If we confine our activities to the field of moral leadership we shall be successful if our philosophy is sound and appeals to the people of the world. The trouble with those who advocate this [interventionist] policy is that they really do not confine themselves to moral leadership. They are inspired with the same kind of New Deal planned-control ideas abroad as recent Administrations have desired to endorse at home. In their hearts they want to force on these foreign peoples through the use of American money and even, perhaps, American arms the policies which moral leadership is able to advance only through the sound strength of its principles and the force of its persuasion. I do not think this moral leadership ideal justifies our engaging in any preventive war, or going to the defense of one country against another, or getting ourselves into a vulnerable fiscal and economic position at home which may invite war. I do not believe any policy which has behind it the threat of military force is justified as part of the basic foreign policy of the United States except to defend the liberty of our own people.

What stood out most to me was the comparison of foreign intervention to domestic New Deal-type programs. I guess the common element between the two is force. But all for the “benefit” of mankind, of course.

http://www.democracyandsocialism.com/Articles/FinanceMilitaryComplex.html

Far from it, Thomas. I have simply chosen to take the higher ground and not assist you in devolving this discussion into a tit-for-tat round of potshots at the faith of others. Your facts are so out whack that I feel no desire whatsoever in even responding to them.

You’ve now been banned since you’ve yet to learn your lesson. Have fun in the time out corner.

If you don’t like people arguing against your belief system then stop quoting it. If don’t want the discussion to touch close to home then don’t bring biblical scripture into the argument. You are a child, an irrational emotionally controlled brat if you take this so personally. It is obvious that you do not like me, and that is great. It does not bother me in the least bit, why should it bother you if I disagree with the teachings of some grouping of beliefs that less than 0.3% of the world adheres to.
0.3% = 17,000,000(mormons)/6,000,000,000(approx. world population)

there are 1.3 billion Muslims, that say Mohammed is the only true prophet of god, does that make them right?

Nice try, but that’ts a pretty fallacious argument. That’s like saying that President Bush is responsible for every misdemeanor and petty theft committed by citizens of this country. People are accountable for their own actions.

connor:
there you go again, telling me what someone else thinks about the issue. are you affraid of what you might say. i dont get it. If you are incapable of original thought i will quit harping on you. if this is the case, let me know and i will drop it. just write back telling me that you have no independant thought of your own and i will stop this arguement.

Thomas, if you can’t argue your own point without acting like a monkey throwing its feces at others, then don’t bother commenting any longer.

The reason for citing quotes of men far wiser than I is that their words harmonize with my own thoughts and sentiments and are more succinct and eloquent than my own would be. To argue that I’m incapable of independent thought illustrates that you haven’t read a single thing on my blog. Before you level childish accusations at others, make sure you’re on solid ground. In this case, you’re not.

I’m not going to bother responding to your other idiotic arguments that have no factual backing or relevance to the topic on this thread. This is not the place for you to argue why you disagree with LDS teachings, of which you apparently understand very little. Should you wish to constructively debate and discuss the topic on this thread, I invite you to do so, but with the warning that the next comment containing a vacuous, asinine tangent will see you banned from my blog.

Thanks, and happy new year!

and no i wasnt defending the iraq war, i was reply to comment 43 left by sam hennis. maybe you should read before you open your mouth.

connor:
there you go again, telling me what someone else thinks about the issue. are you affraid of what you might say. i dont get it. If you are incapable of original thought i will quit harping on you. if this is the case, let me know and i will drop it. just write back telling me that you have no independant thought of your own and i will stop this arguement.

you say “god calls upon prophets to give us his teachings”
says who, the prohpets. David Koresh said he was a prohpet of god too. do you consider him a prophet because he said so. I dont believe he was aprophet any more than i believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He braught down new commandments from god i believe, but no one could see them. thatr seems odd. at least people were allowed to look at the commandments mosses braught down from the mountain. this seems a bit out of sorts to me. And the thought that indians skins are darker because they are being punished for their ancient sins. wow! I imagine that black people are even more evil that indians because their skin is darker, and that asians are short for the same reason.

