If you would like to know more about the UN, visit UNWatch.org and sign up for their mailing list.
Ezra Taft Benson:
On the surface, the U.N. Charter and the structure of its various departments bears a strong resemblance to those of our own federal government. But the similarity goes no further than outward form. Whereas the United States is founded on the concept of limited government, the U.N. concept is one of unlimited government power with virtually no meaningful restraints to protect individual liberty .. Instead of ensuring that all the member states have limited forms of government, the U.N. assumes that most of them have unlimited power over their subjects. The U.N. is not the least bit concerned over the fact that a majority of its members are governments which rule with police-state methods.
For the past fifty years, as the UN lived off the perception that it provided a forum where nations could air their differences off the battlefield, countless wars have been fought. Instead of removing the threat to peace, the UN has encouraged, even nurtured, regimes that waged violence on their neighbors, and oppressed and tortured their own people.
J. Reuben Clark Jr.:
There seems no reason to doubt that such real approval as the Charter* has among the people is based upon the belief that if the Charter is put into effect, wars will end .. The Charter will not certainly end war. Some will ask, – why not? In the first place, there is no provision in the Charter itself that contemplates ending war. It is true the Charter provides for force to bring peace, but such use of force is itself war .. The Charter is built to prepare for war, not to promote peace .. The Charter is a war document, not a peace document .. Not only does the Charter Organization not prevent future wars, but it makes it practically certain that we shall have future wars, and as to such wars it takes from us the power to declare them, to choose the side on which we shall fight, to determine what forces and military equipment we shall use in the war, and to control and command our sons who do the fighting.
Stephen L. Richards:
Have you ever heard of a voice being raised in any of the sessions of the United Nations since its inception more than two years ago protesting the infractions of God’s laws or importuning his help in achieving the purposes of that organization? I think you have not, unless perhaps in some innocuous way because I suspect that it is tacitly agreed that God and religion shall be shut out of the proceedings. Well, my friends, it is a part of the message that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints bears to the world that God and religion cannot be shut out from the consideration of world affairs without mortal hazard to the cause of goodness and peace.
Not through communistic theories .. will the turbulency of national ills be quieted. Unless the spirit of Christianity permeate the deliberations of the United Nations, dire tragedies await humanity.
Ezra Taft Benson:
Supporters of the U.N. often tell us how wonderful it is that all nations can come together under a single room and air their problems in open debate. The implication, of course, is that this procedure is a way of “blowing off steam,” a safety valve that somehow reduces the international tensions that otherwise might lead to war. How utterly absurd!
Consider what would happen if every time a small spat arose between a husband and wife they called the entire neighborhood together and took turns airing their complaints in front of the whole group. Would there be much real chance of reconciliation? Instead of working out their problems together, the necessity of saving face, proving points and winning popular sympathy would likely drive them further apart. Not only that, by the time the issue was put to a vote, the neighbors would be forced into taking sides. Suddenly their own ranks would be divided, and they would return to their own homes to continue a quarrel that, previously, wasn’t even known to them. What starts out as an argument between two people now infects the entire neighborhood with bitterness and dissension. Exactly the same kind of thing happens daily as the U.N. diplomats stand in front of the General Assembly, shake their fingers at each other, hurl insults at each other, and then ask all nations of the world to choose up sides. Far from being a procedure calculated to preserve peace, this kind of madness can only increase the likelihood of war.
What is wrong with the traditional methods of maintaining contact between nations through the use of ambassadors, envoys and a diplomatic corps? .. Quiet diplomacy always has been and still is far more conducive to real international progress than diplomacy on the stage.
Marion G. Romney:
Frankly now, are we, as rational beings, – in the light of history, the signs of the times, and the revelations of the restoration and the Bible—realistically justified in putting our hopes and expectations for peace in the United Nations? Doing so, are we not again hoping to “gather grapes of thorns,” and “figs of thistles?” I am not here thinking of the fringe benefits admitted by most everyone, but of lasting peace. It seems to me that from the inception of the U.N., we have had nothing but wars and rumors of wars.
We are beginning to see practical support. And this is a very significant sign of the movement towards a new era, a new age .. We see both in our country and elsewhere .. ghosts of the old thinking .. When we rid ourselves of their presence, we will be better able to move toward a new world order .. relying on the relevent mechanisms of the United Nations.
J. Reuben Clark Jr.:
The Charter* does not anywhere provide that freedom and liberty shall come to any state or to any people in the world that are not free. On the contrary, it recognizes and, insofar as possible, legalizes every political dominance now existing on the earth and specifically provides for the establishment of others, disregarding those heretofore held by ‘enemy states.’ .. None of these peoples are to have, so far as the Charter provision goes, anything to say regarding their fates, the pious provisions of the Atlantic Charter and the San Francisco Charter to the contrary notwithstanding.
Lenin* was a man with a mind of great clarity and incisiveness and his ideas have had a profound influence on the course of contemporary history .. His ideals of peace and peaceful coexistence among states .. are in line with the aims of the UN Charter.
J. Reuben Clark Jr.:
You cannot legislate righteousness into the hearts of the people you cannot bring the millennium by negotiating a treaty that will come only when you have placed the gospel of christ into the heart of all mankind.
The time has come to recognize the United Nations for the anti- American, anti-freedom organization that it has become.