North Korea won't attack the South because fo Pres. Packer and Pres. Eyring

[Duncan]

On sunday this man in our stake, High Councillor to be exact, related this story about how North Korea won't attack the South because of a blessing that Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring gave and this HC read an account of what some American Intelligence man had said what they said. Apparently Angels are involved in this now. I recall hearing something about this from some years ago but my mind is foggy on it. Is this true or what is the deal?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

On sunday this man in our stake, High Councillor to be exact, related this story about how North Korea won't attack the South because of a blessing that Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring gave and this HC read an account of what some American Intelligence man had said what they said. Apparently Angels are involved in this now. I recall hearing something about this from some years ago but my mind is foggy on it. Is this true or what is the deal?

Who were the Apostles, and what country was it, in the story from years ago?

Sounds like MUL (Mormon Urban Legend) to me.

[SilverKnight]

Urban legend.

[BCSpace]

Even if true, one has to factor in Jeremiah 18:1-10. Of course that might simply mean the South will attack the North.

[Duncan]

Who were the Apostles, and what country was it, in the story from years ago?

Sounds like MUL (Mormon Urban Legend) to me.

The Apostles involved according to this High Councillor were Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring, now obviously Pres. Eyring

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Urban legend.

I would say this is true. I am not aware of any offical statements.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The Apostles involved according to this High Councillor were Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring, now obviously Pres. Eyring

My point being that this is probably a story that has evolved over time and been told about different countries, during former conflicts, using former Apostles.

[consiglieri]

My point being that this is probably a story that has evolved over time and been told about different countries, during former conflicts, using former Apostles.

The original story involved Germany not attacking Poland, I believe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

And they didn't. Russia did. Germany went in to help but it was too late, but at least they stopped Russia at a predetermined position.

[Joseph Antley]

I thought North Korea did attack South Korea last year. Hrm.

[thesometimesaint]

North and South Korea have had an uneasy cease fire since 1953. IMO the fact that the US can/will blow North Korea off the map if South Korea is attacked in a large scale military operate keeps that uneasy peace.

[Mordecai]

The original story involved Germany not attacking Poland, I believe.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

LOL That's good. Certainly, Germany won't be attacking Poland anytime soon... again.

[alter idem]

On sunday this man in our stake, High Councillor to be exact, related this story about how North Korea won't attack the South because of a blessing that Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring gave and this HC read an account of what some American Intelligence man had said what they said. Apparently Angels are involved in this now. I recall hearing something about this from some years ago but my mind is foggy on it. Is this true or what is the deal?

Duncan, I believe this may be what your High Councillor was referring to. He must have received the same email I did. This was circulating in early December. Whether or not it is true, I have no clue.

Subj: Promise made in the Temple of South Korea

***************************************************************************************

I'm a Korean linguist for the U.S. Air Force. I've been stationed in

Korea for 12 of the last 22 years. I served my mission in Sendai, Japan

and then returned home to Idaho and married my wife Lauri.

I joined the Air Force in 1982 and was sent to the Defense Language

Institute in Monterey California to learn Korean. I was then assigned to

Osan Air Base and arrived in Korea in 1984. I am an Intelligence

professional.

On December 14, 1985, my wife and I were privileged to attend the

dedication of the Seoul Temple. President Gordon B. Hinckley who was a

counselor in the First Presidency at the time, was to dedicate the

temple. In his remarks before the dedicatory prayer, he made a comment

that was so startling, that I committed it to memory. He said, "If you

will use this temple, you need not fear an invasion from the north."

What a great promise! I also remember the remark, because during my

mission, I had the opportunity to work with Elder Kikuchi of the

Seventy. He was also at the dedication and afterwards as we were

talking, he remarked how neat that promise was.

My family left Korea in 1986 and returned in 1988 for a second tour. We

stayed that time until 1991. In 1993, my family and I returned yet again

to Korea and at that time, tensions were increasing over the possible

North Korean development of nuclear weapons. In 1994, it actually

appeared that we might go to war with North Korea over this issue. Even

though I had heard a prophet of the Lord declare we would be protected,

I began to doubt the promise. I wondered if perhaps I had misunderstood

President Hinckley's words that day.

That summer, many of us were invited to Seoul to a training session with

Elder Boyd K. Packer and Elder Henry B. Eyring. The chapel in Shindang

was filled with church leaders both Korean and American. Elder Eyring

spoke first and then Elder Packer stood up to speak. He let us know that

"training" was not the only reason that he and Elder Eyring had come to

Korea. He told us that President Hinckley was concerned for the safety

of the saints in Korea.

He said the day before, President Packer and Elder Eyring had gone up to

the Demilitarized Zone, the border between north and south Korea, and

had performed a priesthood ordinance which placed guardian angels at

that border. He told us that because of our faithfulness in attending

the temple, we would be protected.

I don't know if I was more surprised to hear that there were actually

guardian angels at the border, or that there was a priesthood ordinance

to put them there. One Korean stake president, asked Elder Packer, "How

long will they be there?"