I just see the LDS church as hypocritical. at first you werenot allowed to drink caffine, right. but now the mormon church owns over 50% of coca-cola bottleing company. did god tell someone it is now okay to drink caffine, or was it just a shameless attempt to make money? i bet mormons are not allowed to drink pepsi, just coke. This all seems very odd to me, almost like they change their minds whenever it suits them.

The Mountain Meadows thing was undertaken by LDS individuals and not sanctioned by the Church as far as my understanding goes. You can’t pin that one on the Church amigo.

1. In reference to your question about God defending people, I quote the following relevant quote by Brigham Young, of whom you find so much need to discuss on this thread:

We all believe that the Lord will fight our battles; but how? Will He do it while we are unconcerned and make no effort whatever for our own safety when an enemy is upon us? If we make no effort to guard our towns, our houses, our cities, our wives and children, will the Lord guard them for us? He will not; but if we pursue the opposite course and strive to help Him to accomplish His designs, then will He fight our battles. We are baptized for the remission of sins; but it would be quite as unreasonable to expect a remission of sins without baptism, as to expect the Lord to fight our battles without our taking every precaution to be prepared to defend ourselves. The Lord requires us to be quite as willing to fight our own battles as to have Him fight them for us. If we are not ready for an enemy when he comes upon us, we have not lived up to the requirements of Him who guides the ship of Zion, or who dictates the affairs of his kingdom. (Journal of Discourses 11:131)

2. I do not merely stick to the thoughts and teachings of men from 2000 years ago. God has called a prophet and apostles in our day to give us His teachings so that we can know what His will is at this time. So in a sense you are correct that we should not rely solely on what men 2000 years ago wrote.

The following words of Marion G. Romney apply:

In each dispensation, from the days of Adam to the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord has revealed anew the principles of the gospel. So that while the records of past dispensations, insofar as they are uncorrupted, testify to the truths of the gospel, still each dispensation has had revealed in its day sufficient truth to guide the people of the new dispensation, independent of the records of the past.

I do not wish to discredit in any manner the records we have of the truths revealed by the Lord in past dispensations. What I now desire is to impress upon our minds that the gospel, as revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, is complete and is the word direct from heaven to this dispensation. It alone is sufficient to teach us the principles of eternal life. It is the truth revealed, the commandments given in this dispensation through modern prophets by which we are to be governed. (“A Glorious Promise,” Ensign, Jan 1981, 2)

Also pertinent is the following quote by N. Eldon Tanner:

Today there are many issues under debate as controversies rage all around us. It should be evident to all that we need divine direction, as men and women who argue their causes seem to be unable to come to workable or peaceable solutions. It is sad indeed that the world does not know or accept the fact that in our midst is a prophet through whom God can direct the solution of world problems.

True Latter-day Saints have no such dilemma. They know that the messages of the prophet have come from the Lord and have the concurrence of all the General Authorities, who are men of vision and integrity, and who themselves try to keep in tune with deity. They are not, as some would suggest, following blindly and acting without their own agency to speak and think for themselves. Through prayer to our Heavenly Father each of us can have the assurance that the course we choose has his divine approval. … Whose side are we on? When the prophet speaks the debate is over. (Ensign, August 1979)

to connor:
what i meant was, you should not interpret the bible literally. people wrote the books of the bible, not god, and not christ. that is all i meant. Judas was, at one point, a student of christ. where is his book? i will tell you. it was thrown out with all other books that were not in line with the ideas of the council of nicea. His observations of the life of christ are just as relevant as paul’s, yet judas’ book was not included and paul’s was. You can know the message of christ without reading the bible. i dont need to read the bible to know that killing innocent people is bad. Maybe you need the bible to tell you what to do in every situation, i dont. You can quote scripture until you are blue in the face, all that it proves is that you have read the bible. good for you. i could quote William Shakespeare and Abraham Lincoln but they wouldn’t be any more relevant to 21st century conflict than biblical scripture.

