Where did you get the idea that I thought we were safe? This is a strange accusation...especially since earlier this month I was called a 'prophet of doom'.
Coggins7 wrote:If the Left is Babylon's prosperity and wealth then the Right is Assyria's conquering hordes. Neither side has reached the climactic end yet where they fully personify what I'm saying but I think both are getting closer.
We clearly have radically different political views Nehor. I diverge from this with a vengeance too. I understand what you're saying here, but don't accept the premises or implied definitions.
The Left cannot be Babylon's prosperity. Leftism, whatever else it is, is socialism; its egalitarian and collectivist in economic theory and practice. Socialism of any kind, even in its most benign forms, eats wealth that is created while encouraging less and less new wealth to be generated, indeed, emplacing numerous barriers to precisely that generation. Egalitarian economic systems transfer wealth between groups, but do not create new wealth, and destroy much of the incentive for that creation.
Babylon has, I think, two problems with wealth and prosperity, the first being the widespread nature of that prosperity alongside Babylon's materialism and moral relativism. The second is its socialism, which is the legalized theft of vast sums of the fruits of the labor of productive individuals within it. Both situations, the moral and value relativism of the mass culture, and the lawlessness of the state, feed into a continuing degradation of the rule of law. High taxes and the redistribution of wealth from those to whom it belongs, to those to whom it does not, also feeds the corruption of government by the creation of long term alliances with various special interests who's existence is dependent upon the largess of its fellow citizens, and resentments and a class warfare mentality that pollutes economic and political discourse and behavior.
"The Right", by which I assume you mean modern conservatism (and I consider mainstream, serious Libertarianism (of the CATO variety), to be a philosophical sibling) is so far from being militaristic that I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding upon what basis you are making these assertions. That, of course, was a myth created by the Left during the Cold War era as a foil for their own ideology of appeasement toward Communist aggression around the world. Conservatism is a modern remnant and reworking of Classical Liberalism, and as such, although it abhors war (as much as the Left claims it does), it is, unlike the Left and Libertarianism (for different reasons, however) willing to go to war to maintain the rights and liberties thought to be God given and unalineanble. That others aren't, although they lay claim to love of liberty, is a major difference between these philosophies.
Some of this may be a matter of libertarianism's hard secularist streak, but I'm not altogether sure.
Coggins7 wrote:Where did you get the idea that I thought we were safe? This is a strange accusation...especially since earlier this month I was called a 'prophet of doom'.
Well, that would be your comment about the inconvenience at the airport. The implication seemed to be that the global war on terrorism was nothing more that a great big diversion from your own material comfort and convenience.
Which of course, wars can be.
The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people. There are quite a few warrior Prophets but they led a wicked people every single time. Zion never goes to war. In 4 Nephi and in Moses you don't read of great battles where God strengthened them. You read of total peace and of one attack that God averted entirely by himself (in Moses).
Part of this is simply false. There are a number of instances in the Book of Mormon in which the Nephites are strengthenedby the Lord in war, and are hardly wicked in a substantive way. Let me quote William Hamnlin here from Warfare In The Book of Mormon (italics mine):Religion and warfare were closely connected in the Book of Mormon. Certain elements of the Israelite patterns of "holy war" were continued in the Book of Mormon, such as the important ancient idea that success in war was due fundamentally to the will of God and the righteousness of the people (Alma 2:28; 44:4–5; 50:21; 56:47; 57:36; 58:33; Morm. 2:26). Nephite armies consulted prophets before going to battle (Alma 16:5; 43:23–24; 3 Ne. 3:19) and entered into covenants with God before battle. On one occasion, the Nephite soldiers swore a solemn oath, covenanting to obey God's commandments and to fight valiantly for the cause of righteousness, casting their garments on the ground at the feet of their leader and inviting God to cast themselves likewise at the feet of their enemies if they should violate their oath (Alma 46:22; cf. 53:17). A purity code for warriors may be seen in the account of the stripling warriors of Helaman (Alma 56–58).
How do you explain this in light of your claim that "The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people"? Were the Stripling Warriors wicked? Not according to the Book of Mormon.War sucks. It is completely opposed to everything God wants. If you must fight a defensive war you do but you should accept from the outset that both sides in war are always wrong and need to repent.
The first statement is correct. The second claim is not Book of Mormon or modern Church teaching. This would imply that any Chinese who fought and resisted the Japanese during the rape of Nanking were just as wicked and just as needful of repentance for the violence they engaged in as were the aggressors. The moral quandaries in this abound, Nehor.The warrior-prophets were God's help to a people who needed to be reminded that they should trust in God, not people who trusted in him already.
