A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
March 27th, 2007
Dick. Cheney.
For those of you who have yet to hear, Dick Cheney offered to speak at BYU’s commencement proceedings, and the board of trustees for BYU has accepted. No doubt Cheney’s team is fully aware that Provo is the only place in the nation he might currently receive a largely pleasant welcome. More information on this story can be found at this BYU NewsNet article.
Students of recent political affairs no doubt are aware of Cheney’s numerous controversial (if not conspiratorial) actions, including heavy involvement in the Project for a New American Century (a think tank that suggested, before 9/11, the need for “a new pearl harbor” to create a strong support for world government), the Council on Foreign Relations (our modern shadow government), and Halliburton (draining the American taxpayer of hard earned money and overcharging the government).
I won’t elaborate further on his involvement and complicity in controversial affairs. That task is left up to you, should you choose to learn more.
The purpose of this post is to encourage you, should you choose to do so, to sign a petition opposing Cheney’s visit to BYU.
Please note that I fully support all decisions that come from the First Presidency of the Church. However, opposing the visit of a certifiable warmonger to the Lord’s university is in full compliance with the following quotes:
The church does not become involved in politics. We don’t favor any candidate. We don’t permit our buildings to be used for political purposes. We don’t favor any party. (Gordon B. Hinckley, via Quoty)
In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. (Gordon B. Hinckley, via Quoty)
I say with all the fervor of my soul that never in my personal or professional life have I ever associated with any group who are so in touch, who know so profoundly the issues facing us, who look so deeply into the old, stay so open to the new, and weigh so carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully everything in between. I testify that the grasp this body of men and women have of moral and societal issues exceeds that of any think tank or brain trust of comparable endeavor of which I know anywhere on the earth. (Jeffrey R. Holland, “Prophets in the Land Again”)
Should the First Presidency decide to go ahead and support Cheney’s presence at BYU, that is fine. The Church is not endorsing the man, his actions, or politics. Rather, they are welcoming the Vice President of our country. Nonetheless, I am opposed to this man and everything he stands for, and as such, have signed the petition. Should you feel prompted to act likewise, you can do so here.
52 Responses to “Dick. Cheney.”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
-
March 28, 2007
[…] fora: Check this out, Bloggernacle Times, Connor’s Conundrums, Messenger and […]
-
-
March 28, 2007
[…] sign the petition.Ă‚Â I also encourage you to visit and read Ronan’s post at BCC, as well as Connor’s post over at Conundrums.Ă‚Â Both are well done. […]
-
-
March 29, 2007
[…] have very strong feelings on the subject. There are a number of bloggernacle posts (1, 2, 3, 4) and threads dealing specifically with that issue. If you want to discuss that controversy, please […]
-
-
March 29, 2007
[…] get me wrong, I’ve got my own reservations about the Cheney visit. The fact of the matter is, however, that there is far too much speculation […]
-
-
April 2, 2007
[…] are some interesting posts on the subject.Ă‚Â By Common Consent, Connor’s Conundrums Mikel @ 10:09 am [filed under […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.
I understand the opposition to Cheney himself, but I’m a little confused at how you can say that you support the First Presidency and their decisions and yet sign a petition opposing their decision. It sends a conflicting message in my mind, brother. Care to help me understand a bit better? (I know of your passionate prophet-following ways, so this surprises me a bit.)
I understand the opposition to Cheney himself, but I’m a little confused at how you can say that you support the First Presidency and their decisions and yet sign a petition opposing their decision.
Since the Church maintains a stance of political neutrality, the invitation is clearly not an endorsement of any kind. So although I can respect and support the decision to host him at BYU and have him speak at commencement, I feel I can still oppose the fact that he’ll be here in the first place, and take the opportunity to protest him and his action.
One can only wonder what the First Presidency’s reasons are for issuing an invitation to Cheney, and not having all the facts nor background I won’t attempt to opine. Althought the invitation has been extended and confirmed, I’m confident that there is still room for dissent and opposition, and (hopefully) a retraction (or as they say on Seinfeld, an “unvitation”).
