Lds Church's Department Of War

[Uncle Dale]

These are rather late arrivals on the scene. My feeling is that proclaiming oneself to have the corner on "truth" and "righteousness" inevitably leads to an attempt to force those beliefs on others. I don't think this was ever an intention of Joseph Smith, unless you can provide some quotes to the contrary. It seems his militarism was always in response to oppression (either real or perceived).

You are probably right. However, "perceptions" can quickly become our "reality," if we are not

careful. When Joseph Smith stood among the armed Mormons hunkered down behind the barricades

at Far West in 1838, he was wise enough not to let his "perceptions" turn into a bloody reality.

I take some comfort in that. Even if our topmost civil leaders are one day Mormons, they have that

one good historical example from Smith to contemplate.

But, let's take Far West, 1838 up-to-date and paint a possible picture of a "reality" yet to come.

The year is 2009 and President Romney has won world-wide acclaim by both archieving a US victory

in Iraq, and by scaling back the US troop deployment there by half. His armies are now free to

counter any threat from Iran.

Then an atomic bomb explodes in the port of Houston, slaughtering hundreds of thousands -- the radiation

is so bad that relief efforts are imposible -- the fallout is drifting over Louisana, causing mass panic.

Romney sits with his generals and his intelligence officials, trying to comprehend who "the enemy" is

that has caused such terrible devestation. He is ready to launch a retaliation strike -- but where?

At that moment he receives a telephone call from an office at Temple Square, in Salt Lake City.....

You finish the story.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, I noticed you again avoided answering my specific questions. I'll ask again:

Do you think he was prepared and asked to run in behalf of the Church?

Not in the same way that the Manchurian Candidate was in the movie -- but prepared in a general

sort of way -- just as Senator Smoot was "prepared," or B. H. Roberts, for that matter.

Do you think he will do whatever the 1st presidency tells him to do if elected?

Not as a matter of daily policy -- but in a dire emergency he may well "turn to God" for advice,

and do so by consulting the "Living Prophet."

Do you think Romney believes he is ushering in a theodemocracy, or that the church believes so?

Not even 1% of "the Church." But perhaps that thought lies somewhere in the back of his mind.

Perhaps Enoch's City will descend upon Jackson County in 2009. Were that to happen, do you

suppose Romeny would NOT do all he could to usher in the Political Kingdom of God on earth?

UD

[jerryp48]

Correct?

UD

Honestly UD I think you've spent so much time in the past your going to have a Somewhere in Time experience. Say hi to Emma for me.

"We believe in being subject to kings, rulers..." not the other way around. I have no doubt that a "theocracy" will be the case when Christ reigns but I don't believe it will happen before then.

I don't believe Mitt will feel beholden to the church.

[structurecop]

Then an atomic bomb explodes in the port of Houston, slaughtering hundreds of thousands -- the radiation

is so bad that relief efforts are imposible -- the fallout is drifting over Louisana, causing mass panic.

Romney sits with his generals and his intelligence officials, trying to comprehend who "the enemy" is

that has caused such terrible devestation. He is ready to launch a retaliation strike -- but where?

At that moment he receives a telephone call from an office at Temple Square, in Salt Lake City.....

You finish the story.

"I understand that it may be your personal opinion, President Monson, that Iran conducted this attack, but we have the technology to determine in what reactor the radioactive material was created. After a full investigation, we will see if your opinion is correct. Good day to you."

Anyway, that would be my response. I can't speak for Brother Romney.

[LifeOnaPlate]

But, let's take Far West, 1838 up-to-date and paint a possible picture of a "reality" yet to come.

The year is 2009 and President Romney has won world-wide acclaim by both archieving a US victory

in Iraq, and by scaling back the US troop deployment there by half. His armies are now free to

counter any threat from Iran.

Then an atomic bomb explodes in the port of Houston, slaughtering hundreds of thousands -- the radiation

is so bad that relief efforts are imposible -- the fallout is drifting over Louisana, causing mass panic.

Romney sits with his generals and his intelligence officials, trying to comprehend who "the enemy" is

that has caused such terrible devestation. He is ready to launch a retaliation strike -- but where?

At that moment he receives a telephone call from an office at Temple Square, in Salt Lake City.....

You finish the story.

