Warmongers!

[mes5464]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

[Fiannan]

Many Mormons like to see people blow up as much as any other worldly individual. Know a guy who seriously believed that the US government should have carpet bombed Serbia into extinction during Operation Stained Dress in the 1990s. I tried to point out to him that the Albanians were not necessarily the good guys in that conflict but hey, he believed the propaganda that the mainstream media was showing (later it was proven lies) depicting Serbs as monsters.

[Tribunal]

Operation Stained Dress!? That is freak'n funny. I was stationed in that area when I was with NATO from 95 to 98. That experience was such a joke. Operation Stained Dress is probably the best way of describing that operation from President Alligator Tears, to my favorite General Clark, to the unarmed soldiers on the ground, to the mass graves filled with dirt, to the witnesses who all seemed to speak American, to witch of a "journalist" Ms. Amapour who seemed to be at the right place at the right time just before the action started.

I enjoyed my participation with the NWO!!! Grrr!!! :ymdevil:

[Silas]

Speaking of War Mongers we have now made an act of war on Libya, without declaring it as authorized by the UN and not our Congress. And as usual we are being told that this will be limited, the typical pre-war lie. Iraq will be easy cheap and quick. That's what we were told right? I can't stand being blatantly lied to like this. We will see how long ground troops really stay out of Libya. This is a nightmare.

[larsenb]

For some odd reason, the very strong case AGAINST preemptive warfare made in the Book of Mormon seems to be overlooked as a sermon or discourse in any Church forum that I'm aware of. Elder L. Tom Perry skirted the issue when he called attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon has excellent teachings on the philosophy of what constitutes a just war, but he didn't really elaborate beyond that.

President Kimball was more direct in a powerful sermon back in the '70's when he warned about how warlike we as a people seem to be and how it was a mistake to put our trust in our weaponry and not in God, or words to that effect.

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

I've recently been thinking that I would like to try my hand at writing an article that delves into defensive vs. preemptive warfare from both an historical perspective and from the perspective found in the Book of Mormon, D&C and from talks from the Brethren.

[Shimdidly]

For some odd reason, the very strong case AGAINST preemptive warfare made in the Book of Mormon seems to be overlooked as a sermon or discourse in any Church forum that I'm aware of. Elder L. Tom Perry skirted the issue when he called attention to the fact that the Book of Mormon has excellent teachings on the philosophy of what constitutes a just war, but he didn't really elaborate beyond that.

President Kimball was more direct in a powerful sermon back in the '70's when he warned about how warlike we as a people seem to be and how it was a mistake to put our trust in our weaponry and not in God, or words to that effect.

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

I've recently been thinking that I would like to try my hand at writing an article that delves into defensive vs. preemptive warfare from both an historical perspective and from the perspective found in the Book of Mormon, D&C and from talks from the Brethren.

That would be awesome, if you write the article I'd love to see it.

[Rincon]

Removed

[mes5464]

I have been going back and forth with 3 LDS friends on Facebook about the attack on Libya. One is very anti Ron Paul, the other seems to see it as defense against a "war" on the US by Islam, and the third sees it as our Christian duty to save everyone from the evil dictator. As I said in my original post, none of these people are awake.

I made a comment that the citizens of a republic/democracy bare the moral burden of the actions of their government. Needless to say, she didn't agree with that statement. My position is like that taught in "Many are Called but Few are Chosen" by H Verlan Andersen. It fell on deaf ears.

[mes5464]

The solution to Jihad:

Alma 31:5

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

[mes5464]

For some odd reason, the very strong case AGAINST preemptive warfare made in the Book of Mormon seems to be overlooked as a sermon or discourse in any Church forum that I'm aware of.

I believe we are seeing the very elect being deceived by the propaganda of the NWO to the point they are defending it, despite all the evidence that they shouldn't be supporting it.

