Jump to content

Man Dressed as Captain Moroni at Capitol: His Testimony and My Disclaimer UPDATED


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Actually I think you will find that King Noah neglected the military which is why they lost so bad and his people killed him for it. There is no indication that King Noah was unpopular except for Gideon’s movement. Nibley suggested he might have been the most popular king in the Book of Mormon. I mean, yeah, he pampered himself and his priests but it sounds like the wine also went out to the people and they largely seemed to like having a king that encouraged sin. Also the 20% taxation rate in Noah’s reign is not an unreasonable burden. That was around the norm in much of the ancient world. It is more what he was spending it on as opposed to how much it was.

You should still write up this fanfic. Remember that King Noah has to have pet leopards or panthers.

They had to have a strong military due to Lamanite harassers popping up unexpectedly from time to time to get extra booty (which would be in addition to formal tribute agreed to by King Noah).  Besides, there was a large detachment absent from the area.  They were out in the wilderness hopelessly LOST.  Why?  They looking for Alma the Elder and his fellow RESISTERS, of course!  Scary!  So many leopards, panthers, cumoms.  Oh my!

It is typical of you big government types to "sniff" at a 20% tax rate.  What you fail to remember is that 20% was strictly for Noah and his henchmen.  The tribute was a huge burden by itself.  Agrarian economy is NOT an easy life.

Link to post
6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I try to focus on the act so as to decipher appropriate boundaries, leaving spiritual judgment to others.

That’s a valid option.

Right now we are awash in moral judgments here in the US, every one speaking out with moral indignation against those they disagree with, with everyone seeing their side as the hero in the story.

That’s what I’m addressing. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

We are a Democrat Republic, purposefully fashioned more after the republic of Rome than the democracy of Greece, which was not a republic.

But like I said before, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree that losing a republic is a valid reason for war. I don’t personally believe that is supported by scripture.

If fighting in defense of our republic, our democracy, our rights and privileges upheld by the constitution is not a justifiable reason for war, what is?  I believe the scriptures do justify defending our rights, privileges, and our Country as Moroni did. 

Think of the words spoken at Gettysburg which honored the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in order "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".  Their sacrifice and cause was as justified when President Lincoln said those words as it would be today in defending our republic. 

I think people have not fully come to grip with the threat that Trump truly posed to our republic with his baseless claims in an effort to retain personal power.  They truly would justify war if evidence backed them up. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

While I in no way condone what happened at the Capitol, I think it is way to early to come to any serious conclusions about those who planned and executed it. We have become so quick to judge. It's become a hallmark of our national psyche. 

Regarding Captain Moroni in the Capitol, the real Captain Romni is already there, so we have nothing to fear.

I'm so impressed that Mr Biden carries a rosary in his pocket. That is really heartening. Did the priest allow him to receive communion?

I also think it is a serious mistake to project the foolishness of those who invaded the Capitol onto millions of good Americans who hold sincere beliefs about how our political system should function and would condemn this sort of action. 

Living near Seattle and not far from Portland, I'm astounded by the hypocrisy that is now in full display. We have long been living with armed insurrections, occupation of government buildings, attacks on local, state, and federal law enforcement officers, looting of private and government property, disruption of free speech and travel, the forceful take-over and illegal takeover of a state university and illegal detention of administration and faculty, threats at the homes of political and educational leaders, the forceful take-over of a police precinct and declaration of an autonomous government in Seattle, the months of violence, burning, assaulting, and disruptions in these two cities....and more around the country. We have been living with this for well over a year. We no longer go to Seattle or Portland and people are fleeing the area in droves. 

 

It is not too early to judge who planned and executed it.

I would be more amenable to not generalizing this belief to a whole political faction if the side with cancer were more intent on treating the disease.

Link to post
30 minutes ago, pogi said:

If fighting in defense of our republic, our democracy, our rights and privileges upheld by the constitution is not a justifiable reason for war, what is?  I believe the scriptures do justify defending our rights, privileges, and our Country as Moroni did. 

Think of the words spoken at Gettysburg which honored the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in order "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".  Their sacrifice and cause was as justified when President Lincoln said those words as it would be today in defending our republic. 

I think people have not fully come to grip with the threat that Trump truly posed to our republic with his baseless claims in an effort to retain personal power.  They truly would justify war if evidence backed them up. 

