The War in Iraq

[prewcaptain of 100]

Well there are other people awaking up to the fact that something is wrong with this country and about the invasion of Iraq.
http://www.counterthink.org/019444.html

http://www.counterthink.org
has other articles worth reading.

Paul Rew

[prewcaptain of 100]

Here is another article from http://www.counterthink.org.
http://www.counterthink.org/019456.html
I am listing it here because he expresses my opinion pretty well when it comes to present day political policy.

Paul Rew

[Shoemakercaptain of 100]

Those are good articles, aren't they. Thanks for sharing them. The reason I was rather excited about this documentary on Frontline was because this is a somewhat mainstream news outlet. Nothing like this usually hits main stream media because of the tight control over what is broadacst that might be negative of the government and Bush in particular.

[YosemiteHi, I'm new.]

you seem to have ignored the evidence.

I'm afraid that I'm breaking the rules here or that I might offend you by this, but I just can't read any more of your posts without saying something:

Looking at your posts throughout these forums, you seem to have ignored the evidence of God's hand in setting up the United States constitution "through wise men whom [he] raised up unto this very purpose". Do you not believe that the following quote is really the Lord speaking?

"And that law of the land which is constitutional...belongs to all mankind (not just Americans), and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you...in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil."

So, the Lord justifies you in befriending the United States constitution, and nothing which is more or less. However, you can't befriend what you don't understand. Your lack of knowledge on the principles taught by the United States' founding fathers are glaringly obvious to constitutionally knowledgable people visiting these forums.

I don't mean this arrogantly, but a good starting point would be the book, "The Law", written by Frederic Bastiat during the French Revolution. It's chock full of a lot of the same political truths espoused by the founding fathers, but it can be read in one sitting. Hopefully, it'll just whet your appetite for more of that old-time truth.

You also appear to either (1) not believe Moroni when he says that the secret combinations, designed to overthrow the freedom of all lands, would exist in our day or (2) not be familiar with what Moroni said. Ether 8 is where this is. It's a relatively short read too.

Love you, Man. Please pray for understanding before you read these things, and read them with an open heart and an open mind. If you're too offended by my post to do what I'm suggesting, you may never rejoice in the sweet and simple political truths revealed to the founding fathers and other latter-day prophets by God--yes--God.

[sbenardcaptain of 100]

I just ran across this today and thought it was pertinent to this discussion:

But in whom should rest the so-called war powers? This was the
urgent problem. It soon became clear that the Convention was unalterably opposed to endowing the President with these war powers; it was conceded he should have the power to repel invasions, but not to commence war, which meant he could not declare war.
President J. Reuben Clark, Jr. OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY, "The Constitution," (Delivered at the Saturday morning session, April 6, 1957.)

[sbenardcaptain of 100]

Just ran across this one too:

"The Constitution will never reach its destiny through force. God's principles are taken by men because they are eternal and true and touch the divine spirit in men. This is the only true way to permanent world peace, the aspiration of men since the beginning. God never planted his Spirit, his truth, in the hearts of men from the point of a bayonet." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1957)

So much for forced democracy!

[sbenardcaptain of 100]

But there is an eternal law that rules war and those who engage in it. It was given when, Peter having struck off the ear of Malchus, the servant of the High Priest, Jesus reproved him, saying:
Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52)
The Savior thus laid down a general principle upon which He placed no limitations as to time, place, cause, or people involved. He repeated it in this dispensation when He told the people if they tried to secure the land of Zion by blood, then "lo, your enemies are upon you." This is a universal law, for force always besets force; it is the law of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' (Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20); it is the law of the unrighteous and wicked, but it operates against the righteous who may be involved.
Mormon, recording the war of revenge by the Nephites, against the Lamanites, pronounced another great law;
But, behold, the judgments of God will overtake the wicked; and it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed. (Mormon 4:5)
But, we repeat, in this war of the wicked, the righteous suffer also. Moroni, mistakenly reproving Pahoran 'for sitting upon his throne in a state of thoughtless stupor, while his enemies were spreading the work 'of death around him, yea, while they were murdering thousands of his brethren,' said to Pahoran:
Do ye suppose that, because so many of your brethren have been killed it is because of their wickedness? I say unto you, if ye have supposed this ye have supposed in vain; for I say unto you, there are many who have fallen by the sword; and behold it is to your condemnation;
For the Lord suffereth the righteous to be slain that his justice and judgment may come upon the wicked; therefore ye need not suppose that the righteous are lost because they are slain; but behold, they do enter into the rest of the Lord their God. (Alma 60:7, 12-13)
In this terrible war now waging, thousands of our righteous young men in all parts of the world and in many countries are subject to a call into the military service of their own countries. Some of these, so serving, have already been called back to their heavenly home; others will almost surely be called to follow. But 'behold,' as Moroni said, the righteous of them who serve and are slain 'do enter into the rest of the Lord their God,' and of them the Lord has said "those that die in me shall not taste of death, for it shall be sweet unto them." (D. & C. 42:46) Their salvation and exaltation in the world to come will be secure. That in their work of destruction they will be striking at their brethren will not be held against them. That sin, as Moroni of old said, is to the condemnation of those who 'sit in their places of power in a state of thoughtless stupor,' those rulers in the world who in a frenzy of' hate and lust for unrighteous power and dominion over their fellow men, have put into motion eternal orces they do not comprehend and cannot control. God, in His own due time, will pass sentence upon them.
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. (Romans 12:19)

First Presidency Statement on War, Read by President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Conference Report, April 1942, Third Day Morning Meeting, p.88-88

It frightens me to think that now, there is much talk of "pre-emptive" attack on North Korea and Iran, too. Where does it end? It reminds me of the tools fascists use to justify endless war and bloodshed against other nations.