UD

Romney answers, hurriedly: "President Hinckley, is that you?!"

A voice on the other end of the line says "I can see you!"

Romney: "who is this!?"

The voice answered, raspy and cold, "I can see you, Mitt, and I'm coming!!"

Romney slammed the phone down. He was shaken, but resolved to remain calm. Suddenly, the phone rings again. "Hello?" "Hello Mitt. Prepare to die!"

President Romney is scared now. He quickly calls the phone company. "Hello, AT&T? Can you put a trace on my line please and tell me where the next person who calls me is calling from?"

"Certainly," the operator says.

The phone rings again. "Hello?" "Hello, Mitt. Now you must die!!!"

Mitt hangs up the phone and calls the phone company. "Did you trace the call?"

"YES, YOU HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE HOUSE, NOW! THE CALL CAME FROM THE NEXT ROOM!!!!"

But it was too late.

[urroner]

You are probably right. However, "perceptions" can quickly become our "reality," if we are not

careful. When Joseph Smith stood among the armed Mormons hunkered down behind the barricades

at Far West in 1838, he was wise enough not to let his "perceptions" turn into a bloody reality.

I take some comfort in that. Even if our topmost civil leaders are one day Mormons, they have that

one good historical example from Smith to contemplate.

But, let's take Far West, 1838 up-to-date and paint a possible picture of a "reality" yet to come.

The year is 2009 and President Romney has won world-wide acclaim by both archieving a US victory

in Iraq, and by scaling back the US troop deployment there by half. His armies are now free to

counter any threat from Iran.

Then an atomic bomb explodes in the port of Houston, slaughtering hundreds of thousands -- the radiation

is so bad that relief efforts are imposible -- the fallout is drifting over Louisana, causing mass panic.

Romney sits with his generals and his intelligence officials, trying to comprehend who "the enemy" is

that has caused such terrible devestation. He is ready to launch a retaliation strike -- but where?

At that moment he receives a telephone call from an office at Temple Square, in Salt Lake City.....

You finish the story.

UD

Hi, this is Ed Decker. What are you going to do? Are you going to ask your prophet what to do? Gosh, whoever voted you in were idiots. It's all your fault!!!!!

[Uncle Dale]

"I understand that it may be your personal opinion, President Monson, that Iran conducted this attack, but we have the technology to determine in what reactor the radioactive material was created. After a full investigation, we will see if your opinion is correct. Good day to you."

Anyway, that would be my response. I can't speak for Brother Romney.

I rather like Elder Monson -- can we skip down the organizational chart one more notch, for 2009,

and prefix the words from SLC with, "Thus saith the Lord unto my servant Mitt...." ???

This is rapidly getting out of hand. I should get together with Tom Clancy and write a book, I suppose.

UD

[Severian]

Given its track record of failing to keep church and state separate -- and given its track record of failing to keep the church non-militant, I suppose that the Mormon leadership has earned the historical reputation of being less than fully trustworthy (by us non-LDS) in these matters.

For more "psycho" stuff, go back and read the arguments against the seating of LDS Apostle Reed Smoot in the Congress, as published by the U.S. Senate. See also the warnings of Senator Frank Cannon (son of another militant First Counsellor), from whose writings I have derived the precept that the LDS Church contains within its doctrines the eventual joining of church and state.

All Romney has to do is to disavow "theodemocracy" and the "Political Kingdom of God" and the concept of replacing English Common Law with Brighamite "Mountain Law." He can do that in less than ten seconds, and totally overturn my "psycho rhetoric," once and for all. --- Correct?

UD

Isn't all of this moot unless an entire country or the world became Mormon?

[Uncle Dale]

Isn't all of this moot unless an entire country or the world became Mormon?

It is all moot because my questions will never be answered.

I am told that my voting for Romney should be considered only on the merits of his political record

(and not on the basis of his church membership).

And then, five minutes later, I'm told that I should vote for him, partly based upon his piety, honesty,

family values, and commendable experience as an ordained minister in a major Christian church.

I don't know what to think. But perhaps it would all be easier if those of us who wish to maintain a

rigid separation of church and state moved to Antarctica and started a new country, where the

leaders were forbidden to take political counsel from prophets, seers, revelators and translators.