There were literal calls to make him king or dictator. It is going to take years to clean up the mess.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
36 minutes ago, longview said:

They had to have a strong military due to Lamanite harassers popping up unexpectedly from time to time to get extra booty (which would be in addition to formal tribute agreed to by King Noah).  Besides, there was a large detachment absent from the area.  They were out in the wilderness hopelessly LOST.  Why?  They looking for Alma the Elder and his fellow RESISTERS, of course!  Scary!  So many leopards, panthers, cumoms.  Oh my!

It is typical of you big government types to "sniff" at a 20% tax rate.  What you fail to remember is that 20% was strictly for Noah and his henchmen.  The tribute was a huge burden by itself.  Agrarian economy is NOT an easy life.

Fanfic.

I can do it too. Nephi was an anarcho-capitalist. Jacob was a trade-syndicalist. Mormon was a communist. Moroni thought the agricultural revolution was where it all went wrong.

 

Link to post
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

If fighting in defense of our republic, our democracy, our rights and privileges upheld by the constitution is not a justifiable reason for war, what is?  I believe the scriptures do justify defending our rights, privileges, and our Country as Moroni did. 

The scriptures seem to teach that justifiable reasons for war are to preserve religious rights, defense of lives and property, and if repeatedly attacked.  I don't read in the scriptures where defending the ability to have a representative government listed as a reason God will condone war.  The BOM even claims that having a king is perfectly acceptable, if the king is always moral.

Moroni was defending specific rights and privileges (religion, freedom from bondage, and life).  He wasn't fighting for the right to a representative government as much as he was fighting to keep the government from falling into the hands of immoral men that wanted to take away the basic rights listed above.

Quote

Think of the words spoken at Gettysburg which honored the soldiers who sacrificed their lives in order "that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth".  Their sacrifice and cause was as justified when President Lincoln said those words as it would be today in defending our republic.

Lincoln was referring to protecting the Union by keeping it together and whole.  He wasn't talking about protecting representative government.   If you aren't talking about keeping the union from fracturing into smaller countries, then Lincoln's address isn't relevant to the conversation. 

Quote

I think people have not fully come to grip with the threat that Trump truly posed to our republic with his baseless claims in an effort to retain personal power.  They truly would justify war if evidence backed them up. 

Some are justifying it right now.  I hope they don't follow through.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There were literal calls to make him king or dictator. It is going to take years to clean up the mess.

It's unlikely that the mess will get cleaned up. 

As I see it there are three factions (for lack of a better term) in the U.S. right now. 

  • One is more worried about pointing out everything they think needs to be cleaned up, and forcing people to agree with them by punishing them if they don't, than actually helping clean anything up. 
  • One is busy warping the words and actions of the faction they are opposed to, to create more extremism in their followers, and rally more people to their cause (which cause is probably war or at least violent insurrection). 
  • And one is stuck in the middle of the two, worrying about the dangers of both sides but without the influence necessary to do anything on its own to keep either side from taking everyone down with it.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The scriptures seem to teach that justifiable reasons for war are to preserve religious rights, defense of lives and property, and if repeatedly attacked.  I don't read in the scriptures where defending the ability to have a representative government listed as a reason God will condone war.  The BOM even claims that having a king is perfectly acceptable, if the king is always moral.

Quote

Democracy has been upheld as core human right and the "birthright" of every human being (aka God given right) in a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" by the United Nations.  

Quote

They embody the basic standards without which people cannot realize their inherent human dignity. Human rights are universal: they are the birthright of every member of the human family. No one has to earn or deserve human rights.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/democracy/index.html

I do view democracy as a God-given right worthy of defending through war - especially when an enemy steals it without consent from the people.  I would suggest that overthrowing the government and vote/voice of the people through fraud and violation of law does indeed create an "implacable" enemy worthy of waring against.  If they are willing to steal our right to vote and we no longer have a voice in government, are our other God-given rights truly protected?  Look at countries which are not democratic and see how well our religion and religious liberty is doing there.  

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Lincoln was referring to protecting the Union by keeping it together and whole. 

Lincoln was specifically speaking of protecting "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"...aka a democracy.

Link to post
32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The scriptures seem to teach that justifiable reasons for war are to preserve religious rights, defense of lives and property, and if repeatedly attacked.

History is littered with war-dead children who I suspect disagreed with this, in the moments before their death.

Any more when I hear the word 'war', I substitute 'kill children' - because that is an important part of what we do when we war.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

Democracy has been upheld as core human right and the "birthright" of every human being (aka God given right) in a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" by the United Nations.  

https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/democracy/index.html

Where does God say that a representative government is a core human right worth killing over?  It doesn't matter what anyone else says; we are talking about when God condones war, not the UN.  

