Re: Origin of the "Peace" symbol. -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:25:00 08/13/11 Sat
Author: George
Subject: Re: Origin of the "Peace" symbol.
In reply to: Lois 's message, "Re: Origin of the "Peace" symbol." on 16:31:13 08/13/11 Sat

>>The peace symbol is a modern invention.
>>
>>When Stalinist forces during the Cold War wanted to
>>destroy U.S. sovereignty by stealth, they organized
>>"peace" movements. These movements demanded that the
>>Western countries unilaterally destroy all their
>>nuclear weapons. Since these groups were all
>>communist-led, there were neve any disarmament
>>demonstrations in Soviet-held territory.
>>
>>The sign itself was derived from the semaphore signals
>>for "N" and "D," i.e., "nuclear disarmament." However,
>>since their was no "U" for "universal nuclear
>>disarmament," the movement was essentially the same as
>>the gun control movement -- make all weapons illegal
>>so that only criminals will possess them.
>>
>>That is why, to any knowledgable person over the age
>>of 40, the Peace Symbol is a rather disgusting piece
>>of symbolism. Unlike the Cross, which has become
>>blessed because of the Savior who died on it, the
>>Peace symbol is cursed by the deaths of the millions
>>killed by those who hatched the idea of the "Peace"
>>movement.
>>
>>One of the unanswered questions is why Dr. Smith
>>invited a known communist and supporter of terrorism,
>>who had sponsored in the construction of a tyrannical
>>communist regime, to speak on "Peace" at the Kirtland
>>Temple.
>>
>>That's just another reason for disgust.
>>
>>Of course, you can put a Peace symbol in the hands of
>>a five-year old and say, "How could you object to
>>anything a child does?" That sort of thing will go on
>>until someone gives the child an assault weapon; then
>>it won't be such a useful propaganda tool. The people
>>looted by the nine-year-old in the U.K. would most
>>likely agree.
>>
>>George
>
>I always heard that the peace symbol was from the view
>down of where one dropped the bombs from the plane. It
>wasn't supposed to be irony, it was supposed to be a
>reminder. At the college (now university) I went to we
>had a giant scrupture in the student square that from
>about three angles made the peace symbol.
>
>Lois

I am just completely surprised that an ordained minister of a church that claims to be Christian presents with, not a cross, but a secular political symbol of dubious purity. I wonder what reaction one would get from using an icon for the the TEA Party, or for the Institute for Policy Studies, or the tilted Enron "E."

But I don't know if Joanne has been ordained or not, Section 156 notwithstanding.

Notice, though, Lois, that the explanation of the "Peace" symbol that you got is of a bomb sight. It's all about the atomic bomb. No one ever suggested that mobs of Marxists put their cudgels and bricks away when rioting. It was all about the strategic deterrent of the U.S. that prevented the Soviets from overrunning Europe as easiy as they did Poland in 1939.

The popular secular idea of "peace" is when all one's enemies have been either destroyed or subjugated. That is the orthodox interpretation of the peace in the Koran, and in marxist theory. If you can get the enemy to agree to become your slave without fighting, that is just an easier way to get this peace.

I strongly suspect that that is why the First Presidency has allegedly ceased its egregious pursuit of unrule-y ordinations and shacking up ceremonies. The communists always want to negotiate when they are losing. Then, when everyone's guard is down, they go back at it again.

The First Presidency's willingness to temporarily grant a stay of its illegal (by church law) activities and "talk," means that it may have found itself in a great deal of trouble. If the negotiations had been declared in 1992, before the open assault on the doctrines and rules of conduct of the church were initiated, suggestions that "talk" and "discussion" will solve the problem would have some credibility. As it is, the call by the First Presidency for a halt to hostilities and to go to the negotiating table just means that some trick needs to be pulled to get them back in control. Then the blitzkrieg will crank up again.

George

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]