I don’t care what John, Mark, Luke, or Daniel thought 2000 years ago. i want to know what you think today, in this circumstance. I think, in the future, we will need people who have strong minds and compassionate hearts; not theologians who spend all their time memorizing bible passages. If you don’t have any thoughts of you own, fair enough. I know its easier to do what you are told, but someday you will have to think for yourself. There will be questions that the bible has no answer to, what will you do then, bury your head in the sand while the rest of us solve the problem for you. I don’t think the bible mentions cloning anywhere. But I bet you think its bad. What if cloning leads to the cure for cancer, or aids, or all disease? Would you forsake the rest of mankind for your fear of an afterlife that we cannot know? I think you would, I think a lot of you would. And that is the most terrifying thing of all. You spend your time worrying about what will happen to you after you die, I will spend mine worrying about what is going on while I am alive.
Good luck and god’s blessings in the future. If you don’t start thinking for yourself you are going to need both very much.

The following statement made in your comment above is one of the most contradictory I’ve ever heard:

I don’t put much faith in scripture. I believe in the message of Christ…

Where do you read and learn of the message of Christ? Whom communicated the message before and after His ministry? How are those words passed on to others? Casting aside scripture while claiming to adhere to Christ’s message is like saying you want the mail without the mailman. Removing the messenger eliminates the possibility of receiving the message. Disbelieve the provided scriptural citations all you want, but don’t pretend to follow and live and message of Christ while disparaging the vehicle by which you have received it.

If there was ever a people that had reason to be upset with the US government, it was the Mormons. Now the army was coming to kill them. I see nothing inconsistent with Brigham Young’s actions and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this instance.

You ask:
“What scriptural basis can you find to support your theory that God gave us aggressive spirits?”
My answer is this: I didn’t refer to any biblical passage to make that statement. I used my own empirical observations to come up with that analysis. I don’t some 1st century theologian to tell me man is an aggressive being. I see aggression in people every day. If god is providing protection for the weak, has he forgotten about the people in the Sudan? I don’t see a lot of divine providence there. It seems he has forsaken those people. What about the American Indians, were they not worthy of his protection? They certainly could have used some.

To sum up my argument, I don’t put much faith in scripture. I believe in the message of Christ, his only true message. Love thy neighbor, and try to be a good person. You can take the bible literally if you wish; I think the message is what really counts.

Not to pick on your faith as a Mormon, but I wonder what god would say regarding some of the deeds of the early Mormon settlers. Maybe you have heard of the mountain meadows massacre. If you haven’t I suggest you read about it in this article: http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/old_west/60664

The article describes how the early Mormon settlers, under the leadership of Brigham Young, inflicted bodily harm upon themselves and other non-Mormons to save their souls. President Buchanan heard this and sent the army to restore order. Here is where it gets really interesting.
“The years of 1855-56 had been particularly harsh on the Mormon settlements around the Great Salt Lake. Though their difficulties were due to normal things like drought and insect infestation, the Mormons believed they were being punished by God for their sins. All people were called upon to confess and repent. For some sins, the only way of achieving forgiveness was the doctrine of “blood-atonement.” This meant that one had to shed their own blood. Unfortunately, things got out of control when some Mormons extended the shedding of blood to others to save themselves. At the same time, they claimed, they were “saving” the person who was sacrificed.
The atrocities reached the ears of leaders in the east. President Buchanan sent troops to Utah to return order. The Mormons heard about it in advance and prepared for a long siege. They stockpiled grain. They found places to hide. They got ready to leave at a moment’s notice. They burned down Fort Bridger and Fort Supply so they could not provide shelter to U.S. troops. Brigham Young declared that army troops would not be allowed to enter the Salt Lake Valley for any reason. He declared that all citizens must be ready to bare arms against them.”
I know that this has nothing to do with what modern Mormons believe, but Brigham Young advocated the taking up of arms against the United States military. Would you please speak to that? Don’t give me what the bible says, give me what you say.

What scriptural basis can you find to support your theory that God gave us aggressive spirits? I find just the opposite to be the case.

You do not see God as guardian of the meek? What about the sheep? The prodigal son? The chicken gathered under the hen’s wing?

How do you assume that those who are meek are not guarded by God? How do you argue your point in light of the following verse?

And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart.
If so, his faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart… (Moroni 7:43-44)

Indeed, the scriptures are replete with examples of the virtue of meekness, and the commandment for all of us to emulate this quality. Only then will we be worthy of the Lord’s protection.