And I'm not arguing that God would never condone war as a means to provide democracy, only that it's not a given that He would.  We've fought wars before in the name of democracy, and they have not always been worth the cost.  Vietnam is a great example of that (and the church seems to be doing pretty good in that socialist, Lenin-Marxist, state).

Quote

I do view democracy as a God-given right worthy of defending through war - especially when an enemy steals it without consent from the people.  I would suggest that overthrowing the government and vote/voice of the people through fraud and violation of law does indeed create an "implacable" enemy worthy of waring against.  If they are willing to steal our right to vote and we no longer have a voice in government, are our other God-given rights truly protected?  Look at countries which are not democratic and see how well our religion and religious liberty is doing there.

Like I said, you very well could get your way and get a war waged by people who believe they are protecting their God-given rights.  It doesn't sound like you will be fighting on their side though, if it happens. 

Quote

Lincoln was specifically speaking of protecting "government of the people, by the people, and for the people"...aka a democracy.

The government of the people, by the people, and for the people, wasn't at risk when the south seceded.  If anything Lincoln was fighting against the southern people's right to democratically decide to secede from the Union, not to protect that right. 

If the south had left, the Republic of the United States would have still survived, still with a government of, by, and for the people.  It just would have been smaller (with a whole host of new problems).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Chum said:

History is littered with war-dead children who I suspect disagreed with this, in the moments before their death.

Any more when I hear the word 'war', I substitute 'kill children' - because that is an important part of what we do when we war.

I agree.  Though I also believe that if someone wants to start a war, sometimes you have to fight back (and I think that's what the Lord is saying).  We have a duty to protect our children's lives.  I know not everyone agrees with that. 

I think WWII is a good example of why fighting back is sometimes necessary.  Just handing the world to the Nazis to 'keep from killing children' would not have been a valid option in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where does God say that a representative government is a core human right worth killing over?  It doesn't matter what anyone else says; we are talking about when God condones war, not the UN.  

Where does God say what our God given rights are...anywhere?  Yet, we are taught by the church that we are justified in defending our God given rights.  Democracy is widely accepted as one of those rights.  

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And I'm not arguing that God would never condone war as a means to provide democracy, only that it's not a given that He would. 

When is the last time God has personally condoned any US war?  We don't have a history of waiting for God before we defend our freedoms (including freedom to vote). 

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, you very well could get your way and get a war waged by people who believe they are protecting their God-given rights. 

I think that is unfair.  I never suggested that I want war.  I am suggesting that war would be justified if evidence could back up the claim.  It doesn't, and therefore war is not justified.  It is not what I want.  The republic already won.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I also believe that if someone wants to start a war, sometimes you have to fight back

As a father to 5 draft age sons, my preference is that whenever the US goes military, the entire population be conscripted and paid.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yet, we are taught by the church that we are justified in defending our God given rights.  Democracy is widely accepted as one of those rights.

I must say, I don't believe this squares with a certain article of faith. I think Joseph Smith was quite wise in making it well known that the Church believes in upholding the 'laws of the land' and being subject to 'kings, rulers, magistrates etc...'

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think WWII is a good example of why fighting back is sometimes necessary. 

WWII is the last war in which we were easily distinguished from the bad guys.

Both my parents served in WWII. It was the greatest generation because they were around for the last great opportunities.

Edited by Chum
word salad
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
20 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I must say, I don't believe this squares with a certain article of faith. I think Joseph Smith was quite wise in making it well known that the Church believes in upholding the 'laws of the land' and being subject to 'kings, rulers, magistrates etc...'

Yes, the church does believe in "upholding the laws of the land" to a degree, but not entirely.  The revolutionary war was in violation of "the law of the land".    

If we truly believe in upholding the law of the land, then sitting back and letting an enemy steal our republic without a fight is not really upholding or sustain the law that we claim to protect and sustain. 

Kings and democracy can and do coexist, by the way.  

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
18 minutes ago, pogi said:

Where does God say what our God given rights are...anywhere?  Yet, we are taught by the church that we are justified in defending our God given rights.  Democracy is widely accepted as one of those rights.  

The scriptures do have some areas that talk about when war is allowed.  I agree they are up for interpretation a bit.  I don't personally interpret "to protect our representative government' in that list.  I understand that you do.

Also, are you saying the church teaches we can start a war if we believe our representative government has been compromised?   

Quote

When is the last time God has personally condoned any US war?  We don't have a history of waiting for God before we defend our freedoms (including freedom to vote). 