Let Romney be elected -- probably as eight years as Vice President, followed by another eight

years as President. Then we can all look back and see if Mormon political, financial, corporate

and military influence has expanded or contracted during those 16 years.

That should please all here, I suppose --

Uncle "I won't be around to see him end his first term as VP, however" Dale

[LifeOnaPlate]

Currently I am more of an Obama man.

[Severian]

But perhaps it would all be easier if those of us who wish to maintain a

rigid separation of church and state moved to Antarctica...

Uncle "I won't be around to see him end his first term as VP, however" Dale

Well, you won't have to worry about the Penguins inposing a rigid structure on you (not so sure about the icey cold however), even the Emperor Penguins rule in name only.

[ElGuapo]

According to Scott Kenney's forthcoming history of the Kirtland Era from Signature Books,

on September 24, 1835, the LDS Church established and organized a War Department with

David Whitmer appointed as the "Capt of the Lords Host."

As Kenney puts it, this was "the war department by revelation" in the early Mormon Church.

http://www.saintswithouthalos.com/m/350924.phtml

I am curious to know the subsequent history of this clandestine organization. Its existence was kept

secret from the Gentiles, so far as I can determine.

All of my queries along these lines have hit dead ends, except for one "suggestion," that I look

more closely into the activities of Anson Call and Lot Smith. I have no idea where to even begin

with that sort of research.

Any ideas?

Uncle Dale

Well first of all, there seems to be some confusion over who exactly was appointed.

Michael Quinn, Origins of Power, p. 87:

On 24 September 1835, in the absense of an external threat, Smith organized militarily. ... John Whitmer, who was LDS historian at this time, added something that Smith's diary left unstated: on this day the high council "by revelation" appointed the church president as head of the "war department" of the "Lord's Host."

This was a significant expansion of Smith's previous role as commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel because "war department" assumed crucial circumstances. First, he borrowed the phrase from the cabinet position of the U.S. government, and this assumed a nationalist dimension in Mormonism. ...

The source for both Quinn's and Kenney's assertion is John Whitmer, but neither provides the complete reference.

[Pahoran]

All fair questions, Uncle Dale, if a bit off-base. Perhaps someone should ask him to what extent prophetic revelations will play a role in his decision-making process once elected (which is a long shot, seeing as how he is currently in fourth place in the primary polls).

I don't know if this helps much, but I am the very model of a modern Major-General.

Is that in matters vegetable, animal and mineral?

Regards,

Pahoran

What if Uncle Dale decided to drive to Utah and slit my throat?

He'd have to buy an amphibious car first....

Regards,

Pahoran

[LifeOnaPlate]

Is that in matters vegetable, animal and mineral?

Regards,

Pahoran

He'd have to buy an amphibious car first....

Regards,

Pahoran

So you're saying there is a fundamental flaw in my actual question to begin with? Hrmmm... I wonder why...

[Uncle Dale]

Well first of all, there seems to be some confusion over who exactly was appointed.

Michael Quinn, Origins of Power, p. 87:

On 24 September 1835, in the absense of an external threat, Smith organized militarily. ... John Whitmer, who was LDS historian at this time, added something that Smith's diary left unstated: on this day the high council "by revelation" appointed the church president as head of the "war department" of the "Lord's Host."

This was a significant expansion of Smith's previous role as commander-in-chief of the armies of Israel because "war department" assumed crucial circumstances. First, he borrowed the phrase from the cabinet position of the U.S. government, and this assumed a nationalist dimension in Mormonism. ...

The source for both Quinn's and Kenney's assertion is John Whitmer, but neither provides the complete reference.

It looks like both writers have here conflated the High Council minutes with John's history. JS said that

John's history contained errors and demanded that it be surrendered back to JS in 1838, but it never

was. Off hand, I would be more inclined to trust the High Council minutes than I would John Whitmer

(or the later Senate document's testimony).

However, all of that said; nobody here on this MB seems ready to dispute that the LDS Church set up

a Department of War in 1835. I find this most remarkable. We can go back to Europe to find examples

of church and state closely tied, but for a church to actually have under its control such an organization

and power, we would have to go back to Calvin's Geneva or to the Papal States in Italy. Even Oliver

Cromwell was not simultaneously the head of a church and the head of state, with the church having

control over his armies.

