threadjack: I don’t know about Van Buren, but suppose his work was done eventually.

Buchanan is a problem — information on a different James Buchanan from Pennsylvania, born very near the date of Pres. JB’s birth, was submitted, and JB “the other” was baptized, with the record showing his correct birthdate and place. (I know this is a different JB despite the similarities because his information was submitted along with that of all his siblings, and I confirmed that there was such a Buchanan family group with a James born then and there.) But between the baptism and endowment, somebody in the Temple Bureau saw the name, assumed it referred to Pres. JB, oh-so-helpfully “corrected” the information to reflect the birthdate of Pres. JB, added a notation “president of the U.S.,” and did the endowment for Pres. JB. So at least as of that date, JB “the other” was baptized but not endowed, and Pres. JB was endowed but not baptized.

Knowing how resource-wasting people love to do the work of celebrities umpteen zillion times, I suppose Pres. JB has had a valid baptism by now. I’ve felt a little sorry for JB “the other” ever since I researched this, though, and keep meaning to be sure his work has been completed.

/threadjack

Among the fifty other eminent men baptized on this occasion were William Seward, Lincoln’s Secretary of State, and Admiral David Farragut, victor of New Orleans and Mobile. Curiously Stonewall Jackson was also baptized, along with John C. Calhoun, ideologue of secession.

we can claim the living Lincoln, thanks to Wilford Woodruff’s experience in the St. George temple

Wilford Woodruff claimed that Lincoln was part of that group? I’ve googled the topic and am unable to find that specific item. There was one place where I found a reference stating that all of the past Presidents of the US were in the group “save three”, but I haven’t been able to find anything more specific than that.

Based on what I’ve read about Lincoln and what the Presidents of the Church have had to say about his treatment of and statements regarding the Church, he may very well have been one of “the three”.

The words of Christ as found in the scriptures do mean what they say, don’t they? I’m just amazed that there are such numbers of saints who seem to think that “renounce war” and “thou shalt not kill” really don’t mean that, and will instead try to find some justification for war, whether it takes place a hundred years before I was born, or on this very day at the behest of a President who has only been to eager to wrest the Constitutional powers of declaring war from a Congress that is apparently too craven to do so itself.

I’m not the one who used the word “craven” first.

The Latter-day Saints of the period were blessed by the Lord in their forced withdrawal from the United States to miss out completely on having to participate in the “civil” war. I’m “blessed” by the fact that there are sufficient numbers of citizens of the country who have bought into the whole “let’s occupy the middle east for another hundred years” lie so as to make a wartime draft unnecessary, thus keeping my own craven kids out of the military.

I sure hope the Elders of this church do manage to save the Constitution, but it looks like it’s going to be a good long while yet before it happens based on what I read. Instead, we’ll all hold our noses and vote for the next pro-war administration, and the example of the rapid decline of the post-resurrectional Nephite society will somehow be lost on all of us.

Or at least some of us.

[Editor-- I will delete any further pacifist or anti-pacifist arguments or arguments about Iraq. No matter how insulting or erroneous you may find threadjack portions of this comment, please limit yourself to the implied claim that Mormon non-participation in the Civil War meant it was unrighteous.]

Don’t insult Christ, even as a rhetorical device. Your passions are getting the better of you. If you think me taking you on means I’m taking on Christ, nuts to you, but that’s your affair.

Your view that any kind of violence is wicked is not a view that I share, or one that is tenable from the scriptures, but I’m not going to debate you on it here. You’ve persistently tried to threadjack away from Lincoln into a discussion of your extreme version of pacifism and I’m not having any more of it. You can reply to this comment–make it as screechy as you want–but no more.

In any case, comments will probably be closed soon.

That’s mostly right. But it was also somewhat true that the South had come to see slavery as a positive good and saw the North’s refusal to agree as insulting. And some in the South were uneasy about slavery and had come to agree with Lincoln that if slavery were stopped from spreading it would eventually die out.