Response to Sarah's Comment in "Restoring Courage"

Disclaimer:  First, this post was too large to post as a comment so I am posting it as a new post.  However, it is a response to a few questions that were asked by a friend, to which I would refer you before you read this post.  Please read the post "Restoring Courage" and the comments before reading this post. Second, My response is according to my beliefs as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and relies heavily on all scriptures accepted by the Church.  I understand that many who read this will have different beliefs and may not be familiar with the beliefs of the LDS Church.  If anyone would like clarification of the things I say here, please feel free to ask.  I also welcome other opinions.  We can’t convince anyone to believe as we do and that is not the intent of this post nor of this blog as a whole.  This is a medium for a free expression of ideas, from which it is my hope those of us who read and participate will gain a deeper understanding of the issues covered.  Thank you.

Hi Sarah,

I’m sorry it has taken me a little while to respond back to you, but I inadvertently erased the post I wrote before I was able to publish it to the page.  I needed a little time to recollect my thoughts before I attempted this for the second time.  I’m glad Meredith was able to share her perspective with you and I also appreciate the comments left by Anonymous.  I will begin by saying that I agree with the points that Meredith outlined and so I don’t feel I need to elaborate on them.  I will talk more about the reference she gave you of 3 Nephi 20:29-33 and I have a few other things that I would like to share.

Many of the prophecies in the scriptures about the return to the promised land address the house of Israel.  Some also refer to the return of the Jews to Jerusalem.  I would like to first talk about the house of Israel and its composition, and then I will discuss the parameters set by the Lord for the return of both the house of Israel and the Jews to the promised land and to Jerusalem.

Who is meant by the house of Israel?  Obviously those who descend from Jacob (Israel) son of Isaac son of Abraham are considered the children of Israel and would be included in the house of Israel.  However, the scriptures also specify another group that should be included in this appellation.  In the Book of Mormon 1 Nephi 14:1-2 we read:

1  And it shall come to pass, that if the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God in that day that he shall manifest himself unto them in word, and also in power, in very deed, unto the taking away of their stumbling blocks--

2  And harden not their hearts against the Lamb of God, they shall be numbered among the seed of thy father; yea, they shall be numbered among the house of Israel; and they shall be a blessed people upon the promised land forever; . . .

What this scripture makes clear is that it is not necessary to be a literal descendant of Jacob to be included as a member of the house of Israel.  The real key to the house is to believe in Jesus Christ and to keep His commandments.  Meredith has already shared scriptures that demonstrate that the literal descendants are not guaranteed a place in the house of Israel nor are they privileged to the covenants made to Abraham and his posterity unless they keep their side of the covenant, which is to worship and follow the Lord.  In Doctrine and Covenants 103:17 the Lord tells the Latter-day Saints in Ohio and Missouri that “… ye are the children of Israel, and the seed of Abraham, . . .”  This scripture, many teachings of LDS prophets and apostles, and the patriarchal blessings every member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can receive teach us that we, as members, are numbered as members of the house of Israel and I would go further to say that only those who actually live according to the will of God are counted in the house of Israel and therefore they are the only ones to whom the prophesies and Abrahamic covenants apply.

This brings us to the restoration of Israel and Judah to Jerusalem and the surrounding lands.  I would like to examine the reference Meredith provided.  There are many other scriptures that indicate the same chronology of events, which I have listed in parentheses, but the reference in 3 Nephi clearly defines the process of this restoration.  In 3 Nephi 20: 29-33 (Isa 57:13, 1 Nephi 10:14, 2 Nephi 6:11, 2 Nephi 9:2, 2 Nephi 10:7) the resurrected Jesus Christ is speaking to the Nephites after he appeared to them on the American continent, and he says:

29  And I will remember the covenant which I have made with my people; and I have covenanted with them that I would gather them together in mine own due time, that I would give unto them again the land of their inheritance, which is the land of Jerusalem, which is the promised land unto them forever, saith the Father.