I disagree Connor. By inviting Dick Cheney to speak at BYU, both the Church and BYU tacitly support the man, his actions, and his politics (and worse–by extension his immoral war in Iraq). I think Ronan over at BCC is exactly right on in his analysis on how this is going to play (and apparently already is) overseas. BYU should dis-invite Mr. Cheney as soon as possible. Mormons worldwide should express their opposition at this tacit endorsement. I do not believe disagreeing with this invitation means that you are not supporting the FP or the Q 12.
By inviting Dick Cheney to speak at BYU, both the Church and BYU tacitly support the man, his actions, and his politics (and worse–by extension his immoral war in Iraq).
I do see your point, although I still see some “wiggle room” for respecting and supporting the office while not explicitly endorsing the man nor his actions. But I think we agree more than disagree on this one.
I do not believe disagreeing with this invitation means that you are not supporting the FP or the Q 12.
Agreed. This is not a doctrinal or ecclesiastical matter. This is a political matter, and neutrality must be upheld. Cheney is not the type of person we want to endorse.
It has long been a common belief in the Church, that if a prophet of God were to do anything against the Lord’s will, he would be divinely removed.
If Cheney actually tries to come to BYU, perhaps the Lord might give him a heart attack, or someone might accidently shoot him in the face with some buckshot. Or perhaps a 757 might get hijacked and crash into him.
Of course, the 757 would not have any passengers, but would be converted to a drone.
I love the picture of Dick that you chose.
Here’s my problem with extending an “uninvitation”:
Cheney represents a large portion of Americans. They may be misguided Americans – but their numbers are significant. This means that Cheney, for all his vile ways, is a powerful man with a lot of support from people who I think, by and large, are good people who just don’t get it.
Someone who has that great a sphere of influence is an important person. In an academic setting, the free market of ideas demands that he be allowed to speak. Nobody has to agree with him. Heck, they may use his words as ammunition against him depending on what he says. But let him speak.
And saying the invitation is a tacit approval of his policies is absurd. UCSD once had one of the actors from “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” speak. Does that mean UCSD tacitly approves of the show? or Will Smith? What about the when Harvard invited Seth Macfarlane (creator of “The Family Guy” cartoon)? I guess Harvard tacitly endorse everything ever said on that cartoon huh?
The tacit endorsement argument is a weak one trumped up by anti-Cheney people looking to validate their views
Is this supposed to be funny? I don’t think it is. I don’t really agree with him either, but joking about someone’s demise is immature and irrational.
I think you also lose credibility by having to choose an uncomplimentary picture of him in order to support your view of why he shouldn’t come to BYU.
Just my personal opinion. Sorry to rain on the parade people, but if you think respect for his office (and his person) is important, than I suggest you actually do it. 🙂
I think you also lose credibility by having to choose an uncomplimentary picture of him in order to support your view of why he shouldn’t come to BYU.
Hey, at least it’s more flattering than the one that Guy chose.. 🙂
…if you think respect for his office (and his person) is important, than I suggest you actually do it.
How do you properly show respect for the office while opposing the tyrannical sycophant who occupies it?
John David Anderson, perhaps you’re right. Maybe I should only wish torture upon him.
Address his politics, not his physical appearance.
Sounds like you and Mr. Cheney have some similar ideas about what to do with bad people. Maybe you should start a counter-petition since you seem to fall in line with his views.
Address his politics, not his physical appearance.
Posting a photo of him equates to addressing his physical appearance? Sure, it makes him look like a baffoon, but nothing in the substance of the actual posts attacks his appearance. His demeanor, on the other hand…
If you need to use a picture to make him look like “a baffoon” then your ideas are less credible, in my eyes. His ideas and policies do that well enough on their own.
Its also my own humble personal opinion that these sort of pictures are less than respectful to the person and the office they hold.
</FWIW>
If you need to use a picture to make him look like “a baffoon” then your ideas are less credible, in my eyes.
I don’t need to… but ‘need’ and ‘want’ often have different outcomes. 🙂
His ideas and policies do that well enough on their own.
Indeed.