His answer was, "As long as they are needed, and you are faithful in

your temple attendance." Now I knew we were safe for I had heard the

promise twice.

In 1996, President Hinckley came to Korea on his way to Hong Kong to

dedicate the temple there. He held a regional conference in Seoul which

we attended. During his remarks at this conference, he made reference to

the temple promise, and said he was going to change it. He told us that

we now needed to attend the temple faithfully, and also appreciate it.

He told us that we were all being protected by the Lord because we had

done as we were told. This was the third time I had heard the promise

and the second time from President Hinckley's own mouth.

I know this promise is true. I have seen events happen in conjunction

with my job, in which many times the experts have been confused as to

why the North Koreans did not attack. I know it is because they cannot.

As a member of the U.S. Air Force, part of my job is to help protect the

Republic of Korea from attack. I feel as a member of the Church of Jesus

Christ Of Latter Day Saints, I can do more to protect South Korea by

attending the temple. As long as the saints in Korea attend the temple

they are protected. I have been so blessed to not only witness the

prophet of the Lord proclaim this great promise, but also have been here

to see the fulfillment of those words.

--

George H Barnard

535 S 200 E Apt 703

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

801-532-3894

geobarn62@gmail.com

[Stargazer]

So, is anyone going to call that phone number to see if this person is real?

(I'm not).

[cinepro]

If the Apostles have the power to stop wars of aggression, it is a power that is way underutilized.

[Duncan]

Thing is I googled the alleged author of this article that was posted earlier and there is someone living where they claim to live but their backgrounds are totally different, i.e one says he is in the US airforce but the "real" person by that name on google doesn't look like taht was in his immediate background so I am very dubious and also dubious based on the comments given before which all make sense

[Doug the Hutt]

thanks alter idem for posting that document. Now let's see...

I think the basic premise of the story is patently absurd -- a blessing by LDS Presidents/Prophets is a power that can prevent one country from invading another, however it's almost never used and when it is used (such as in Korea) it's found conspicuously standing right next to the most formidable, well-armed, well-trained army the planet has ever known. Anyone think that North Korea would be fearful of angels with flaming swords and God's wrath if the US military just packed up and left? Anyone actually believe that they wouldn't just march on in, regardless of how much the Seoul temple is used? It's more likely that statements like that are rhetorical tools used with believers to improve their faith and obedience.

[Mordecai]

If the Apostles have the power to stop wars of aggression, it is a power that is way underutilized.

I think the idea is not that they can stop wars but God can, and they have the authority to speak on his behalf when it is warranted.

[John Larsen]

I think the idea is not that they can stop wars but God can, and they have the authority to speak on his behalf when it is warranted.

Having power to stop evil and not doing so--isn't that a moral failing?

[Mordecai]

Having power to stop evil and not doing so--isn't that a moral failing?

Are you saying that God is evil for not stopping evil, despite having the power? I don't think so, because the ultimate outcome is good. For God, the ends and the means aren't so separate the way they are for human beings. The scriptures tell us that God Himself brings "calamity," but it's for a just and good end.

[John Larsen]

Are you saying that God is evil for not stopping evil, despite having the power? I don't think so, because the ultimate outcome is good. For God, the ends and the means aren't so separate the way they are for human beings. The scriptures tell us that God Himself brings "calamity," but it's for a just and good end.

How does evil ultimately lead to good?

Are you also suggesting that the (moral) end justifies the (immoral) means?

[Duncan]

How does evil ultimately lead to good?

Are you also suggesting that the (moral) end justifies the (immoral) means?

Thought provoking! and I just realized I spelled "of" as "fo"...alas

[Sky]

On sunday this man in our stake, High Councillor to be exact, related this story about how North Korea won't attack the South because of a blessing that Pres. Packer and then Elder Eyring gave and this HC read an account of what some American Intelligence man had said what they said. Apparently Angels are involved in this now. I recall hearing something about this from some years ago but my mind is foggy on it. Is this true or what is the deal?

I don

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

God will not interfere with our Agency.

[John Larsen]

John Larsen:

God will not interfere with our Agency.

How does allowing evil to thrive not interfere with our agency? Implied in this justification is the idea that allowing the existence of evil promotes free "agency" while promoting good interferes (somehow) with agency. Can you please explain this premise? I do not understand it at all.

Let me give an example. Suppose I am standing by a lake and a 4 year old girl is drowning. I am a strong swimmer and have nothing impeding my rescue of the child. I choose to do nothing. Most people, and in fact many laws, suggest that my lack of action is immoral. God being omnipotent has the power to save the girl, stop the war, heal the amputee, etc. But God chooses to do nothing.

The justification for why God's inaction is not immoral is that his action would hamper agency. But God's inaction, since He is omnipotent, is itself an action--just as my choosing to not rescue the drowning girl was an action by the choice not to save her. Again, how does the choice to let the bad things happen over the good promote agency? Could you not just as easily argue that doing good promotes more agency? The saved girl and the healed amputee might have more opportunity to exercise free agency?