30  And it shall come to pass that the time cometh, when the fullness of my gospel shall be preached unto them;

31  And they shall believe in me, that I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and shall pray unto the Father in my name.

32  Then shall their watchmen lift up their voice, and with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye.

33  Then will the Father gather them together again, and give unto them Jerusalem for the land of their inheritance.

The process Christ outlines for the restoration of His people to the land of promise includes:

1.     The gospel of Jesus Christ is preached to the children of Israel,

2.     The children of Israel will accept Christ and His gospel,

3.     God will restore them to the land of their inheritance after steps 1 and 2.

Orson Hyde dedicated Jerusalem for this very purpose, but currently, the Israeli government will not allow the gospel to be preached in Israel nor can any of its citizens join the Church in Israel.  There are certainly a handful of Israelis who have joined the Church outside of Israel, so I would concur that the process of which the Lord spoke is happening now.  You asked if I believe that God granted Israel the land and I will say that I do believe he promised the land to Israel--the people not the nation.  I do not think that the creation of the state of Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy, because the parameters the Lord has set have not yet been accomplished.  There is actually a great number of Jews who live in Israel who do not recognized the state of Israel because it was man made and they are waiting for God to restore them as prophesied.  Now, I do believe that God can work through man to accomplish His works and His promises, but I wanted to also show that there are many Jews that do not accept the Israeli state as it is currently constituted. 

In the scriptures, we read that God actually had the children of Israel remove the inhabitants of the land through force in order for them to inherit it.  The archaeological record shows that a mass expulsion of the Canaanites probably didn’t happen and that there was more intermingling than the scriptural record details (see William Dever, “Archaeology and the Emergence of Early Israel” and Did God Have a Wife).  Even if we disregard the archaeological record and assume the children of Israel did have to displace the Canaanites from their lands in order to receive it as an inheritance, the prophecies of the restoration of Israel to the lands of its inheritance mention nothing about displacing those who are on the land.  In the late 1800s, the first of four Jewish immigrations to Palestine occurred and the Jews, Arabs and Christians in Palestine lived in intermingled communities and were often business partners.  The Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate of Palestine after World War I did a lot to create the division between the Arabs and the Jews that still exists today.  What I am trying to say is that the great division between the Arabs and the Jews didn’t have to be as it is today in order for Israel to be restored to the land.  Plus, given everything that I have discussed thus far, I believe that Israel the people (those who follow the Lord) are still waiting to be restored to Israel the land.  For a Latter-day Saint, the one thing that comes close to the restoration of Israel to the land is the BYU Jerusalem Center, where members of the Church of Jesus Christ can worship, live and study in Jerusalem.

Your second question asked if it was wrong for Israel to inhabit the land the way it sees fit, if it was indeed granted to them by God.  I’m sure that it is clear that I don’t believe the state of Israel to be the entity to whom God promised the land, but even it were, I would still have to answer your question in the negative.  Again, the scriptures are very clear about this and there are multiple references.  When Moses brought the children of Israel out of Egypt and captivity, they continually murmured against God.  Because they doubted His power to bring them into the land of Canaan, we learn in Numbers 14 that the Lord curses the children of Israel and causes them to wander in the desert for forty years before they are led again to the promised land.  In the same chapter we learn that the purpose of this curse was to ensure that all of those that murmured against and doubted the Lord would be dead before He led the rest of Israel into the promised land.  The children of Israel needed to be purified and live according to the will of God before He allowed them to enter the land.  We also know from the scriptures that the children of Israel were removed multiple times from the land because of their iniquities. 