Some BYU professors have written a letter asking BYU to rescind the invite. Hat tip to Jason.
Connor
Well, I am finally going to admit to having nothing to say about this controversial matter. However, I will say that I am looking forward to a later time when we will likely be discussing the aftermath of whether or not he comes or does not. Either way, it should be a lively discourse.
I will say that I am looking forward to a later time when we will likely be discussing the aftermath of whether or not he comes or does not.
You can bet that it’ll be great blog fodder! 🙂
Perhaps I spoke too soon. I was just reading near the end of the book by Duane S. Crowther entitled “Inspired Prophetic Warnings.” It is subtitled as “Volume 2 of Prophecy-Key to the Future.” This is the 7th Printing 2004.
On page 296 & 297 it reads;
Latter-day Saints believe they should work within the governmental system to accomplish necessary ends. Criminals should be “delivered up and dealt with according to the laws of the land.” Those who have been wronged should “importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you-according to the laws and constitution of the people,…” The Saints are to be tolerant of others, and even of imperfections in the actions of their elected leaders, remembering the Lord’s counsel:
…Verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness and they will not destroy you.
Leave judgement alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. (D&C 82:22-23.See58:20)
Another major message of prophecy is that the saints must endure severe persecution in a time yet future. The Lord has seen fit to give very specific instructions concerning how the saints should deal with those who oppose them. His people should be aware of these instructions and be prepared to abide by them if the need arises. He has told them to
…Organize yourselves according to the laws of man; That your enemies may not have power over you; that you may be preserved in all things;that you may be enabled to keep my laws; that every bond may be broken wherewith the enemy seeketh to destroy my people. (D&C 98:9-11.)
While these words may not resonate with anyone other than myself at this point, I do believe I must have faith in and support the current First Presidency. They may or may not have had a direct roll in this invitation, and may have left the decision up to the BYU Administration. I am not familiar with protocol in cases like this with Church entities. That being said, I do believe that the First Presidency has and will continue to make inspired decisions taking many things into consideration which we may not be privy to understand at this juncture. Anyway, I simply cannot believe that President Hinckley would condone anything which the Lord would not, Himself, condone.
Michael,
Joseph Smith once said that “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such”.
That begs the question, when acting in his capacity as a member of the BYU’s board of trustees, is President Hinckley acting as Prophet? Has the Lord revealed to him every matter of policy that should be administered at BYU? Or is he, in that instance, the president of an educational institution that has policies that change based on events, circumstances, and other external influences?
The Church owns other companies and assets as well. Ultimately, the Office of the First Presidency is in charge of those affairs. If I oppose Deseret Book because of their high prices, am I speaking out against the Prophet? If I write a letter to the editor at the Daily Universe, am I on shaky ground?
I feel there is wiggle room here.
Not only is there wiggle room, but there is so much we don’t know! Perhaps the Prophet delegated this approval to somebody else. Perhaps the Lord wants Cheney to come here so that the Elders of Zion can unite to oppose such a tyrannical individual who has destroyed the Constitution? Perhaps the board of trustees is unaware of Cheney’s controversial background, and the Lord has seen fit (for His own wise purpose) to not reveal it to them, and so they are acting on the (limited) knowledge they currently had?
I realize this is controversial. I realize that some feel hesitant to oppose Cheney’s visit because they feel it is sanctioned by the Prophet of the Lord. Barring future revelation or a statement directly from those who have issued the invitation, I still feel there is opportunity to express dissent to a man who is anything but “virtuous, lovely, or of good report”.
Very wise words, Michael. I guess these words you quote resonate somewhat with me, in that you imply that Cheney is the enemy and the Church needs to work with the enemy so the Saints will not be hurt. This is what happened to a great degree with the Saints in Germany at the time of Hitler.
My personal feelings however: On a balance sheet, Zero would be gained from having Cheney come, and Much would be lost if he came (like our reputation among Saints in other countries). Much more would be gained if some inspirational or moral speaker would come.