[BrianM]

I understand that offensive & pre-emptive wars are not justified in the Book of Mormon and because of that the Nephites were detroyed, but...

what about in the Bible? That's a question I was asked by someone I was recently talking to about the war. They were saying, but in the bible the Israelites went into other peoples lands and took them over, and were justified by the Lord. - so they are saying that the Lord sometimes justifies offensive, pre-emptive wars.

what would you say to this person? (I simply said, I don't no, I haven't studied it enough, yet.)

[WYp8riotcaptain of 1,000]

Is Bin Laden out of the picture now?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/pu ... 4075.shtml

[sbenardcaptain of 100]

I understand that offensive & pre-emptive wars are not justified in the Book of Mormon and because of that the Nephites were detroyed, but...

what about in the Bible? That's a question I was asked by someone I was recently talking to about the war. They were saying, but in the bible the Israelites went into other peoples lands and took them over, and were justified by the Lord. - so they are saying that the Lord sometimes justifies offensive, pre-emptive wars.

what would you say to this person? (I simply said, I don't no, I haven't studied it enough, yet.)

I remember reading a book a few years ago with a chapter in it about societies that were "ripe" for destruction. In it, the author documented, mostly from the Bible, that the societies that the Lord allowed the Israelites to destroy in the Old Testament had had opportunities to repent and were now "ripe" for destruction. I also recall the Book of Mormon indicating that the people in Jericho were ripe for destruction. Remember also that in OT times, Israel was NEVER directed to conquer another people without being directed to do so by a then-LIVING prophet as commanded by God at that moment in time. The same would therefore be true today, no? This is an argument for the necessity of a living prophet -- or else offensive war could not possibly be justified. Sorry I can't be more specific than this, but this at least helps to point the direction we could take in explaining the idea to others. Those societies that the Lord allowed ancient Israel to destroy had had ample opportunity to repent and had refused. They were ripe to be destroyed by God.

[sbenardcaptain of 100]

Firstly, the consitition is changed quite regularly, there called amendments, i believe the first amendment is the bill of rights(not entirely sure). Secondly, i dont believe a formal declaration of war was made, nor does it need to be.

I am a regular student of the US Constitution. I attend a class every week with several other people to study the Constitution and more importantly, the PRINCIPLES embodied therein.

Your comment really shows a lack of understanding of those principles and for the Constitution's mechanism of amending it. I'm sorry, but someone from a foreign country doesn't really have much credibility as a scholar of the US Constitution, especially when there are so many here in this country who are regular students of it and better understand those principles.

As I posted earlier in this thread in comments by the Founders, you are dead wrong about the necessity of a declaration of war. It IS required by the Constitution, no ifs, ands, or buts. The President is ONLY permitted to repel invasions of the homeland, not inititate invasions of other countries of his own accord. And as the Lord has said, anything that goes against those constitutional provisions is "more or less than this," and thus, "cometh of evil".

I know of no other secular document in the world that the Lord has indicated that He endorses it and inspired it. Thus, the original intent of the Constitution is the gold standard that J. Rueben Clark said rises to the level of scripture for him and the membership of the Church.

Your argument is precisely the argument that lliberals in this country use to destroy the Constitution by claiming that it is a "living" document, and thus, "we can change it any way we want". This doctrine is an abomination! I want to puke every time I hear it. Only the uninformed and Constitutionally uneducated believe such hogwash as what these liberals spew forth in their efforts to undermine and dilute the divine principles in that document.

The reason it is abominable is that the Founders never intended for the subsequent ammendments to change the fundamental princples or components embodied in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, which constitutes the first 10 ammendments, are in complete harmony with the body of the Constitution. Various other ammendments, passed much later, were NOT in harmony with the body or principles of the Constitution. Those fall into the category when the Lord said that anything MORE or LESS than the original intent and principles in the Constitution were EVIL! Ironically, the so-called Patriot Act and now, the more recent Military Commissions Act of 2006, imposed by Pres. Bush and his rubber-stamp Republicans, have all but eliminated the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) and habeas corpus, which are the foundational protections of rights for all people. They, too, "cometh of evil" because they eliminate and destroy the principles the Founders gave us.

As for you discounting the work of Dr. Skousen: NO one in this country has done more for teaching, researching, or disseminating accurate information about the US Constitution than Dr. SKousen. If you read the very first thread in the entire forum, you will see from Brian's notes from Dr. SKousen's lectures that he was repeatedly asked by the Prophet to do precisely what he did by educating a derelict and apathetic Church population regarding the Constitution, something the Church could no longer do in the developing political climate. That the Prophet would ask him to do it, and then endorse his work, is all most of us need to justify giving heed to his efforts.

[WhisperFoxcaptain of 100]

Come on sbenard. Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. You are 100% on target. Caught myself wanting to shout AMEN or Hallelujah! I wish more in this nation and especially in the church understood the true status of the constitution.

The earlier post about 'working the dark side' reminded me of these.

Anyone caught these. They were used by my local Constitution Party Candidate here in central Utah.

Listen to both the original and then the edited version.

http://dist68.org/applause.mp3 Original version

http://dist68.org/final.mp3 Edited version