prophets is our only hope as we are called upon to weather the Constitution’s hanging by a thread. It appears to me that when good people are called upon to save our Constitution from the snapping thread, both Connor and Dan are well-equipped to help save it.

Agree entirely. Absolutely

I also think that if they came out with a statement along the lines of “Bush is a war criminal and shoudl be impeached” they’d either lose half the membership or a LOT of nutter fundo members might go out and buy a gun and try to shoot him, so protect the church from its own members as against external forces.
But we are a global church and there are more members outside of it. I am personally disappointed that what was said, was very pro USA centric. The reality is that much of the world lives in abject proverty, and….oh dear, I’m rambling.

I don’t believe that one bit, Sam. For one, plenty of people speak out against this or that, name your favorite “-ism” and there are credible detractors. I’m talking about the quote that the prophets were told not to speak out against the evils of the world anymore. That’s a bunch of bull.

AussieOi,

and you should have finished your statement that not only are most members outside of the USA, but most of them were also AGAINST the war. The place where most members were FOR the war is here in America, and in Utah particularly.

DAN

>>>>>AussieOi, and you should have finished your statement

Mate, if I kept typing, they’d take away from TR

SAM/ KELLY

>>>>the Prophets at the head of our Church actually do know who those perpetrators are!

well, do we believe they have a urim and thummin? now we are getting to how jedi in tune they are. I used to think they were that switched on, now I just belive they hold all the keys, are righteous and somehow the lords plan rolls forward.

RE: tweak The Tail / dragon

There was a good discussion at RKY on this, and it was flayed as rubbish. In the coming week when i get a chance I’ll post extracts, maybe connot can open a new blog line for that one?

Through the years I have often wondered about the plight of the Saints in Germany at the time of Hitler. What did the prophet and other Church leaders of the time say about Hitler?

The Church officials kept silent. Some members were against Hitler, some were “for” him. (Mainly from the A of F that says we support kings, magistrates…).

But, after WWII, German saints were pretty much of one mind, agreeing that the Church’s silence was the reason they were able to survive the situation mostly unscathed, because the Saints were, for the most part, showing the brownshirts that they were harmless. In fact, some even were proud of the fact that Hitler’s minions turned a blind eye to them because they “supported” the laws of the land.

In fact, some survivors of the Hamburg Branch now have even said that if they knew then what they know now, they would have been more vocal AGAINST Hitler.

I wonder if I might could repeat what I just typed and use the name Bush instead of Hitler……..

Kelly

Google “order of the white rose” “sophie scholl”

Also, i understand a few German LDS were exco’d for their opposition to Nazi german govt (by german leaders) and later had their membership reinstated. but this is heresay admittedly.

AussieOi, it is not hear-say. Helmut Hübener was indeed excommunicated from the Church for his disobedience to the laws of the land. In fact, this makes my case even stronger.

Helmut Hübener was actively typing up and distributing anti-Hitler literature. He was even using a Church-owned typewriter to do the typing. (Helmut was some kind of Branch clerk or secretary, and it was totally uncommon for normal people to own a typewriter.) When the Nazis finally caught up with Helmut, they traced the typewriter to the Church, and the Branch President was, unfortunately for Helmut, a Hitler supporter. The Branch President must have been under much pressure from the Nazis to demonstrate to them that he and his congregation were law-abiding citizens, and that Helmut’s actions were an anomoly. Through this scrutiny from the Nazis, Helmut was indeed excommunicated.

But, after the war, the Church scrutinized the actions of the Branch President, and reversed his excommunication. Unfortunately, Helmut had already been beheaded by the Nazis for his actions, and never lived to see his membership re-instated.

Many of the Hamburg members in hindsight have forgiven the Branch President for his pro-Hitler stand, recognizing that without his pro-Hitler stand, their Branch would have suffered who knows what!