I have mixed feelings on this. Let me be clear that I think Cheney spawned from Satan himself and that his policies have been detrimental to our nation and the world. That being said, I supported UVSC’s decision to have Michael Moore speak on their campus, and I was appalled by the reactionary lunacy that spawned from that invitation. My argument at that time was that no matter what Moore has to say, as long as he adds to the public discourse at the university, he should be allowed to speak. I think the same applies here.
If we value free speech and we value open discourse on college campuses, then we need to be amenable to having controversial figures be heard in academic settings. While I would much rather hear Moore speak than Cheney, I believe that both should be given the opportunity.
However, I realize that the context of the speeches is different. Moore was invited by the university to give a speech at an academic function. Cheney invited himself to speak at graduation. I think there’s a difference, which is why I’m a bit torn on the issue. If people didn’t want to hear Moore, they didn’t have to go. Graduates and their families won’t have that same option with Cheney. Maybe BYU could rescind the invite, but allow Cheney to speak in a different, more voluntary, context. That might satisfy all parties.
Jeff,
Your last paragraph accurately summarizes the conundrum here. I wouldn’t mind him coming nearly as much were it a simple academic lecture or forum where people could speak out against him, ask tough questions, and rebut his ideas. Commencement is not that type of venue.
So Stephen Jones was put on probation and subsequently retired from BYU shortly after a “private” meeting occured SLC between the BuCheney and President Hinckley. The meeting occured on Aug. 31, 2006 and Jones was placed on academic leave on Sep. 9, 2006! That’s 10 days folks!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/08/images/20060831-1_g015517-515h.html
Aug. 31, 2006-Sep. 9, 2006
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650200587,00.html
Our church has learned by experience (persecution, poligamy, etc.) to not mess with the government. How many times did the church pick up and move to avoid governments beating it up. The church moved into MEXICO to avoid it when it moved to what is now Utah. It is my belief that BuCheney pressured the president to shut Jones up. Even the prophet is scared of these guys. The real question is why does Cheney want to talk to BYU students? Is he coming to try and repair the damage or squash any remaining conspiracy theorist ideas? I say let him speak. This could be interesting.
Perhaps the board of trustees is unaware of Cheney’s controversial background, and the Lord has seen fit (for His own wise purpose) to not reveal it to them, and so they are acting on the (limited) knowledge they currently had?
I realize you see wiggle room, but this seems to contradict the quote you included at BoJ from Elder Holland, IMO.
Incidentally, I personally prefer to support our leaders even when they aren’t standing at the pulpit preaching doctrine. Also, just because they may not always have their prophet hat on per se doesn’t mean they can’t be inspired and aren’t seeking inspiration in many facets of life.
Even the prophet is scared of these guys.
c’mon, it does no good to speculate, folks. We don’t know what was behind this decision. Besides, the decision is made, so there’s not much that can be done at this point with that.
The real question is why does Cheney want to talk to BYU students?
I’m interested to see what he has to say as well.
forget about politics, what about the lost opportunity of hearing one of our church leaders speak to my wife and I (both graduating) and our non-LDS family (attending)? I don’t care if it’s the president himself, I don’t look to Bush or Cheney when I want spiritual inspiration, nor when I want to share my precious religion with my family. Put someone on the stand who truly represents this wonderful school and the values we try our best to live!
The Church has issued an official statement regarding the Cheney invite.
Yet another development in this debacle: BYU will allow an on-campus protest. Very interesting.
The downside is that it is two weeks before the event. I’m sure efforts will be seen to organize a protest on the day of Cheney’s visit, and if so, I will be there.
As a BYU alum I am honored that Dick Cheney will be speaking at graduation.
The BYU administration has done a superb job of getting top-flight speakers for things this coming year. Cheney, Reid, Roberts, and they just had Ken Burns. Kudos to the folks lining these guys up.
Why would anyone not be honored to have Cheney come to speak at BYU? It’s not everyday you get Gadianton incarnate to speak at your school. I hope he teaches us how it feels to have his soul filled with the bones of those he’s murdered.
I love the dialog and hate the labels. Integrity demands issue X to be discussed without labels. Everyone needs to inquire of themselves, “Would I still maintain the same views and opinions if the label were switched?” I think it would help if everyone took a deep breath and then wrote a debate presentation for the opposite point of view.