On the other hand, if the LDS Church is indeed the "5th Empire" of Daniel and is the custodian of civil

authority in preparing to bring forth and establish the Political Kingdom of God, then a Department of

War would be perfectly logical and integral to that purpose.

All of which brings me back to Anson Call, as the probable last "Captain of the Lord's Host."

Evidently after 1858 all of this military stuff was dismantled in the LDS Church.

But --------- could it be brought back in the future?

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

The source for both Quinn's and Kenney's assertion is John Whitmer, but neither provides the complete reference.

It looks like both writers have here conflated the High Council minutes with John's history. JS said that

John's history contained errors and demanded that it be surrendered back to JS in 1838, but it never

was. Off hand, I would be more inclined to trust the High Council minutes than I would John Whitmer

(or the later Senate document's testimony).

However, all of that said; nobody here on this MB seems ready to dispute that the LDS Church set up

a Department of War in 1835. I find this most remarkable. We can go back to Europe to find examples

of church and state closely tied, but for a church to actually have under its control such an organization

and power, we would have to go back to Calvin's Geneva or to the Papal States in Italy. Even Oliver

Cromwell was not simultaneously the head of a church and the head of state, with the church having

control over his armies.

On the other hand, if the LDS Church is indeed the "5th Empire" of Daniel and is the custodian of civil

authority in preparing to bring forth and establish the Political Kingdom of God, then a Department of

War would be perfectly logical and integral to that purpose.

All of which brings me back to Anson Call, as the probable last "Captain of the Lord's Host."

Evidently after 1858 all of this military stuff was dismantled in the LDS Church.

But --------- could it be brought back in the future?

UD

If you have so much info on early Church teachings, how have you missed the official doctrine of it all?

Because you rely on the most obscure tidbits to uncover what you see as the real teachings of the LDS Church, who cover their real teachings with doctrines of silly things like the second coming of Jesus Christ and all it entails.

[cjcampbell]

I speak of that in terms of launching icbms around the world, without the need to obtain prior

permission from anybody.

Actually, the President can only do that in response to a nuclear attack. Congress has put limits on the use of nuclear weapons. Of course, that might not make you feel any better if Mitt Romney has to ask Harry Reid for permission to fire an ICBM at Iran.

Yes, the leadership of Russia and China have a similar power in their hands -- but without the

means to extend that operation around the entire world, with a massive navy and air force.

And yes, on a much smaller scale, the leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Israel, India

and Pakistan have a similar power.

Nevertheless, I would put the odds of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan as being much higher than any nuclear war involving the US. Of course, President Ahmadinajad of Iran has said that he believes that Allah has called him to start Armageddon. He might, too.

But all of that added together does not equal the power we place into the hands of the USA's

"Commander-in-Chief." If Mitt Romeny is elected, he will have that power at his disposal. He

will have to answer to only two "higher authorities" -- the American People and God.

And that is true of anyone elected as president. Frankly, none of the other candidates seem very trustworthy. Most of them have religious beliefs of their own and they belong to churches that have leaders, just like Mitt Romney. Suppose Pat Robertson or Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or the Council of Southern Baptists decide to tell the president to launch ICBMs. Would any of these other candidates do it?

When people come up with these wild conspiracy theories you begin to wonder whether it says more about the supposed members of the conspiracy or the people spreading the theories.

The American people speak to Romney at the ballot box --- how does God speak to Romney today?

UD

The same as God speaks to you.

[cjcampbell]

Then an atomic bomb explodes in the port of Houston, slaughtering hundreds of thousands -- the radiation

is so bad that relief efforts are imposible -- the fallout is drifting over Louisana, causing mass panic.

Romney sits with his generals and his intelligence officials, trying to comprehend who "the enemy" is

that has caused such terrible devestation. He is ready to launch a retaliation strike -- but where?

Let Romney be elected -- probably as eight years as Vice President, followed by another eight

years as President. Then we can all look back and see if Mormon political, financial, corporate

and military influence has expanded or contracted during those 16 years.

That should please all here, I suppose --

Uncle "I won't be around to see him end his first term as VP, however" Dale

You know, Dale... This sounds a lot like you are making a terrorist threat. Are you okay? You're scaring me.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You know, Dale... This sounds a lot like you are making a terrorist threat. Are you okay? You're scaring me.

Dale has been hanging out with Talibachman, eh?