Posted by Ben
Wed, 10 Jan 2007 05:08:47 GMT
I’ve been reading Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints by Hugh Nibley recently. It is incredibly relevant to our current situation, with both Brigham and Nibley being what we would now term “anti-war.”
Here’s a powerful letter to the editor that Nibley wrote to the Daily Universe, BYU’s campus paper:
Renounce War
Reprinted from the Daily Universe, Letter to the Editor. 26 March 1971
Editor:
Recently the doctrine has been. propagated hereabouts that there is no substitute for victory—military victory. May I call attention to a very strong statement on the subject in the Doctrine and Covenants: “Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children; and again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; Lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me” (D&C 98:16-17).
“Renounce” is a strong word; we are not to try to win peace by war, or merely to call a truce, but to renounce war itself, to disclaim it as a policy while proclaiming (that means not just announcing, but preaching) peace without reservation. But if we renounce war, how shall we defend and advance our interests? We are told that, too: after the clear statement of what we must renounce comes the equally clear statement of what we must put in its place—the substitute. Instead of playing with fireworks we are to “seek diligently” to advance the work of salvation for the living and the dead, and to make a serious effort to influence the news. That is a full-time job and our whole assignment. Next after the prohibition and the command comes the penalty: if we do not take this course “the whole earth’” will be cursed, and all flesh consumed (D&C 98:16-17). The alternative is not Just a substitute suggested for our consideration, but an out-and-out command, accompanied by a resounding ultimatum: either to renounce war or to be totally destroyed; there is no third choice.
Thus we have the mandate to renounce military action, the order to substitute something very different in its place, and the terrible penalty for failure to do both. A few years ago such an extreme proposition sounded quite fantastic; the consuming of all flesh belonged to the category of wild apocalyptic nightmares. Today, however, the best scientists all over the world are repeating the same alternatives with ominous urgency and insistence; it is to be either no more war or mutual annihilation. Those two verses of the Doctrine and Covenants revealed almost 140 years ago are, standing alone, enough to prove Joseph Smith a true prophet.
The Jaredites, thoroughly convinced that there was no substitute for victory, kept hacking away at each other until they demonstrated the truth of the maxim “Destroy them and they will destroy you.” When the Nephites, after a series of brilliant military successes, declared “that they would go up to battle against their enemies and would cut them off from the face of the land” as the only solution to the Lamanite problem (for there is no substitute for victory), their great general Mormon instantly resigned his command and “utterly refused” to fight with them, but “did stand as an idle witness” (Mormon 3:16) to record for our benefit what happened next. His message to us is an impassioned plea “to repent and prepare to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ” (Mormon 3:22), substituting the work of salvation for the work of destruction. If we persist in reversing the words of the Saviour, Who takes up the sword shall die by the sword (cf. Revelation 13:10), to read, perversely. Who does not take up the sword shall perish by the sword, we shall deserve what happens to us. This is not a protest, just a timely reminder, that we may remember when it happens that we have been warned and forewarned.
Hugh Nibley
Professor of Ancient Scriptures
Posted in Politics | 1 comment | no trackbacks
Posted by Ben
Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:03:00 GMT
Jeff Lindsay has a great blog post wondering if we take the Book of Mormon seriously enough.
He talks specifically about the warnings throughout the Book of Mormon about secret combinations, although I think there are a ton of prophesies in there that we need to start paying attention to.
Hugh Nibley liked to say, “Woe to the generation that understands the Book of Mormon.” I think we’ve come to the point that we’re going to be in bigger trouble if we don’t start understanding it a little better. The big trick is being able to see prophecy being fulfilled as things happen around us. Its much easier to see things as a fulfillment in hindsight, but such recognition isn’t quite what the Lord had in mind, I think.
Lately I’ve been thinking a lot about political philosophies, parties, etc. Through it all I keep getting disgusted at what a mess all of it is. There is way too many backroom deals, unnecessary spending, bowing to corporate pressures going on in America today.
I suppose its pretty easy to slip into outrageous consipacy theories when thinking about this. At the same time, the Book of Mormon doesn’t tell tale after tale of secret combinations obtaining control of the government for nothing. The whole book is meant as a warning to those of us in the Latter-days, as well as a testament of Christ. Indeed, it is only through upholding the gospel of Christ that we have any hope of conquering such combinations that flourish in our own day.
There is no doubt that the powers of darkness are hard at work. Perhaps that is why I find it so disheartening that so many Latter-day Saints seek to seep themselves in the culture of the world. Maybe being so focused on the world, its entertainment and glamorous immorality is one of the things that blinds us from seeing the prophecies being fulfilled all around us.
Posted in Politics, Religion | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Ben
Thu, 08 Sep 2005 09:34:00 GMT
The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to local and state officials who are charged by law with the management of the crucial first response to disasters. First response should be carried out by local and state emergency personnel under the supervision of the state governor and his emergency operations center.
From the Wall Street Journal: Blame Amid the Tragedy by Bob Williams.
That’s exactly right. First responders should always be the local authorities, because they are, well, local! The bigger the group responding, the bigger the bureaucracy that needs to get moving. The best situation is to have responsible citizens with emergency supplies, then good local, city and state governments.
Check out the collection of interviews over at Cox and Forkum
Posted in Politics | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Ben
Thu, 08 Sep 2005 05:51:00 GMT
Congress has already approved 10 billion for Katrina relief, and is set to pass a bill approving another 50 billion. (I can’t even fathom that much money).