The promise of the land is dependent on following the will of the Lord.  We read in Alma 50:20 “[b]lessed art thou and thy children; and they shall be blessed, inasmuch as they shall keep my commandments they shall prosper in the land.  But remember, inasmuch as they will not keep my commandments they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord.”  The God in whom I believe and His son, Jesus Christ, have instructed us not only to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt 22:39), but to love our enemies as well (Matt. 5:44).  I don’t consider the Palestinians enemies of Israel, but I know that the Israeli state considers them to be just that.  I have already written about how Israel treats the Palestinians, so I won’t repeat it here, but I wanted to mention it again to show that the state of Israel does not follow the commandments of the Lord and thus has no promise to the land and no spiritual nor legal right to deal with the Palestinian territories as they see fit.  There are LDS members in Palestine that I would say have more claim to the promises of restoration to Jerusalem as the children of Israel, but some of them aren’t even allowed to go to Jerusalem to worship.  I believe the promises of the Lord will be fulfilled and one day these Saints in Palestine will again enjoy the right to return to Jerusalem.

Egypt Opens the Rafah Border Crossing with Gaza

The Arab Spring continues to flower in Egypt and old crumbling walls are falling down and offering new pastures.  Egypt's decision to permanently open the Rafah border crossing is an important step for the Egyptians in creating a government that is free of corruption and this will also help combat corruption as a whole within its borders.  The Rafah border crossing between the Sinai and Gaza has been closed or at least highly restrictive of Palestinian traffic for many years with a Hosni Mubarak Egypt working in collaboration with the Israeli government.  The blockade of this border crossing has imprisoned 1.6 million Palestinians in a land mass only twice as large as Washington, D.C. according to cia.gov.  Not only have these people been unable to move outside of this territory, but the blockade has sufficiently destroyed the economy.  As a result, a huge black market enterprise arose with major smuggling tunnels constructed between Gaza and Egypt.  The Israeli blockade of the Gaza strip and Egypt's role in closing the Rafah border crossing was meant to cripple Hamas, which came to power in 2007, but it has only succeeded in forcing the Gazans to accept an illegal practice as their only viable means of economic growth.  On the other side of the blockade, corruption has been encouraged in Egypt as many have come to profit from this illegal trade and the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza.

With the opening of the Rafah border, the new Egypt has continued to share its hope and vision of a better tomorrow with the protection of human rights.  Not only does this action demonstrate a vested interest in the well being of the Palestinians, but it also shows the dedication of the Egyptians to destroy the corrupt practices of the past that have crippled their own nation.  I believe that this will not only help Egypt in its goals to create a legitimate democratic nation, but it will also go a long way to moderating Hamas.  Prior to the opening of the border, Hamas was an extremist governing body, whose people were caged like animals.  Extremism can only grow in such circumstances.  Now that the Palestinians in Gaza will have greater mobility and exposure to new forms of governing, there is a greater chance that Hamas will need to moderate its positions in order to remain in power in Gaza.

It is understandable that Israel wants to protect itself from an entity that has on many occasions expressed its desire for its eradication, but the blockades have not been and are not the answer for greater security.  With the blockades, there is really nothing for the Palestinians in Gaza to lose.  Many have already lost their homes and, without proper building supplies, can't build new ones.  With a crippled economy, there isn't much hope for a better future either.  Although I do not advocate violence as an answer to solving problems, I can understand why violence occurs in this situation.  When it comes down to it, people are the same all over the world and if we are in life threatening situations or our families are in danger, we will do what we think is necessary to protect ourselves and our loved ones and sometimes our options do lead us to violence.  This type of violence in the United States has been deemed self defense and is not a punishable offense.

I would suggest that much of the violence that comes from Gaza should be viewed in the lines of self defense or better--self preservation.  The blockades only increase Israels image as an enemy to the Palestinians.  I believe it is in the best interest of Israel and the Palestinians for Israel to lift the blockades and allow the Palestinians to rebuild their infrastructures.  This would make them far less reliant on illegitimate sources, who have been the only ones willing to help and do so obviously with their own agendas in mind.  Restoring dignity to the Palestinians and allowing them to feel capable of providing for the well being and security of their families can only reduce extremism among them, which ultimately translates into a more stable Palestine and a more secure Israel.

Obama's "A Moment of Opportunity" Address

President Barak Obama has proven with his recent address on the Middle East that he is no different than any other US president or politician.  They all proceed under the guise that they are working in the best interest of the United States of America, but their words and actions make it hard to believe that they even know what is in the best interest this country.