I hope this info is 100% correct. I have the Helmut Hübener story on VHS tape. There is also a book or two written about him. The Helmut Hübener gang was a gang of three LDS boys. Helmut was executed, but the other two were sentenced to years of labor in concentration camps. They survived and came to Utah after the war. The one survivor is now dead, but I heard the last survivor speak in a Fireside just a couple years ago (unfortunately I cannot remember his name right now!). I stayed after the Fireside to talk personally to him. But, those were the facts about the excommunication as I remember hearing them.

kelly that was a great post, thanks. no doubt you are way ahead of me on that sophie scholl this. i am pretty sure he was a member of their group- the white rose.

anyway, there you go. can a person lose their membership and still enter heaven when they die? how hard are some of our “absolutes” i wonder.

idle speculation, but it does go to the heart of another thread we discussed at http://www.latterdayconservative.com wherein we discussed whether a person who went conscientious objector in the U$ military and used their new found understanding of the position in regards to illegal and unconstutional war as per the LDS faith as their prime reason.

what would their stake president/ bishop, church leaders say on this one? if s/he is found guilty of a charge and sent to jail, can s/he still remain a member in good standing?

Kelly,

1. Bush is not Hitler.

2. Our Prophets never cuddled up to Hitler like they have been doing with Bush. Maybe because the difference is that Bush is over America.

In any case, I believe President Hinckley said what he said about supporting the war not because of external factors, but because most American Mormons agreed with George W. Bush.

“In any case, I believe President Hinckley said what he said about supporting the war . . .”

Oh really? You’ve said this how many times now but you’ve never produced a thing where he said he supported the war. Face it, it’s getting pretty old and yet you continue to assert that he said certain things that he did not. Why can’t you just say that it is your opinion that he supported the war rather than extrapolating his words to mean whatever is was you wanted to hear? He didn’t anywhere say that he supported the war.

“. . . not because of external factors, but because most American Mormons agreed with George W. Bush.”

Interesting. So you’re saying that his words were chosen in order to be popular among the American membership and had nothing to do with inspiration?

Jay

“Bush is not Hitler”

No, Cheney fits the description better.

Bush is only Cheney’s puppet. Bush was in his glory when reading the pet goat book.

“anyway, there you go. can a person lose their membership and still enter heaven when they die? how hard are some of our “absolutes” i wonder.”

I believe they can. I had a friend who in protecting his daughter shot and killed a man and was found guilty of second degree murder. His excommunication was mandatory wit no possibility of being rebaptized in this life. I have no worries about his eternal salvation. Thankfully, God is wise, good and kind and judgment will be His.

There’s no law requiring most people to file or pay income taxes, yet, refusal to do so can put you membership in jeopardy in terms of not being able to hold certain callings or attend the temple.

I have grown children with mental illnesses whose lives are total wrecks, who commit some of the most heinous of sins, yet, I worry more about my salvation than theirs.

Those are things that I don’t consider absolutes. I’m just thankful for a loving Father who will make everything right in the end.

Jay

After all, if Connor had read President Hinckley’s October 2001 talk well enough, he would have realized that President Hinckley gave his tacit approval of “curtailing civil liberties.”

This is odd.. I read that passage and didn’t interpret it that way at all. Where in the world did he say that he’s giving approval for the curtailing of our civil liberties? All he said was that it may happen. How does that indicate approval of such an occurrence?

Jay,

Oh really? You’ve said this how many times now but you’ve never produced a thing where he said he supported the war.

You choose not to read my comments it seems. I clearly pointed out President Hinckley’s support. Sure he does not come out to say it, but it really is clear that he supported the war. And most likely, he thought it would be over fairly quickly, like Cheney.

Why is it so hard for you to accept this, Jay?

Jonathan,

How did you interpret it then?

Dan, what is clear to you is obviously not clear to others, which boils it down to opinion, only. I read the first two or three times you posted on this subject, was totally unimpressed, and admittedly, have not read any of your other long posts. What you seem to refuse to admit is that you are not able to show his support, only your opinion of such.