Estimating that 150 million people pay taxes this year, that means that, on average, we each will contribute $333 dollars to the relief fund.
Since I’m an average guy, and given that there are 2 taxpayers in my household, I figure we’ve already given almost $700!
Such generosity!
Posted in Politics | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Ben
Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:01:00 GMT
WASHINGTON—The federal government plans to hand out debit cards worth $2,000 each to families displaced by Hurricane Katrina.
—From the Washington Post
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison
(link)
With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. — James Madison
(link)
First of all, these quotes could easily be taken to say that I would deny aid to the people affected by Katrina. That is far from the truth.
In fact, I think that the current political system has deprived the country of a chance to make a huge statement with regard to how the US responds to disaster. Instead of being a chance for individual Americans to unite by sacrificing time and money to help people back on their feet, we have the government to do all that for us.
I am exaggerating, of course, because there is still much for individuals to do in the relief effort, and a great amount of that type of service is being given. Still, it would be something special if our Federal government respected its constitutional bounds (which is has long since forgotten about, judging from the types of laws coming out of congress lately), and instead, the People themselves would be allowed to put in their efforts, in cooperation with the local governments, who should be leading the effort in the first place.
How different would that be from the socialist economies and governments of Europe? Aah, but it is not to be.
I got started thinking in this vein a while ago when I stumbled across the account of Davy Crockett, when a similiar bill of charity was brought up in the House a long time ago.
“Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it.
“We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I ever heard that the government was in arrears to him.
“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”
Crocket then goes on to give an account of the man who helped him come to this conviction. At the end of the story, we read:
“There is one thing which I will call your attention, “you remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money—and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”
Read the entire story (which is well worth your time).
Posted in Politics | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by Ben
Sat, 03 Sep 2005 05:32:00 GMT
“For the past few days, I have found the news from New Orleans to be confusing. People were not behaving as you would expect them to behave in an emergency—indeed, they were not behaving as they have behaved in other emergencies. That is what has shocked so many people…
“When confronted with a disaster, people usually rise to the occasion. They work together to rescue people in danger, and they spontaneously organize to keep order and solve problems. This is especially true in America. We are an enterprising people, used to relying on our own initiative rather than waiting around for the government to take care of us…
“So what explains the chaos in New Orleans?”
From: An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State
Posted in Politics, News | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by bytheway
Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:51:00 GMT
In 2008, Will It Be Mormon in America?
And, they actually give an accurate description of the church.
Posted in Politics, Personal | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by bytheway
Fri, 24 Jun 2005 11:08:00 GMT
BBC NEWS | Africa | Africa urged to act over Zimbabwe:
I heard a report from the BBC as I drove home late this evening. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
The government in Zimbabwe has sent police to the poorest parts of cities to tear down the houses and displace all the people in these shanty-towns. A number of people have been killed including one on Sunday when police wouldn’t give the parents time to retreive the girl before the house was brought down. At least 200,000+ have been displaced.
I don’t listen much to main stream radio or tv news anymore, but I do take the local newspaper and this was the first time I had heard this story.
Am I just missing the reports, or is this story not getting much attention?
Posted in Politics | no comments | no trackbacks
Posted by bytheway
Thu, 05 May 2005 11:13:00 GMT
During the last semester, I took the opportunity to listen to a variety of political radio talk shows as I drove to and from school. Because of my conservative leanings, I listened to most of the favorite personalities including Rush, Sean Hannity, and others. Locally, I listened to a bit of Doug Wright and Bob Lonsberry.
I don’t know exactly why, but I have a really hard time stomaching any of them anymore. Some of them have interesting things to say, but I get annoyed at how they harp on the same subjects over and over again. Most aren’t interested in finding out what is true, without the spin normally attached to political rhetoric. These shows are entertainment, pure and simple.
I think I started getting this feeling during the months leading up to the last election. I found a website that would analyze each presidential candidates claims for truthfulness, and provide research backing the analysis. This site was not hard to find, and I found the analysis very helpful, but inevitably, I would flip the radio on and hear these personalities repeat distortion after distortion.
I think I’m just dismayed at the state of politics in general. We’ve ceased trying to do what is right for the people and instead divide solely on party lines. The point is not to do what is right by the country, but making sure the other guy doesn’t get any credit for doing a good thing.
So here I sit, dismayed at both parties, thinking that the founders had it right when they considered political parties to be dangerous factions. Of course, those same founders also started their own parties and got us into this mess.
So, today we have the situation of partisan politics, career politicians who have lost touch with their constituency, and a judicial system running amok doing a bit of legislating of their own.
Come election time, the people are left to choose (with our republic turning more and more into a pure democracy) between two usually equally objectionable candidates who then get sent to Washington to build for themselves a little kingdom of power, prestige and wealth.
Is there any hope of a different course? I sure don’t think so. I would wager that as time goes on special interests groups, corporations and lobbyists will only gain a greater influence. Soon the few most populous cities will hold the majority power over the greater land area of the US, especially in presidential elections. (An event that nearly happened in the 2004 election). Neo-conservatives and liberals alike will increase the size of the Federal government as each tries to show just how much more compassionate they are then the other.
In spite of all this, I have still decided I must decide for myself what kind of political philosophy I must live by. As a member of the LDS faith I have very definite moral feelings that must influence my voting, but there is much that still must be decided upon. Perhaps the one most important tenet that LDS theology has taught me is that the US Constitution is an inspired document, that God had a hand in bringing about. For me, any political leaning must begin and end with that document.
Posted in Politics | no comments | no trackbacks