I don't see this in the Book of Mormon as a general pattern. They're are at least several occasions in which the Nepites are minding there own business, and are hardly a wicked or degenerate people, when the Lamanites come upon them for know reason whatever, except their own aggressive tendencies. And how then, do you explain righteousness as being a precondition of success in war before going into battle?Moroni retired as soon as he could from the army. I admit I don't entirely trust the military history of the Book of Judges. I personally believe if the Israelites were righteous that Joshua would have led a missionary campaign and not a military one into the Promised Land. The Saints were cast out of Missouri for their sins. Zion's Camp was a learning experience....just like war can be (Alma 62:41). It is not a test that a Zion people ever get.
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from that a Zion people have no enemies and will never need fear violence and oppression? Ever here of Nero, Diocletian, or Trajan? In any case, we are not a Zion people yet as a people. There are a number among us, but the tares and the wheat are still growing together, including within the church. And what do we do until then. Roll over, spread our legs, bare our throats, and wait for Sharia law to be imposed on our own shores? I'm not at all sure that is the kind of people the Lord wants either.I would add that offensive war is entirely condemned in the Book of Mormon and the Law of War in the D&C. Once the enemy leaves your borders you STOP! The backlash from 9/11 is to destroy anyone who can conceivably hurt us again. I understand the need for some anti-terrorist measures within the U.S. but our invasions seem way too much like the Nephites going on to attack the Lamanites lands. Our foreign policy record though is much worse than the Nephite government's ever were.
(Alma 43: 5, 6, 7)And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—
Yea, and this is not all; I command you by all the desires which ye have for life, that ye deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us.
And now, if ye do not this, behold, ye are in our hands, and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you, and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct; and then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.
Yea, I would tell you these things if ye were capable of hearkening unto them; yea, I would tell you concerning that awful hell that awaits to receive such murderers as thou and thy brother have been, except ye repent and withdraw your murderous purposes, and return with your armies to your own lands.
But as ye have once rejected these things, and have fought against the people of the Lord, even so I may expect you will do it again.
And now behold, we are prepared to receive you; yea, and except you withdraw your purposes, behold, ye will pull down the wrath of that God whom you have rejected upon you, even to your utter destruction.
But, as the Lord liveth, our armies shall come upon you except ye withdraw, and ye shall soon be visited with death, for we will retain our cities and our lands; yea, and we will maintain our religion and the cause of our God.
But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
And behold, if ye do not this, I will come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, and I will come against you, and I will follow you even into your own land, which is the land of our first inheritance; yea, and it shall be blood for blood, yea, life for life; and I will give you battle even until you are destroyed from off the face of the earth.
Behold, I am in my anger, and also my people; ye have sought to murder us, and we have only sought to defend ourselves. But behold, if ye seek to destroy us more we will seek to destroy you; yea, and we will seek our land, the land of our first inheritance.
Coggins7 wrote:The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people. There are quite a few warrior Prophets but they led a wicked people every single time. Zion never goes to war. In 4 Nephi and in Moses you don't read of great battles where God strengthened them. You read of total peace and of one attack that God averted entirely by himself (in Moses).
Part of this is simply false. There are a number of instances in the Book of Mormon in which the Nephites are strengthenedby the Lord in war, and are hardly wicked in a substantive way. Let me quote William Hamnlin here from Warfare In The Book of Mormon (italics mine):Religion and warfare were closely connected in the Book of Mormon. Certain elements of the Israelite patterns of "holy war" were continued in the Book of Mormon, such as the important ancient idea that success in war was due fundamentally to the will of God and the righteousness of the people (Alma 2:28; 44:4–5; 50:21; 56:47; 57:36; 58:33; Morm. 2:26). Nephite armies consulted prophets before going to battle (Alma 16:5; 43:23–24; 3 Ne. 3:19) and entered into covenants with God before battle. On one occasion, the Nephite soldiers swore a solemn oath, covenanting to obey God's commandments and to fight valiantly for the cause of righteousness, casting their garments on the ground at the feet of their leader and inviting God to cast themselves likewise at the feet of their enemies if they should violate their oath (Alma 46:22; cf. 53:17). A purity code for warriors may be seen in the account of the stripling warriors of Helaman (Alma 56–58).
How do you explain this in light of your claim that "The blame for every war in the Book of Mormon is assigned to the wickedness of the people"? Were the Stripling Warriors wicked? Not according to the Book of Mormon.War sucks. It is completely opposed to everything God wants. If you must fight a defensive war you do but you should accept from the outset that both sides in war are always wrong and need to repent.
The first statement is correct. The second claim is not Book of Mormon or modern Church teaching. This would imply that any Chinese who fought and resisted the Japanese during the rape of Nanking were just as wicked and just as needful of repentance for the violence they engaged in as were the aggressors. The moral quandaries in this abound, Nehor.The warrior-prophets were God's help to a people who needed to be reminded that they should trust in God, not people who trusted in him already.