Why is it so hard for you to accept this, Dan?

Jay

Jay,

If you have not read my long post, then you have not read where I show his support of the war.

In any case it doesn’t matter. It is incomprehensible to you that the prophet of the Lord could possibly support an illegal war. So it doesn’t matter what he said.

Dan, when the Prophet tells you something is coming, like curtailment of liberties, where do you get it in your head that he’s approving it? We still have duties to the nations we live in. Voice dissent, but if you sabotaged a charter-plane with my old military unit on it because you opposed the war, then you’re hedging up the way. President Hinckley has always been clear about being active in politics, and he does love this country. I love this country. I spent six years as an intelligence analyst with a special ops unit, and I formerly supported the war. I don’t now, because I misunderstood the conditions and made a mistake. However, while I am able to voice my opinion in politics, when my commanding officer or NCO gives me an order, I obey it, because I am loyal to my country. As citizens, we have a similar duty to be loyal to our country and to our president, who we are subject to. Disagree all you want, but your loyalty and your duty is to your country. Tell Bush he’s wrong (unless it’s illegal), but obey the law. That is what President Hinckley said, and that is what all the prophets have always said. “But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders.” Mormons who were members of the Iraqi military had an obligation to obey orders too (though I don’t imagine there were any).

The Prophet was careful about the words he used not so he could be vague, but so he could say exactly what he meant. We pray for peace. We are in a struggle against evil. We have loyalties to our respective nations. Preserving life and liberty are just reasons for entering conflict. He did speak of the war in heaven, but he used it to say that war is not new, and hang on, war will continue. We will still have to fight. That war is continuing today, among nations, inside nations, among all people. Our Prophet is not out of line in saying so. He gave the example of Moroni, and said that people were justified in fighting against tyranny.

This nation, he said, is a freedom loving people, committed to the defense of liberty. If our nation goes to war, then we are part of that, and that is where our loyalty belongs, even while voicing our dissent, if we disagree. We did make a mistake in Iraq, and I honestly believed we were doing the right thing and now I honestly believe we did the wrong thing.

I don’t believe President Hinckley is omniscient, nor does God reveal everything to him. I remember Elder Ballard saying, in a fireside with my stake YSA, about a year and a half ago, that God reveals nothing to the prophets that isn’t intended for the Church as a whole. So the Prophet told us what had been revealed, and that we should seek peace and the defense of liberty, and left the rest up to us, as God often leaves things to our judgment.

“If you have not read my long post, then you have not read where I show his support of the war.”

i’ve read a few of your long posts and you keep saying the same things over and over. I’ve not read the latest few. I got sort of bored with them, to be honest. But it doesn’t matter. You refuse to admit that it is just your opinion, that he never has stated his support for the war. NEVER. Perhaps he supports it, or supported it, but he has never publicly said so. And you can jump up and down and post a zillion posts, and you will never get me to believe something that doesn’t exist. Period. Because it doesn’t exist. If it did, you wouldn’t need to post long diatribes about it. You could just cut and paste his exact words, saying that he supports the war. Is that so hard to comprehend?

“It is incomprehensible to you that the prophet of the Lord could possibly support an illegal war. ”

Well, I know that the Lord commanded Nephi to slay Laban, so there are exceptions to the commandments, but I am not inclined to believe that this was one of them.

Jay

DAN

Kelly,

1. Bush is not Hitler.

Correct. Hitler served his nation in the military. Bush ran and hid

2….I believe President Hinckley said what he said about supporting the war not because of external factors, but because most American Mormons agreed with George W. Bush.

Agree, he may also be a barometer of who we are, collectively

DAN FARNSWORTH
>>>>>Voice dissent, but if you sabotaged a charter-plane with my old military unit on it because you opposed the war, then you’re hedging up the way.