There is no doubt that President Obama is an eloquent orator and there are aspects of his speech that merit approval.  His focus on encouraging investment and trade in the Middle East to help the economic situations of many of the countries in the region is warranted.  Even the countries with oil resources need to have more diversified economies so that they don't tumble into crisis when the reserves are gone or the global market turns to alternate fuel sources.  Reaching out to the nations of he Middle East and helping them to build strong and diversified economies will certainly help bring stability to the region.

President Obama also honorably placed the "Arab Spring" in an historical context that underlines the importance and the hope that the recent revolutions and protests in the region offer and inspire.  He states: "Square by square; town by town; country by country; the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights."  He continues with the story of Muhammad Bouazizi, whose personal frustration and sacrifice in the face of hopelessness ignited the fires of revolution and inspired a country, a region and the world to hope for a better future.  Speaking of the revolutions, President Obama details how these countries gained independence "long ago, but in too many places their people did not."  What Muhammad Bouazizi and the other protesters and revolutionaries have shown their nations and the world is their will to end decades of oppression and to take their future into their own hands.  It is important that President Obama recognizes this and goes further to mention that these revolutions really have been initiated by the people and no credit can be given to anyone else.   

This discourse is refreshing after the major delay in response from the US when the revolutions first began.  It is no secret that the US does not boast a good reputation in the Middle East, but we had a very small window of opportunity to change that.  When the demonstrations began in Egypt, the administration should have voiced its support for the people of Egypt.  Instead, it was too worried to lose a dictatorial ally than to recognize and support the efforts of a people standing up for their human rights.  The comments of Vice President Biden in a interview with Jim Lehrer in response to questions about the revolution in Egypt makes this very clear.  There is no concern for human rights here, but concern for what the administration thought was in the best interest of the United States.  The shortsightedness of the administration wasted an opportunity to make long-term strides in changing Middle East perceptions of the US.

Yesterday's remarks by President Obama are just that--remarks.  There is no real substance to his words.  It is true that he has become emboldened by the more peaceful revolutions to call on the dictators, which have been more violent with their people, to stop the violence and to "lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way."  This includes the president of Syria, with whom the US recently opened diplomatic relations, but has not been a close ally; the president of Yemen, who has already indicated that he would step down from his position; and the king of Bahrain, who already declared a lift of the state of emergency and martial law that was imposed in March.  Obama's words, which may seem bold and strong to someone not paying close attention, are weak and opportunistic.  He isn't calling for something or doing anything that isn't already happening, but I'm sure he hopes most people won't be aware of this.

The real problem with President Obama's speech, however, is his plan for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He stresses over and over again how Israel has every right to secure itself against any forces that may threaten it.  In a larger perspective, I'm sure most people agree that the sovereignty of any nation includes the right to protect itself.  However, one must bear in mind the context of his statements.  Israel has the most powerful and technologically advanced military in the Middle East.  Although the United States supplies many countries in the Middle East with military equipment, Israel receives the newest and most advanced holdings in order to always provide it with an edge over the other countries in the region. President Obama stated that one of the core interests in the Middle East for the US was "standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace." He later expands on this stating "every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat.  Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."  There are a few things that are ridiculous about this statement.  First, when President Obama mentions the right of every state to protect itself, he is really only referring to Israel.  Second, the Palestinians are warned that they must first ensure security for Israel after the withdrawal of Israeli military and they are not allowed to militarize their own borders, but must live with the fact that their oppressive occupiers for the past 60 plus years are the only ones allowed to keep its military presence.