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:22

22 For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant.

Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:37

37 And whoso treasureth up my word, shall not be deceived, for the Son of Man shall come, and he shall send his angels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the remainder of his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

[davedan]

I am no fan of Gaddafi, but I do not support our actions in Libya. Congress did not approve military action. We should continue to provide humanitarian aid, but we should not be attacking the whole Middle East. This kind of action is only going to convince the world that the US needs to be destroyed.

We only now get to wait for the atrocities to get played up in the papers. I will not be surprised to hear about errant bombings of innocent civilians and baby milk factories.

[Jason]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

At Texas Roadhouse tonight....started up conversation with guy across from me in the waiting room (mid to late 20's)......he said he could care less as long as HE didn't have to go over there. Probably typical of most Americans....personally I hope he gets drafted here in the near future!

[Mark]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

I do not like war and bloodshed in the slightest but I wonder sometimes what constitutes defensive action. For example in Pres. Hinckleys conference address at the start of the Iraq war he stated this:

Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. 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.

Now lets take Libya as an example. We know Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. We know that he is murdering his own people who stand against his repressive regime. Is it right that we stand in defense of those who are losing their liberties and lives? Where and when do you apply Pres. Hinckleys counsel? I have yet to hear someone explain any form of justification for what Pres. Hinckley mentioned. When is defending innocents who are terrorized by tyrants defensive?

[PatientLady]

When are we going to wake up and realize that the modern day Gadianton Robbers in Washington, D.C. have already won their war for world government and they are just trying to break it to us gently? The USA no longer exists as a free and independent nation. No country does. We are part of the "global community" and the "world economy." Like the border between the USA and Mexico, borders exist only on paper, not in the real world. And we have only ourselves to blame because we have been willfully ignorant.

[PatientLady]

The solution to Jihad:

Alma 31:5

And now, as the preaching of the word had a great tendency to lead the people to do that which was just—yea, it had had more powerful effect upon the minds of the people than the sword, or anything else, which had happened unto them—therefore Alma thought it was expedient that they should try the virtue of the word of God.

"Try" is the operative word in Alma 31:5. If preaching the word were the most effective way to avoid war, why were there so many wars in the Book of Mormon? Why did Captain Moroni shed so much blood in defense of his people? Was he a war monger too? I don't think so. Neither was Joshua in the Old Testament. But preaching the word is only effective in special cases. Besides, who is going to do this preaching of the word? Not us. We don't do much of it in our own congregations and wards. Ever keep track of how many Sacrament Meeting talks actually rely upon the scriptures? Very few compared to how many there ought to be, at least in my experience.

[GutterBeast]

I always think about something Lucifer says about buying up armies.... You better believe that includes US forces, so much cash has been used for bribery - probably is causing indirect inflation. Not to mention Xe (Blackwater), Dyncorp, and Halliburton. The entire military industrial complex for that matter- which knows no borders really. I'd recommend watching this interview about the RAND corporation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_-px7qCQDk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; truly at the heart of the MIC.

Also very good analysis from AJ about the Libya intervention: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wn6S6G6cok" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Its very sad that the average American doesn't even know enough to have an opinion, but still goes along with what is going on. The average brainwashed person is like "lets turn it into a glass parking lot". Dehumanization of the enemy is always part of the standard MO.

On another note It is interesting that Obama is using his illegal role in the UN to leverage the war against Libya - looks like the UN has replaced Congress. Another illegal war for very nefarious reasons.

[PatientLady]

Now lets take Libya as an example. We know Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. We know that he is murdering his own people who stand against his repressive regime. Is it right that we stand in defense of those who are losing their liberties and lives? Where and when do you apply Pres. Hinckleys counsel? I have yet to hear someone explain any form of justification for what Pres. Hinckley mentioned. When is defending innocents who are terrorized by tyrants defensive?