I don't see this in the Book of Mormon as a general pattern. They're are at least several occasions in which the Nepites are minding there own business, and are hardly a wicked or degenerate people, when the Lamanites come upon them for know reason whatever, except their own aggressive tendencies. And how then, do you explain righteousness as being a precondition of success in war before going into battle?Moroni retired as soon as he could from the army. I admit I don't entirely trust the military history of the Book of Judges. I personally believe if the Israelites were righteous that Joshua would have led a missionary campaign and not a military one into the Promised Land. The Saints were cast out of Missouri for their sins. Zion's Camp was a learning experience....just like war can be (Alma 62:41). It is not a test that a Zion people ever get.
I'm not sure where you are getting this idea from that a Zion people have no enemies and will never need fear violence and oppression? Ever here of Nero, Diocletian, or Trajan? In any case, we are not a Zion people yet as a people. There are a number among us, but the tares and the wheat are still growing together, including within the church. And what do we do until then. Roll over, spread our legs, bare our throats, and wait for Sharia law to be imposed on our own shores? I'm not at all sure that is the kind of people the Lord wants either.I would add that offensive war is entirely condemned in the Book of Mormon and the Law of War in the D&C. Once the enemy leaves your borders you STOP! The backlash from 9/11 is to destroy anyone who can conceivably hurt us again. I understand the need for some anti-terrorist measures within the U.S. but our invasions seem way too much like the Nephites going on to attack the Lamanites lands. Our foreign policy record though is much worse than the Nephite government's ever were.
Excuse me please but this is absolute and utter poppycock, and not scriptural to boot. How then, do you explain this:(Alma 43: 5, 6, 7)And now, Zerahemnah, I command you, in the name of that all-powerful God, who has strengthened our arms that we have gained power over you, by our faith, by our religion, and by our rites of worship, and by our church, and by the sacred support which we owe to our wives and our children, by that liberty which binds us to our lands and our country; yea, and also by the maintenance of the sacred word of God, to which we owe all our happiness; and by all that is most dear unto us—
Yea, and this is not all; I command you by all the desires which ye have for life, that ye deliver up your weapons of war unto us, and we will seek not your blood, but we will spare your lives, if ye will go your way and come not again to war against us.
And now, if ye do not this, behold, ye are in our hands, and I will command my men that they shall fall upon you, and inflict the wounds of death in your bodies, that ye may become extinct; and then we will see who shall have power over this people; yea, we will see who shall be brought into bondage.
Here also we have Moroni's letter to Amaron:Yea, I would tell you these things if ye were capable of hearkening unto them; yea, I would tell you concerning that awful hell that awaits to receive such murderers as thou and thy brother have been, except ye repent and withdraw your murderous purposes, and return with your armies to your own lands.
But as ye have once rejected these things, and have fought against the people of the Lord, even so I may expect you will do it again.
And now behold, we are prepared to receive you; yea, and except you withdraw your purposes, behold, ye will pull down the wrath of that God whom you have rejected upon you, even to your utter destruction.
But, as the Lord liveth, our armies shall come upon you except ye withdraw, and ye shall soon be visited with death, for we will retain our cities and our lands; yea, and we will maintain our religion and the cause of our God.
But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain; or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell; therefore I will close my epistle by telling you that I will not exchange prisoners, save it be on conditions that ye will deliver up a man and his wife and his children, for one prisoner; if this be the case that ye will do it, I will exchange.
And behold, if ye do not this, I will come against you with my armies; yea, even I will arm my women and my children, and I will come against you, and I will follow you even into your own land, which is the land of our first inheritance; yea, and it shall be blood for blood, yea, life for life; and I will give you battle even until you are destroyed from off the face of the earth.
Behold, I am in my anger, and also my people; ye have sought to murder us, and we have only sought to defend ourselves. But behold, if ye seek to destroy us more we will seek to destroy you; yea, and we will seek our land, the land of our first inheritance.
Moroni's war against the Lamanites here was purely defensive, as is our present conflict with world wide Islamism. This remains the case even when offensive actions are taken within that war. Offensive actions or single battles, do not make a war in its totality an offensive war. Good heavens, Nehor. You're saying that Europe should not have been liberated from the Nazis.
The Nehor wrote:I explain those words of Moroni as being part of his anger problem that he demonstrated again and again. Nowhere does he say God sanctioned those words. Moroni was a passionate hothead. He had his faults like anyone else. Moroni blamed the war entirely on his own people though and referred to the Lamanites as his brethren. I wish we had more Moroni-like policymakers.
I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current was is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.
I explain those words of Moroni as being part of his anger problem that he demonstrated again and again. Nowhere does he say God sanctioned those words. Moroni was a passionate hothead. He had his faults like anyone else. Moroni blamed the war entirely on his own people though and referred to the Lamanites as his brethren. I wish we had more Moroni-like policymakers.
I am saying that perhaps the Allies should have fought the Germans to their border and stopped. Our current war is not defensive. Occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, destroying their government, and imposing a new one is not a defensive act. It's an attempt to annihilate the 'enemy'.
Coggins7 wrote:Personally, I think the war is Bush's lame attempt to look like a hero.
How intellectually substantive Harmony.