According to President Obama "the United States opposes the use of violence and repression against the people of the region," except of course when it comes from Israel.  We don't have to go back very far to find evidence of this.  On May 15, 2001 (just five days ago) the Palestinians in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank commemorated the nakba (catastrophe), the day after Israel was declared a state in 1948, with demonstrations along the borders of Israel.  Some threw rocks and others climbed unarmed over fences that blocked occupied lands that were taken by the Israelis in 1967.  The Israeli response was to open fire on these people, which killed at least a dozen people and wounded over a hundred more.  The US is appalled by heads of state shooting unarmed demonstrators in other lands, as it should be, but when it comes to Palestine and Israel, the Israelis have a license to kill.  They need to protect themselves and their nation from the unarmed Palestinians who have been living in refugee camps for 63 years and want to return to their homes.  This makes perfect sense to me (please note the sarcasm).

There was a possibility that President Obama might be headed in the right direction when we declared that "the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines," which is an indicator that he believes there should be an Israeli and a Palestinian state.  This has certainly angered Prime Minister Netanyahu and the likes of Mit Romney, who claims President Obama just threw Israel "under the bus".  However, President Obama's stand is weak, because he opens the topic of Israel and Palestine by suggesting the Palestinians move to be recognized as a state in the UN this September is a  "symbolic" action "to isolate Israel at the United Nations" and it " won’t create an independent state".  He continues by playing on the rhetoric of Palestinians refusing Israel's right to exist and their use of terrorism.  This is no longer the discourse of the Palestinians and President Obama is fully aware of this.  This is just a ruse of clever speech to support his comments about the utmost need to make sure Israel is secure.

"The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state," President Obama said in his address, but this is not possible and he knows it.  The West Bank and Gaza are not contiguous and the only way to make that possible is to split Israel in half.  He mentions land swaps, which might make this possible, but what he doesn't say is the lands that would go to the Israelis are those that have been claimed by the illegal settlers in the West Bank and include the natural water aquifers that should belong to the Palestinians.  The Palestinians would get Israeli territories that aren't inhabited because there are no sustainable resources.  These are unacceptable options for a viable Palestinian state.

Throughout this address, President Obama refers to human rights and self-determination, but his stance on Israel and Palestine clearly show that he is not all that interested in the human rights and self-determination of the Palestinians.  The sentiments of his discourse are good and valiant, but the reality of his words are feeble and cowardly.  It is a shame that President Obama and his administration have once again floundered on the opportunity to make a real difference.

"Restoring Courage"

I recently posted on my Facebook wall this article about Glenn Beck and commented that he is a fearmonger. I stand by that assessment and I have chosen this opportunity to explain why in the context of his new call for a rally to "Restore Courage". It is my hope that those who read this will come away with a better understanding of the situation.

The great thing about the United States is the right for all of its citizens to speak and act according to their own beliefs and dispositions. This is one the the fundamentals of our nation and it needs to be protected. So, first, I need to tip my proverbial hat to Glenn Beck, who certainly has no problem using this right on a daily basis. He uses it so well that he has made a living from its exploitation. There are some who would like to silence his voice because they disagree with his ideas or fear for those who follow him. This, however, is not an acceptable option. The freedom of speech does not mean that only those things that are pleasing to us are allowable, but what it does mean is that we have every right and a duty to speak up about things with which we disagree. Our country has had a lopsided conversation for decades with the party in power controlling the dialogue, which is one of the main reasons we are experiencing such chaos in our nation. Party politics have only created a dialogue of nonconstructive disagreement between the two parties and divided our country. They don't disagree because they genuinely believe the policies of the other party are wrong (not to say this isn't true some of the time), but because they somehow cannot be a Republican if they support an idea of a Democrat and vice versa. This is not the type of dialogue we need, because it accomplishes nothing. What we really need is a dialogue where people express their opinions based on their knowledge and beliefs in a civil and respectful manner. The freedom of speech should be used to make our country better and stronger, not to degrade and and tear it apart.

