tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post2934916055288743211..comments2017-04-13T04:47:21.148-06:00Comments on Pro Libertate: Confronting the Latter-Day Reich: When Insubordination is a Moral DutyWilliam N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-37943682858074019152008-11-06T23:25:00.000-07:002008-11-06T23:25:00.000-07:00I'm gratified to see that Helmuth is fondly rememb...I'm gratified to see that Helmuth is fondly remembered and properly honored for his heroism.<BR/><BR/>The technical details of Helmuth's excommunication aside, it's clear that <I>he</I> considered himself cut off during the cruel, lonely hours preceding his execution. I can't imagine the torment he must have felt, nor could I, under similar circumstances, summon the composure he displayed or render the forgiveness he offered to the Branch President who fed him to the wolves. <BR/><BR/>My understanding is that Helmuth's membership was posthumously reinstated after the war. <BR/><BR/>I read "When Truth Was Treason" a little more than a decade ago, so my memory is a bit spotty about the specifics. I seem to recall that the Branch President's correspondence, which was excerpted in that book, made it pretty clear that he considered Helmuth to be endangering the congregation through his rebellion against the Nazi regime's "legitimate" authority. <BR/><BR/>The same Branch President wrote a purportedly moving testimony about the Church's genealogy program: Using his personal pedigree chart, he was able to document, to the Gestapo's satisfaction, his Aryan ancestry back four generations. <BR/><BR/>The blessings never end for those who are "white and delightsome," apparently....Grigg Familyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00610001951486523311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-83987743927221599522008-11-06T15:36:00.000-07:002008-11-06T15:36:00.000-07:00I ran into your website while trying to find more ...I ran into your website while trying to find more information on Helmuth Hübener. While disappointed in your scant assessment and often lopsided view of several points made I can agree with you on one thing. Helmuth was a real man who deserves respect. <BR/>The facts:<BR/>-Helmuth Hübener was never properly excommunicated. The branch president, a Nazi supporter, wrote “excommunicated” on Helmuth’s membership record. This was not upheld by the district president (the office above branch president) nor by the LDS church - EVER. No church disciplinary council was EVER held with regards to Helmuth’s membership. The supposed excommunication was the work of one man, who never gave a reason for doing this. Although it has been speculated he did it to try to save himself and the branch from repercussions of the Nazi’s (because Helmuth was using a church typewriter to produce his leaflets).<BR/>Sources:<BR/>-http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/48153<BR/>-Hübener vs. Hitler by Richard Dewey <BR/>-Family interviews with Karl Schnibbe. My wife grew up in the same ward as Karl Schnibbe. (Karl was one of two boys that was friends with Helmuth and helped him in his cause).<BR/>-The Price: The True Story of a Mormon who Defied Hitler<BR/>By Karl-Heinz Schnibbe<BR/><BR/>Quote:<BR/>-“His "crime" -- for which he was excommunicated from the Mormon Church -- was circulating anti-Reich leaflets with the help of two young friends.”<BR/><BR/>Why your quote is false: <BR/>-No “crime” was ever mentioned by anyone, not even the branch president.<BR/>-The church never excommunicated Helmuth.<BR/><BR/>The thoughts of a self proclaimed ex-mormon is portrayed here, why not see the other side of things at www.mormon.org or www.lds.org ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-16154108174281805072007-06-02T14:17:00.000-06:002007-06-02T14:17:00.000-06:00CQuirk, if you'd like to discuss the subject of Mo...CQuirk, if you'd like to discuss the subject of Mormonism with me, please contact me at WNGrigg@msn.com.<BR/><BR/>I can understand why you would regard my view of Mormonism as "inaccurate," but the term "prejudiced" simply doesn't apply.