You get the idea. There are other prophecies supposedly in the 9:11 texts of Moroni, Helaman, II Nephi, and Mormon. What's important here is that faith alone CAN move mountains. Apparently, faith MUST also influence movements so that prophecies may be fulfilled - http://www.latterdayconservative.com/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=80 .
So, back to one of the initial questions I asked, "Does it matter where the source of revelation is coming from when it concerns 9/11 Truth?" I believe it does and should – especially in this instance if what I've hypothesized about a Mormon revelation group influencing the Movement is correct.
Why does it matter? The a priori acceptance via faith that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job" bias completely any attempt to review the available evidence objectively. Instead, the sole intent of applying faith as THE first filter to any review of 9/11 evidence would be to warp the same to accommodate your prophecies and make real your revelations. Any evidence that suggests otherwise is either discredited or discarded. People who question your hypothesis (i.e., your prophesized revelation of the "truth") are either incapable of understanding the "truth" because of the lack of faith (and implied acceptance) or are disinformation agents (e.g., government-managed cointelpro) that are confirmation of the government's complicity within the prophecies. In actuality, though, these aspersions only add to already pervasive bias and result in a further distancing from the real truth that resides in objective analysis.
Science is a system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality, while faith is a strong belief in a Higher Power that controls human destiny. Which would you want on your side when trying to explain the events of 9/11? Personally, I'll pick science to explain the collapse of the WTC structures, et al. with no offense meant to faith.
So, back to one of the initial questions I asked, "Does it matter where the source of revelation is coming from when it concerns 9/11 Truth?" I believe it does and should – especially in this instance if what I've hypothesized about a Mormon revelation group influencing the Movement is correct.
Why does it matter? The a priori acceptance via faith that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job" bias completely any attempt to review the available evidence objectively. Instead, the sole intent of applying faith as THE first filter to any review of 9/11 evidence would be to warp the same to accommodate your prophecies and make real your revelations. Any evidence that suggests otherwise is either discredited or discarded. People who question your hypothesis (i.e., your prophesized revelation of the "truth") are either incapable of understanding the "truth" because of the lack of faith (and implied acceptance) or are disinformation agents (e.g., government-managed cointelpro) that are confirmation of the government's complicity within the prophecies. In actuality, though, these aspersions only add to already pervasive bias and result in a further distancing from the real truth that resides in objective analysis.
Science is a system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality, while faith is a strong belief in a Higher Power that controls human destiny. Which would you want on your side when trying to explain the events of 9/11? Personally, I'll pick science to explain the collapse of the WTC structures, et al. with no offense meant to faith.
Note: With my last comments in mind, I may be construed as someone who supports the "Official Conspiracy Theory" but concerned about the connections raised by the publication of "The Shell Game". I have no concern with the book being viewed as a fictional thriller, but its use by others (especially if the relgious connections are real) is potentially troublesome.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