I think the labels Democrat…left wing liberal and Republican…right wing conservative are very misleading. There are conservatives and radicals on both sides of the isle. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I am fiercely Independent. I prefer to use my own brain, my own heart, my own inspiration and my own label.
That being said, as the daughter of a former Senator Orin Hatch constituent representative, a former wife of a three tour Vietnam vet who silently stood in protest in front of the Marriot Center when Gen. Westmoreland visited BYU campus to speak, a mother of three children who served or are serving in the military, and a graduate of EWU holding a BA in government with a pre-law emphasis, and a worthy temple recommend holder… I am opposed to Dick Cheney, his actions, his policies, his crimes against the world. I am for the impeachment and removal of our president. I am a patriot.
America needs leaders of integrity. Will BYU produce them? I think that the lively discourse that has been spawned over this controversial issue is one of the best things (politically and academically) that has happened on campus for a very long time. Everyone needs to quit trying to shut down the opposition and start inquiring about what they have to say, and look to the motive for why they want to say it. Do they know what they are talking about? What are their sources? –Rush Limbaugh is NOT a source…well perhaps a source of contention, but not a credible source for truth and understanding.
In my government classes, we studied history from a global perspective…yes we did paradigm shifts, we studied philosophy, we studied the U.S. Constitution, we read the original documents for Supreme Court decisions (the entire case from the bottom up …from crime-to cop-to court), we traced the sources of the sources and verified the data…boy did my politics change. It is amazing how a lot of knowledge can free you of the labels that destroy freedom.
Connor, this is my first visit to your blog – Ben linked it…I love it and I will be a regular. Thanks to both of you.
I am tired of those who climb on the “Immoral War, Immoral Presidency Bandwagon.” I hate war. But the Book of Mormon certainly shows precedent for defending one’s nation from danger.
When John F. Kennedy spoke at the tabernacle, no one protested, despite his clumsy attempt at invading Cuba.
If the Vice-President is guilty of these things than let him have his day in court. I’m sure that the congressional leadership will arrange for that if there is any way they can swing it. Meanwhile, casting aspersions is non-productive.
Let me say this. If Nancy Pelosi were invited to speak at commencement at BYU I would listen to her speech with quiet courtesy. I would honor the office of Speaker of the House. I can not disagree with her politics more than I do now. But Protesting is counter-productive. However, I suppose students feel like they have to have their input.
Most of us thought we could politically change the world when we were young.
Age teaches us that things aren’t often as simple or clear cut as they seem.
Some of these comments are a bit over the top. “Gadianton Incarnate”? “Certified Warmonger”? I thing I would reserve those for Osama Bin Laden.
As a worthy temple recommend holder I am totally opposed to the impeachment of the President. Nor do I see the Vice President as committing “crimes against the world”. If Janet feels that way she has the privilege to do so under our current system of government. I doubt she would have the same opportunity under the taliban or Al Quaida.
I do not begrudge Janet her temple recommend. But something she said cuts both ways. “Everyone needs to quit trying to shut down the opposition and start inquiring what they have to say…” I would suggest that since the Vice President appears to be in the minority in this country, he represents “the opposition”, So Connor and Janet, how about you quit trying to shut down the opposition? How about you stop being so politically correct by attempting to silence a voice that disagrees with your own. How about listening what he has to say?
I wouldn’t touch your petition with a ten foot pole. And I am a patriot too.
But the Book of Mormon certainly shows precedent for defending one’s nation from danger.
The Book of Mormon provides no justification for preemptive war. In fact, Moronihah states that the Lord will not support those who take such a course of action. We are justified in war only as a measure of self-defense. Last time I checked, Iraq never attacked us. But, I digress…
So Connor and Janet, how about you quit trying to shut down the opposition? How about you stop being so politically correct by attempting to silence a voice that disagrees with your own. How about listening what he has to say?
I’ve never tried to shut down the opposition. Let Cheney come. Let him speak. But I will be making my voice heard as well, in opposition to the man.