I don't think you understand what President Hinckley said. He was teaching principles, not circumstances. Sure, Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. So what? The President of the USA is also an evil tyrant. So was the last president. These men ordered preemptive strikes against a foreign nation that had not first attacked us. Did Gadhafi ever do that? In the current conflict he is just trying to put down a violent revolution. What do you think Bush or Obama would have done to put down a violent revolution? I'm not defending Gadhafi. He is every bit as bad thing you say he is. I'm just suggesting we look in the mirror. The US Constitution says that war must be declared by the Congress. The President is merely the Commander in Chief that executes that war ordered by Congress. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. A president that does not abide that law is a lawless president, a criminal. And in this case a war criminal, a man who orders the slaughter of many without trial and in violation of his Constitutional authority.

[kathyn]

From what I've gathered, the PTB think that it's okay to take action in defense of our "public interest". To me, that can only mean those countries who produce oil. I used to get upset when someone said the wars were all about oil. But it looks like I was mistaken. Oil is necessary to our public interest, but we could produce and refine what we need from our own continent. Our own gov't has tied our hands and made us dependent on foreign sources. This is the real crime.

If we were going to go into every country that has an evil leader, that would entail much of the world. Why didn't we stop the wars in Africa in the 90's when there was wholesale slaughter of whole ethnic groups. And what about Darfur? And what about Nigeria? What about East Timor and also the Abu Sayeff in the Phillipines? How about the slaughter of Christians in Muslim countries? Where does it end? We are not meant to be the world's policeman, yet I fear TPTB have decided that is exactly what we are. We should take care of our country and give humanitarian aid where needed. That is what we can afford and what is right.

[Teancum]

From what I've gathered, the PTB think that it's okay to take action in defense of our "public interest". To me, that can only mean those countries who produce oil. I used to get upset when someone said the wars were all about oil. But it looks like I was mistaken. Oil is necessary to our public interest, but we could produce and refine what we need from our own continent. Our own gov't has tied our hands and made us dependent on foreign sources. This is the real crime.

If we were going to go into every country that has an evil leader, that would entail much of the world. Why didn't we stop the wars in Africa in the 90's when there was wholesale slaughter of whole ethnic groups. And what about Darfur? And what about Nigeria? What about East Timor and also the Abu Sayeff in the Phillipines? How about the slaughter of Christians in Muslim countries? Where does it end? We are not meant to be the world's policeman, yet I fear TPTB have decided that is exactly what we are. We should take care of our country and give humanitarian aid where needed. That is what we can afford and what is right.

Thanks Kathyn, I appreciate your post and thoughts on this subject. Your comment about wars for oil sparked a thought in me that I wish I had the eloquence to express. I will give it a try anyway.

If wars are mainly for control of resources such as oil, etc..., then by me valuing that resource and wanting it, using it, being addicted to it, etc. fuels that war. It makes me become a participant in that war because of my propping up the demand. It also enslaves me to its owners and ditributors making them rich by my "choice" to participate in that system.

If I had the ability, I would like to remove myself and family from supporting a oppressive/slavery system.

How you say? By obeying the counsel of our prophets to be as self sufficient as possible - and that includes food, clothing, energy (oil) etc.... Not an easy thing to do... No, on the contrary, following the counsel of our prophets has never been very easy to do but critical to do.

In my own efforts, I focus mostly on alternative energy, as that removes me from the oil pipeline.
Producing your own food for many seems to be easy compared to this problem of energy.
But there are solutions, and have been available for a hundred years or more. Again, it may not be the easy thing to do, to wean yourself off of the teat of babylon, but we know according to scripture, the call will go forth to depart out of babylon. I wish in my heart that I could in some small way make it possible for others to do so.

[kathyn]

kenssurplus, the only problem I have with your post is that our need for oil isn't as much a problem as where we get it. Yes, I really believe in alternatives to oil. But how practical is that for most of us? I care for a semi-invalid husband as well as my father (who will be 95 in June.) My only vehicle is a '99 Honda Odyssey. I can't afford to change it over to a hybrid or even to change the type of fuel the Odyssey uses. I wish I had a home that could be powered with wind power, but my yard can't be zoned for that. Nor do I have the capability to do it. It's great for those who can use other options, but for some of us, it isn't possible.