<BR/><BR/>As someone adopted by a wonderful Mormon couple in infancy, raised in that church, and active in it for decades, I can hardly be guilty of of pre-judging it. I served a mission (Mexico and Guatemala), taught in the Institute Program, served in a bishopric, and was a High Priest at the time my family left Mormonism. <BR/><BR/>My perceptions are not the product of prejudice, but of long and diligent study trying to reconcile the doctrine and history of the church in which I was raised with the gospel of the Lord I came to know through the Bible and the painful but necessary process of conviction. <BR/><BR/>Helmuth Hubner, as I think the essay makes clear, is someone for whom I have great respect. He forgave the Mormon leader who excommunicated him, which is something I could not have done. <BR/><BR/>In his final hours on earth Helmuth took some wine to settle his nerves, just as Joseph Smith did at Carthage. (While Helmuth was entirely innocent, Joseph Smith belonged in jail -- although his death at the hands of a mob was a terrible crime.) I earnestly hope that Helmuth, in the waning hours of his tragically short life, came to know the real Jesus,. not the cynical counterfeit offered by Mormonism. <BR/><BR/>Helmuth was posthumously re-instated in the LDS Church by its leaders; the same is true, interestingly, of John D. Lee, the scapegoat for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. That latter fact is interesting, given that Lee was convicted of murder, which Mormonism teaches is an unforgivable sin. So apparently it was the conclusion of the Mormon leadership that Lee's role in the slaughter of more than 120 innocent people -- including children -- was something other than murder.William N. Grigghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14368220509514750246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-81902452071353965972007-06-02T13:37:00.000-06:002007-06-02T13:37:00.000-06:00What's sad is your prejudiced and inaccurate take ...What's sad is your prejudiced and inaccurate take on the LDS faith.<BR/><BR/>First Off, Helmuth Hubner's excommunication was incorrectly done by a Pro-Nazi Stake President (many religious leaders of different Churches at the time were Nazi cooperators), and his excommunication was eventually overturned by the First Presidency and his membership restored.<BR/><BR/>Also, Helmuth never renouced his Faith in the Gospel of the Church.<BR/><BR/>BTW If you want to debate 'Mormonism' with me Will, indicate so on this blog and we'll do so via email.CQuirkwww.thirdpartywatch.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-73571210295910763762007-03-17T14:13:00.000-06:002007-03-17T14:13:00.000-06:00"The three German kids running against the Reich w..."The three German kids running against the Reich were discussed on the Glenn Beck show this morning..."<BR/><BR/>Did Glenn Beck bother to mention that at least one of these kids was excommunicated from the Mormon Church for circulating the anti-Reich leaflets?anti-bushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-51655742810683375342007-03-16T09:00:00.000-06:002007-03-16T09:00:00.000-06:00The three German kids running against the Reich we...The three German kids running against the Reich were discussed on the Glenn Beck show this morning...but of course, his take was definitely not quite as prescient in tying today's parallels together as yours, Gregg. Keep up the great work!!UnIrWenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-65122146684799938402007-03-15T23:55:00.000-06:002007-03-15T23:55:00.000-06:00This site's posting How U.S. attorneys get appoint...This site's posting <A HREF="http://1fp.us/2007/03/13/how-us-attorneys-get-appointed/" REL="nofollow">How U.S. attorneys get appointed</A> really describes (inadvertently I'm sure) how politically centric and completely arbitrary the entire process is, anonymous. The post's author, for instance, says the following:<BR/><BR/><I>The Administration should have decided in 2004, following Bush’s re-election, which U.S. Attorneys it wanted to replace. In 2005, all U.S. Attorneys were subject to replacement. In fact, all of them are expected to submit their letters of resignation and either be retained or have their resignation letters accepted.<BR/><BR/>In 2007, there should be no replacements, except for any U.S. Attorneys who proved to be unqualified. The fact that the Bush Administration is trashing the reputations of U.S. Attorneys it once endorsed for the job, in a non-election year raises considerable questions.</I><BR/><BR/>Why should they draft letters of resignation when a new Decider is elected? Why should there be no replacements, if the Great Decider so decides?? Who says there even has to be a reason?? This poster is talking out of both sides of his mouth in essence. It's fine to hack and slash after an election, but it's not to hack and slash during a term? Pure nonsense. The issue, if there is one to be raised, should center upon the arbitrary hacking and slashing not the mere timing of the arbitrary hacking and slashing.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, why should it be any more alarming, foul, or questionable when political hacking and slashing is perpetrated during the Decider's term vs. immediately following his election?