We don’t need anyones permission to voice dissent to illegal actions. The plane sabotage analogy was pointless, that is an illegal act. Now standing in front of it with a peace flag, that’s fair enough

>>>>while I am able to voice my opinion in politics, when my commanding officer or NCO gives me an order, I obey it, because I am loyal to my country.

This is where your intelligence drops to Zero in my opinion. “Onward Christian Soldiers? God is with us? Kill them all, god knows his own”? Loyalty to country means you disobey illegal orders, precisely the opposite of what you are suggesting, that you blindly obey orders. Your is a dangerous pathological philosophy

>>>>As citizens, we have a similar duty to be loyal to our country and to our president, who we are subject to.

Insofar as what they say are legal AND constitutional. If you are LDS you want to read our own D&C on this.

>>>>Disagree all you want, but your loyalty and your duty is to your country.

Patriotism, refuge, scoundrel. No its not. It is to the higher law and your god, not your country.

>>>>Tell Bush he’s wrong (unless it’s illegal), but obey the law. That is what President Hinckley said, and that is what all the prophets have always said. “But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders.” Mormons who were members of the Iraqi military had an obligation to obey orders too (though I don’t imagine there were any).

Provided they were legal with their own nation, morally justifiable, and internationally legal- although that is more of a moot point, notwithstanding both the Geneva & Conventions and Nuremburg charter

>>>The Prophet was careful about the words he used not so he could be vague, but so he could say exactly what he meant. We pray for peace. We are in a struggle against evil. We have loyalties to our respective nations. Preserving life and liberty are just reasons for entering conflict.

Again, while I want, I really, really want it to be vague, it didn’t read that way. I have vascillated on this, and have to accept that at the time, in isolation, in the context of what was going on, the US constitution and D&C98 was the better option, rather than “this is where my personal loyalties lie”. I have to accept the lords wisdom however, and bite my tongue on it and swallow my pride.

>>>>>He gave the example of Moroni, and said that people were justified in fighting against tyranny. This nation, he said, is a freedom loving people, committed to the defense of liberty. If our nation goes to war, then we are part of that, and that is where our loyalty belongs, even while voicing our dissent, if we disagree. We did make a mistake in Iraq, and I honestly believed we were doing the right thing and now I honestly believe we did the wrong thing.

I think Dan said it best in post # 37 when he said “It is incomprehensible to you that the prophet of the Lord could possibly support an illegal war.” I can’t read his words any other way. If you don’t come out and speak against it, being vague, in the hotbed of what it was, and invoking the freedom line with the soldier and his mother in that land of heat and flies (when we are told we can NOT write to the GA’s too BTW), and Invoking Captain Moroni, can only be read in not being opposed to the action at the least, and support at the best.

Dan, I read your long post, and I’m glad I did. It made a lot of sense. I even agreed with some of your opinions. Your long post was definitely worth reading. Every child of God has importance, and I tried to view the long post as an opinion of someone important.

After reading it, one can then use agency to agree, disagree, or whatever.

But, the long post revealed a side of you that doesn’t come through in your short posts. I think many readers of your short posts are reluctant to read your long post because they mistakenly think it’ll just be more of the same but longer. They then short-change themselves by so doing. You definitely put a lot of thought and study into it, and for them not to read it in full is too bad.

But, in the end, your long post did not change my own personal feelings on war and prophets, but it did change my opinion of you personally. I think that if I were to meet you in person, I’d probably like you.

Dan Ellsworth,

As citizens, we have a similar duty to be loyal to our country and to our president, who we are subject to. Disagree all you want, but your loyalty and your duty is to your country. Tell Bush he’s wrong (unless it’s illegal), but obey the law.

But that’s EXACTLY the point! The war was Illegal! Spying on Americans is illegal! Torture is illegal! How often must one say these things?

Disagree all you want, but your loyalty and your duty is to your country.

No it isn’t. My loyalty is first to God, second to my family, third to my church, and fourth to my friends. Beyond that, nothing else matters.