OK, enough about that for now. Please follow this link to listen to Glenn Beck's comments and read a brief synopsis of it. Glenn Beck's Rally to 'Restore Courage'



I have tried to write this section many times and I keep writing a novel about Glenn Beck, so it is clear to me that at some point I need to devote a separate entry to him. However, my initial intent in writing this post was to provide a different perspective on the situation over which Glenn Beck is calling for the rally to 'Restore Courage'. My question is: "Where is the courage in supporting a nation that already receives the largest amount of foreign aid from the United States and uses this aid to build fences and walls to imprison an indigenous population not only in its own lands, but within its own cities and towns?"

© Chad Card

This is effectively what the State of Israel has done. The Palestinians have been removed from much of their land and continue to have it confiscated from them. The Israeli Separation Wall is poorly named, because it does not just separate the Israelis from the Palestinians, but it hijacks Palestinian land and it confines and demobilizes the Palestinians. The wall and the border crossings from Jordan and Egypt, which are also under Israeli control, have effectively killed the Palestinian economy and made it difficult for men and women to provide for their families. Access to adequate medical supplies and care has also been all but eradicated. It is no wonder that on occasion, groups of Palestinians throw rocks at the wall or even at the soldiers at the check points. I don't condone violence, but I can understand how a people that has been forced into desperation might try to do anything to be freed of such oppression. The worst part of this is that the stone throwing is often met with machine gun fire from the other side and has resulted in the killing of men, women, and children.

In Glenn Beck's call for the rally, he states: "Evil grows when goodness does not stand, . . . when man is afraid, or man is apathetic, evil grows." I agree with this statement wholeheartedly. I believe we all have the duty to teach correct principles and to stop the unjust actions of those around us. If we continue to avert our gaze from the wrongs of the world, we will no longer be left with any rights. We do need to take a stand!

I, however, cannot condone the type of stand for which Glenn Beck is calling. In his broadcast, he mentions that there are "forces all over the globe that are trying to destroy us, but remember we are the Great Satan, Israel is the little satan." Without mentioning Muslims once in his broadcast, Glenn Beck makes them the ones against whom we all should stand by making the reference to the great and little satans. He furthers this association by claiming that the attack on Jerusalem will not be an attack with "bullets or bombs", but the attack will be "with a two-state solution that cuts off Jerusalem . . . to the rest of the world." With these comments, he not only calls upon the decades long process of demonizing Muslims in order to instill fear in his listeners, but he also associates them with the Palestinians, who are rightfully working towards recognition from the international community of a sovereign Palestinian state. These comments whether intentional or not, and I believe they are the former, work to undermine the process the Palestinians are pursuing to create their own sovereign state and free themselves from the oppressive occupation of Israel. 'Restoring Courage' is nothing but a publicity stunt to frighten Americans into continued support of a regime that has not only been oppressive to the Palestinians, but whose policies continually place the United States at risk because of our association with them. The is no courage in standing with the Israeli government, the true courage comes in standing up for the rights of those who have been oppressed for the last 60 plus years.

© Chad Card

President Obama had the opportunity to 'restore courage' when the UN Security Council voted on February 18, 2011 on a resolution presented by the Palestinian Authority to condemn the Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as illegal and to stop any further settlements. All members of the UN Security Council voted in favor of this resolution except for the US, which has veto power. President Obama didn't just miss this opportunity to 'restore courage' he demonstrates how weak the US is when it comes to Israel, since the resolution represented the very ideas that he had relayed to Prime Minister Netanyahu at the beginning of the peace talks. Obama had the opportunity to stand for his ideals and for what is right, but he caved. Now Glenn Beck is calling on Americans and citizens all over the world to stand in support of this 'lack of courage'. The fear he is using to perpetuate the situation in Israel and Palestine should be the real focus of such a stand not only to 'restore courage', but to restore the integrity of the United States of America.

A Bust

So, if anyone has looked at this blog it is pretty obvious that this attempt has been a bust! I wasn't really into the whole blogging thing when I began it and I have not really had a reason for it until today. I have decided to use this blog to make my own commentaries about the events of the world and hopefully shed new light on things that you will probably never hear from the media. I will begin regular maintenance of this blog in a few weeks, but I will add things before then if they are important. Here's to the new blog!