<BR/><BR/>It's obvious that the prosecutors, like just about any other political appointees, are not hired, fired, and otherwise evaluated by either party as to whether they promote the rule of law in their respective positions. They are instead hired, fired, and evaluated on whether they follow the dictates of the empowered Regime in question to its satisfaction. If not, they're tossed. Whether tossed immediately after an election or during the Decider's term doesn't make the action any more or less a political hack job.<BR/><BR/>In my mind, it's ALL foul and corrupt.dixiedoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-18664630165445891572007-03-15T10:03:00.000-06:002007-03-15T10:03:00.000-06:00Clinton and Reagan both put their own attorneys in...Clinton and Reagan both put their own attorneys in place at the start of their administrations, all of whom remained through each president's second term.<BR/>http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16897325.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-51847897653026106962007-03-15T09:54:00.000-06:002007-03-15T09:54:00.000-06:00Clinton's replacement of the 93 US attorneys upon ...Clinton's replacement of the 93 US attorneys upon the start of his administration was as routine as Bush's replacements in 2001. From what I understand it's common for a new administration to replace them all, but those replacements are normally routed through the process of congressional approval.<BR/><BR/>These were not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-15490352016731559022007-03-15T08:31:00.000-06:002007-03-15T08:31:00.000-06:00I find it truly ironic that Federal prosecutors ar...I find it truly ironic that Federal prosecutors are being tasked to investigate the "organs" of the state. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black and all that! That they suckle the teat of government and then when it snaps back at them they're surprised? There is a disconnect here.DrFixhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15912619928812368990noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-45905408086471477122007-03-15T05:44:00.000-06:002007-03-15T05:44:00.000-06:00Wow! I didn't know you had left the LDS organizati...Wow! I didn't know you had left the LDS organization. A friend sent me your article about the "Reich". I read it and your letter of resignation that linked to it.<BR/>I'm thrilled to know that you have been saved out of Mormonism. My family doctor is a Mormon and she is such a lovely person that I feel so bad about her believing the LDS lies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-9000450657904342912007-03-15T00:33:00.000-06:002007-03-15T00:33:00.000-06:00Hey Will, if I understand your take on a part of t...Hey Will, if I understand your take on a part of this post as in reference to the firing of eight U.S. Attorneys by the Bushevik regime, why would this be surprising given that the Clintler regime fired all 93 attorneys back in 1993 after he ascended the throne? And those firings occurred at the behest of the President alone with no Senate involvement.<BR/><BR/>Did the WP, by chance, make any noise back then?<BR/><BR/>In any event, I'm not a Bush cheerleader in any sense, but nevertheless, let's refrain from "tunnel vision" on the Bushevik regime and keep the panoramic in view. I'm reasonably certain that you're well-aware that the mainstream press is STILL not to be regarded as a suddenly reliable and steadfast "watchdog" now, instead of a "lapdog," simply because we have a Bushevik sitting on the throne rather than a Clintler as the reigning imperial Decider.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the press is really Bushevik's bosom buddy, concerning policies at least, but it's that they'd simply prefer that their side of the bi-factional ruling clique fill any of the "stately" positions, naturally including U.S. attorney positions. After all, it's not like the WP and other press organs have suddenly become worried about constitutional issues.dixiedoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09845646940134894119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32869165.post-28114947705053147312007-03-15T00:18:00.000-06:002007-03-15T00:18:00.000-06:00will,correct me if i'm worng. didn't bill clinton...will,<BR/><BR/>correct me if i'm worng. didn't bill clinton fire all of the US attorneys? this came to mind when sen clinton called for an inquiry into what bush was doing. maybe she wanted to know his secret?rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12473173027048173880noreply@blogger.com