Kelly,

But, in the end, your long post did not change my own personal feelings on war and prophets, but it did change my opinion of you personally. I think that if I were to meet you in person, I’d probably like you.

I really am a nice guy.

All this hugging…. I want to throw up!

No, not really.

Can we agree on this. And it might be a good way to meet in the middle and stop going around in circles (because we’re all on so much of the same page here its counterproductive to get a wedge between ourselves).
Seriously, compare us to the general LDS or Christian or US citizen on the street, wow, we’re “far left kool aid socialists” just for asking for peace its not funny.

So, can we agree on this I wonder?

The President (the real one) WAS vague, for whatever reasons.

It is hard to determine one way or another what his meaning was.

In the context of speeches before and subsequent it is clear the 1st presidency are against war in all forms and seek for peace.

In the context of the talk in isolation it would appear that his lack of opposition to the Iraq action suggests support rather than objection.

It would be nice if we as a people, a church, and a church leadership spoke louder about our LDS values, in seeking peace, and not allowing ourselves to being manipulated and whipped up by latter day gadiantons, and professed for Peace and divine protection as per instruction in D&C98.

Accepting the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Bush and allowing Cheney to address BYU and receive an honourary doctorate only served to marginalise those who do not agree that the Church is locked in step with the current Republican administrations foreign policy.

Something is going on, I’m glad I’m not a warmonger.

IS that close? Maybe we can make a charter or something?

Kelly said to Dan:

But, in the end, your long post did not change my own personal feelings on war and prophets, but it did change my opinion of you personally. I think that if I were to meet you in person, I’d probably like you.

I fully concur with this statement, and, for the most part, the entire content of the post.

AussieOi said:

Can we agree on this. And it might be a good way to meet in the middle and stop going around in circles (because we’re all on so much of the same page here its counterproductive to get a wedge between ourselves).
Seriously, compare us to the general LDS or Christian or US citizen on the street, wow, we’re “far left kool aid socialists” just for asking for peace its not funny.

Ditto

Can we agree on this. And it might be a good way to meet in the middle and stop going around in circles (because we’re all on so much of the same page here its counterproductive to get a wedge between ourselves).
Seriously, compare us to the general LDS or Christian or US citizen on the street, wow, we’re “far left kool aid socialists” just for asking for peace its not funny.

Very much agreed. I’m glad there are other Latter-Day Saints out there who are not warmongers.

Unfortunately my Mission President thinks that we were justified in invading Iraq, and that Pres. Bush is a great guy. We’ve had a few e-mail discussions about it.

SAM

I too have spent countless hours trying to get it into peoples heads.

How LDS can possibly be in support of war, any war, anywhere….unless the Lord commands it of course.

I think the entire argument can be put to bed simply by 2 scriptures. The first an example:

And in 3 Nephi 3:20-21, we read the following about how the Nephites took care of the Gadianton Robbers who kept terrorizing them:

20 Now the people said unto Gidgiddoni: Pray unto the Lord, and let us go up upon the mountains and into the wilderness, that we may fall upon the robbers and destroy them in their own lands.
21 But Gidgiddoni saith unto them: The Lord forbid; for if we should go up against them the Lord would deliver us into their hands; therefore we will prepare ourselves in the center of our lands, and we will gather all our armies together, and we will not go against them, but we will wait till they shall come against us; therefore as the Lord liveth, if we do this he will deliver them into our hands.

The 2nd D&C98. End of story

If anyone wants to read further on this one, then we had a good thread over at http://www.latterdayconservative.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7792&highlight=&sid=b2fbc54ede6b23d062b415f5c0c24c48

We started the thread with this question….
————————————–

My question to you is…

What do we learn from the experience of Teancum found in Alma 52-62?

Twice he goes into the camps of the enemy and slays their leaders. Are we to understand that this was in keeping with the will of the Lord?

There are a crowd of people that would use this experience of Teancum…of how he went into the enemy camp and assassinated the enemies leader….as a justification for preemptive war….or a justification to assa