Do you have some ideas for people like me?

[Fiannan]

"We shall put them where they may be indoctrinated with a wholly un-American view of the aims and purposes of their individual lives, and of the life of the whole people and nation, which are founded on the ways of peace, whereas they will be taught to believe in the ways of war." LDS president David O McKay

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/church ... ft-in-1945" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[lundbaek]

In 1978 I spent 6 weeks overhauling machinery pumping gas out of the desert and up to the NGL plant in Brega. I did spend a few days in Benghazi and Tripoli. I noted that many Libyans loved Gadaffi, some seemed to worship him. Also many detested him. And there were lots of others who's sentiments for him were inbetween. From current news reports it seems the same today. But isn't there the same spectrum of feeling in the U.S. today about Obama ? I believe the Arab mentality in general is such that Arabs are more easily rabble roused to action than Westerners. Consequently it was easy for outside elements to provoke rebelllion of people who detest Gadaffi. So a Libyan internal problem was escalated into what is happening today by interests that want Gadaffi out, and Gadaffi's opposition to the rebellion instigated by outsiders has provided excuse for those outsiders to go to war to get him out of power. Gadaffi has always ruled with an iron hand, which has incurred the wrath of many Libyans, and many westerners especially. But IMO that does not warrant U.S. intervention in Libyan internal affairs.

[Jason]

D&C 98:33-38

I am amazed at how many of my member friends are just so gun-ho about attacking Libya and the already existing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They simply do not know that we are playing right into the NWO hands, and we are helping the topple another government so they can get in and get control.

I do not like war and bloodshed in the slightest but I wonder sometimes what constitutes defensive action. For example in Pres. Hinckleys conference address at the start of the Iraq war he stated this:

Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. 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.

Now lets take Libya as an example. We know Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. We know that he is murdering his own people who stand against his repressive regime. Is it right that we stand in defense of those who are losing their liberties and lives? Where and when do you apply Pres. Hinckleys counsel? I have yet to hear someone explain any form of justification for what Pres. Hinckley mentioned. When is defending innocents who are terrorized by tyrants defensive?

How's that working in Bahrain? Yemen?

Or with Pinochet? Saddam? Gadhafi (during the times we loved him)?

[Jason]

Now lets take Libya as an example. We know Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. We know that he is murdering his own people who stand against his repressive regime. Is it right that we stand in defense of those who are losing their liberties and lives? Where and when do you apply Pres. Hinckleys counsel? I have yet to hear someone explain any form of justification for what Pres. Hinckley mentioned. When is defending innocents who are terrorized by tyrants defensive?

I don't think you understand what President Hinckley said. He was teaching principles, not circumstances. Sure, Gadhafi is an evil tyrant. So what? The President of the USA is also an evil tyrant. So was the last president. These men ordered preemptive strikes against a foreign nation that had not first attacked us. Did Gadhafi ever do that? In the current conflict he is just trying to put down a violent revolution. What do you think Bush or Obama would have done to put down a violent revolution? I'm not defending Gadhafi. He is every bit as bad thing you say he is. I'm just suggesting we look in the mirror. The US Constitution says that war must be declared by the Congress. The President is merely the Commander in Chief that executes that war ordered by Congress. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. A president that does not abide that law is a lawless president, a criminal. And in this case a war criminal, a man who orders the slaughter of many without trial and in violation of his Constitutional authority.

Hearty AMEN!!!

[n8-r]

But by and large, the subject rarely comes up; which would account for a lot of the ignorance of most LDS people regarding it.

It's not the responsibility or calling of the Brethren to make people aware of this. The ignorance of LDS members concerning this subject is not on account of the brethren not speaking up about it, it's because the ignorant members don't educate themselves and seek after the proper education and knowledge on their own. The ignorant are ignorant because they choose ignorance and do not seek enlightenment.