Mike,
I am not a student and I will not be attending the graduation. My daughter is a student and this is not her graduation. She has been and has seen others shut down for not being Republican – she is independent. The same thing happened in the 80’s when my former husband was a student …I was a Republican at that time. Students are constantly saying that you can’t be a Democrat and a worthy member of the church…a common theme in happy valley. Well President Faust served in the Utah State legislature as a Democrat. Elder Groberg is a Democrat. There are several general authorities who are Democrat and they are all good decent men of sound understanding.
Brigham Young understood the importance of lively dialog and representation in both political parties. When Utah became a state and when the Mormons were finally allowed to hold public office and to vote, the Republicans had treated the Mormons so badly that no one wanted to be one. What did Brigham do about it? He appointed men to be Republican because the balance was (and is still) needed. Why? What happens when there is no balance?
The Castro district of San Francisco is a good example. The Gay population started buying property and all the straight population bailed. The Gay population high jacked the entire Castro district including control of the vote, the schools, and the local government. I see that as a very dangerous paradigm – a threat to my freedom.
My comment was about integrity, not about the commencement, not about the visit, not about the speech. When someone expresses a point of view different than your own –that is not trying to shut you down. I believe that ALL students have a right to express their opinions without the ridiculous labeling and moral judging that so often takes place on BYU campus. I welcome the lively dialog.
I challenge you to do as I suggested in my post; research and write a debate presentation to support the opposite point of view. Then you will have the ability to understand those who disagree with you (and perhaps to intelligently persuade them to change their opinion.) Saying that I oppose Dick Cheney is different than saying that I oppose Dick Cheney coming to campus or talking at the commencement. I deliberately did not disclose my opinion concerning his visit. I did disclose my opinion about him but did not say why. You assumed a lot, so you judged me and that is exactly my point.
If some worthy tithe payers from all over the globe feel offended they deserve to understand that BYU is not a university controlled by a political party as is so commonly put forth by some faculty and students (example – the recent Mitt Romney BYU grassroots email that had the potential to cause the church to loose its tax exempt status.) My daughter works with mostly foreign student. Many are very dismayed with US politics. BYU has Muslim students as well some who will be graduating. The missionaries proselyte to Democrats and their door approach does not include a political party qualifier, nor does their baptismal interview. Think a little deeper!
“Gadianton Incarnate”? “Certified Warmonger”? I thing I would reserve those for Osama Bin Laden.
Cheney is all those and more. He is one of the most evil men on the face of the earth right now. And Osama bin Laden was a creation of the CIA. ( Just a patsy like Lee Harvey Oswald was.)
My argument has nothing to do with whether democrats can be good Mormons. My Dad was deeply invloved in the political process, in the Republican Party. I don’t think he ever voted a straight ticket. I look at the person, not the party. I am a history buff who taught my children to love history as well. I have a son who has been accepted to the graduate program at Purdue in American studies. with an emphasis in Jazz music. Our family times were spent talking about great men and women in and out of the church.
I am well aware of the history of the church as it applies to political orientation.
Secondlly, I debated in college and took second place in the Phi Ro Pi regionals. I have read extensively on the current political scene. I am not attempting to persuade you of anything. Nor was my purpose to go into depth discussing or arguing the merits of your political inclinations or my own.
I would be horrified if the missionaries taught anything but the gospel, and your suggesting that I believe such is just as shallow a statement of my thinking as you claim I am in my thinking about you. You assume alot as well. You need to think deeper as well. I am no more a stereotype than you are.
In considering the current situation I remember President Hinckley’s words in October 2001 conference. His address, “The Times in Which We Live.” is my lodestone.
Do you think that BYU is the only place where labeling and stereotyping occur? I think we would agree that such things are more common than not in the Universities of our nation.
Do you feel threatened by such things at BYU? Perhaps it is simply a reaction to the way conservatives are treated at many Institutions of higher learning.
At least your tone is scholarly and polite. I am concerned with some of the name calling and overgeneralization on the part of some of the other posts.