I agree.  When people start wars they are always saying that God is on their side.  There is also usually very little evidence to support those assertions.  We need to spend less time arguing that God is on our side, and more time worrying about being on God's side (to bring Lincoln back into the discussion).

Quote

I think that is unfair.  I never suggested that I want war.  I am suggesting that war would be justified if evidence could back up the claim.  It doesn't, and therefore war is not justified.  It is not what I want.  The republic already won.

I wasn't being snarky, just pointing out that one person's justifiable war is another's unjust war. That has been true since war was invented.  There are a lot of people who agree with your assertions about the need to fight if they lose representation, and also believe the evidence backs them up that that has happened or is happening now. 

In that sense your arguments are a double edged sword, in that those people will be doing exactly what you said they must do if they sincerely believe their republic is in danger, but also doing what you don't believe is just.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, Chum said:

As a father to 5 draft age sons, my preference is that whenever the US goes military, the entire population be conscripted and paid.

I would more readily send my sons to war than my daughter.  I know my husband agrees that he would rather he go than us both have to go.  Speaking personally, I don't believe that drafting everyone is the answer to making the draft more just.

Link to post
1 hour ago, pogi said:

Look at countries which are not democratic and see how well our religion and religious liberty is doing there.  

The Church has never issued a statement saying it is appropriate to revolt, go to war to overthrow any existing government, have they?  What is the difference between having a revolt to get the liberties and having a revolt to keep them?

Edited by Calm
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't personally interpret "to protect our representative government' in that list.  I understand that you do.

If it is being stolen from the people contrary to the laws of the constitution, then it is worthy of defending and sustaining the law and our rights established in the constitution.  I do believe that church and God would justify any war to protect the constitution of the United States and the republic from unlawful takeover.  

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In that sense your arguments are a double edged sword, in that those people will be doing exactly what you said they must do if they sincerely believe their republic is in danger, but also doing what you don't believe is just.

  I don't think my words are a double edged sword in that I don't think many truly believe the claims of the President deep down.  There may be subtle suspicions by some, but no evidence strong enough to justify war.  There are a few nuts out there who will believe anything Trump says, and I can assure you that my words will not have sway on them one way or the other.  Those are the only people that I truly worry about, so I feel confident that what I say will not elicit any war.  If anything, they will help people to realize how reckless Trump was with his assertions that were thrown out and mocked by the courts and leaders in his own party.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
35 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Church has never issued a statement saying it is appropriate to revolt, go to war to overthrow any existing government, have they?  What is the difference between having a revolt to get the liberties and having a revolt to keep them?

There is precedence.  I honestly think the church would support a revolt if it felt like the people could actually win and that religious liberty was won.  There is national historical precedence for revolt to attain religious liberty, and there is scriptural precedence for the same.  

Edited by pogi
Link to post
54 minutes ago, Chum said:

WWII is the last war in which we were easily distinguished from the bad guys.

Both my parents served in WWII. It was the greatest generation because they were around for the last great opportunities.

Yeah, it probably needed to be fought. Plus it was against fascists which makes it easy to justify. Took down the Nazis and politically defeated their America First supporters at home. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

Seriously. Did no one even bother to look up that name before they started using that slogan?

  • Like 1
Link to post
38 minutes ago, pogi said:

If it is being stolen from the people contrary to the laws of the constitution, then it is worthy of defending and sustaining the law and our rights established in the constitution.  I do believe that church and God would justify any war to protect the constitution of the United States and the republic from unlawful takeover.  

I get that.  I just disagree.

Quote

I don't think my words are a double edged sword in that I don't think many truly believe the claims of the President deep down.

A small well-armed group of extremists, supported by millions who are mildly supportive of their cause, could destabilize a polarized country fairly quickly.  But I didn't say your words were double edged because they could start a war.  I said they were double edged because they both condone and also condemn a war fought by people who sincerely believed their representative government was in danger. 

You would condone the action if you believed democracy was being threatened but also condemn it if those you disagree with believed democracy was being threatened.

Quote

There may be subtle suspicions by some, but no evidence strong enough to justify war.

I agree.  I also know that there are many people who do believe there is evidence strong enough to justify war.  It's a little frightening.

Quote

There are a few nuts out there who will believe anything Trump says, and I can assure you that my words will not have sway on them one way or the other.  Those are the only people that I truly worry about, so I feel confident that what I say will not elicit any war.  If anything, they will help people to realize how reckless Trump was with his assertions that were thrown out and mocked by the courts and leaders in his own party.

I agree.  I wasn't saying that your words would push anyone to war, only that your words can be used to justify a war that you don't believe would be just.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...