When I think of the amount of evil currently on the earth I think it is breathtakingly presumtive to label the Vice President “one of the most evil men on the face of the earth right now.” It reminds me of the labels of “charlatan, false prophet, and adulterer, placed on Joseph Smith by some critics. Or the words “cult” and “Mormon” being placed side by side.
One thing is for certain. No political party has a moral monopoly.
Mike,
I am happy to learn of your excellent credentials and anxiously await the post of your debate for the opposite point of view. With your love of history and your strong debate experience, it should be a winner:) You can post it on my blog http://janetwalgren.wordpress.com. if you don’t have one of your own.
maybe you’d like to read cheney’s byu speech? Yeah, I transcribed it: here’s a link to cheney’s talk
I’m not sure if any one posted this…and I know its a moot point now but I have insider info that the Bush Admin requested that the Church leadership invite Cheney to BYU because they knew any opposition would be weak…(and it was kind pathetic) and many people at the top levels of the Church were upset (quietly) that the Bush Admin would put the church in this uncomfortable position.
I agree with many of the comments made on this post that Cheney is truly evil and is a part of the “secret combinations” (although on what level I can’t say) whose goal is to instate Satan’s rule on earth.
What I’m confused about is why don’t the Church leaders know this….or if they do why can’t they say no thank you …“ The church does not become involved in politics. We don’t favor any candidate. We don’t permit our buildings to be used for political purposes. We don’t favor any party.”
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated
to Chris A.,
Let’s suppose hypothetically that the Church denied Cheney’s “self-invite” (which in and of itself would be a political statement the Church tries to avoid). Such a brush-off by Church officials could have serious implications for us Latter-Day Saints by inviting government to look into things like out tax-exempt status.
Perhaps GAs really ARE aware of Cheney’s evil nature, but by staying on evil’s good side are reflecting away any unnecessary persecution of us.
This really is quite similar of the accounts of German Saints’ own beliefs – that LDS ability to look the other way when Hitler’s SS would look into and attend their meetings actually saved the lives of many Saints. In other words they “made friends of with the mammon of unrighteousness, so they would not destroy [them].” D&C 82:22
Thanks Kelly, thats an interesting way to look at it.
I was present at the BYU graduation where Vice President Cheney spoke. Although I may not agree with all of his politics, I found his address to the graduating class to be insightful and inspiring. It seemed that all who attended enjoyed the event.
I also saw the gathering of demonstrators. I thought that they handled their protest with quite respect and dignity.
As for the comments made about President Hinckley allowing VP Cheney to come to BYU and if he was in fact acting as the prophet of the church when making that invitation, my only thought to those who question would be “choose ye this day whom ye will serve…” I choose to follow the prophet. You may choose to question everything the prophet does or says and that’s your right. I sustain him in everyway. Call me foolish. I can live with that.
My understanding was that Cheney invited himself, and the Prophet was not the invitor.
That is true Kelly he did invite himself.
Now that Cheney is out of office, he is still much in the news. I have been following the issue of Cheney’s secret assassination squad that Leon Panetta finally found out about and ordered to be stopped. Now many are speculating that Bhutto and David Kelly were among the victims of Cheney’s assassination squad. Even many died-in-the-wool Republicans are wishing Cheney would just go away.
I just read this from Joel Skousen’s website: (copy and paste below):
“First it was discovered that VP Dick Cheney ordered the CIA not to disclose to Congress the government’s secret and illegal surveillance program, or at least not to reveal the full extent of the program. Then came the half-truths about the extent of government use of torture. I find it strange that no one in Congress or the media is asking what authority did the Vice President have to issue such orders, and why the CIA was obeying them? They should also be wondering if this points to some alternative power structure inside government that the public doesn’t know about. But, that would sound like a conspiracy, which is off limits for public discussion. The latest scandal is centered on CIA Director Leon Panetta’s admission that VP Dick Cheney instructed the CIA not to tell Congress about a “new” secret assassination program aimed at al Qaeda leaders. Something is wrong with this story on several fronts. First, secret assassination programs against internal and external “enemies” have been ongoing since World War II. Second, both Republican and Democratic administrations and key members of Congress have known about them.”