Jump to content

Jesus Really is Anti-War


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

I frankly think that Jesus would be neither anti war nor pro war. He is anti evil and pro righteousness and sometimes war is a necessary evil in defense of righteousness. There have been times when he has led his people in war against their enemies. There have been other times when they have been left on their own. Certainly there are thing which justify taking up arms in the name of the Lord. The problem comes when men are not truly led by the spirit and seek to justify their actions without proper reason.

Link to comment

Clearly Jesus was a peacemaker and taught the principles of peace. If the world would just follow His teachings then we really would have peace.

Just following the "Golden Rule" alone would do it. "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".

But there are those who are truly evil and are war mongers and unfortunately resisting their evil can require us to defend ourselves and/or others even to blood shed.

Alma 43:45 Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

46 And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

47 And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.

I think "anti-war" is a bit much. But there is no doubt that Jesus was a peacemaker.

Unfortunately, there are times that a peacemaker needs to carry a "Colt Peacemaker" to promote peace.

I look forward to the day when the war mongers are no longer among us. And where will they be? In hell, having been sent there with violence, either their own or the Lords.

Link to comment

In a recent, albeit now closed thread, several Latter-day Saint posters took offense to the suggestion that Jesus, the

Link to comment

Vance:

I don't believe the Lord expects us to [be] passive in the face of arms arrayed against our survival. By the same token to take up arms ourselves not in the defense of survival seems to me counter to the message of Jesus.

I think we are in agreement.

Link to comment

I don't no what you mean by Anti-War, I suppose it depends on the circumstances of and the particular war you are talking about. I do not think Christ or the Saints were conscientious objectors in [the war in heaven]

Indeed, the concept of a War in Heaven was also used in the previous thread to support the claim that Jesus is pro-war. Yet I wonder if people have truly thought this pre-mortal "war" concept through. What kind of weapons were used in this "war." Did Jesus use bombs to blow up the spirit offspring of God? Did Jesus use a sword to remove their spirit limbs until they submitted to his will? Or was this "war" more along the lines of what Joseph Smith taught?

"The contention in heaven was--Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him" (Teachings, 357)

Seems silly to suggest that Jesus is pro-war because of the "war" in heaven.

Link to comment

Indeed, the concept of a War in Heaven was also used in the previous thread to support the claim that Jesus is pro-war. Yet I wonder if people have truly thought this pre-mortal "war" concept through. What kind of weapons were used in this "war." Did Jesus use bombs to blow up the spirit offspring of God? Did Jesus use a sword to remove their spirit limbs until they submitted to his will? Or was this "war" more along the lines of what Joseph Smith taught?

"The contention in heaven was--Jesus said there would be certain souls that would not be saved; and the devil said he could save them all, and laid his plans before the grand council, who gave their vote in favor of Jesus Christ. So the devil rose up in rebellion against God, and was cast down, with all who put up their heads for him" (Teachings, 357)

Seems silly to suggest that Jesus is pro-war because of the "war" in heaven.

One of my mission companions (a man obsessed with the second coming) told me what his father, a bishop in Utah, had said about the War in Heaven, that although one couldn't kill a spirit, one could still slap fine matter around...

Link to comment

I frankly think that Jesus would be neither anti war nor pro war.

And I frankly believe that Jesus is always anti war. Unfortunately, not enough Latter-day Saints have studied carefully the war chapters in the Book of Mormon. Consider Hugh Nibley's important observations:

"We are repeatedly reminded that Moroni is "a man that did not delight in bloodshed" (Alma 48: 11). By him "the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary; yea, and they were also taught never to give an offense, yea, and never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives" (Alma 48: 14).

"Any thought of preemptive strike is out of the question; Moroni even apologizes for espionage, for if they only have sufficient faith God will "warn them to flee, or to prepare for war, according to their danger; And also, that God would make it known unto them whither they should go to defend themselves. "This is a great load off their minds"and his [Moroni's] heart did glory in it; not in the shedding of blood but in doing good, in preserving his people, yea, in keeping the commandments of God, yea, and resisting iniquity" (Alma 48: 15-16). Resisting iniquity where? In the only place it can be resisted, in their own hearts.

"Not only is a preemptive strike out of the question but Moroni's people have to let the enemy attack at least twice before responding, to guarantee that their own action is purely defensive (see Alma 43: 46). The highest compliment that Alma can pay Moroni is "Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon" (Alma 48: 18), who, as we have seen, renounced all military solutions to the Lamanite problem."

You can listen to the audio file here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbcP1tETASI&feature=PlayList&p=67346C6F72997254&index=0&playnext=1

Link to comment
And I frankly believe that Jesus is always anti war.

Just to clarify, are you speaking here in an absolute and universal sense, or as a general rule? In other words, are you suggesting that, to your understanding, there is no conceivable circumstance where Jesus would be neutral or in favor of war?

Is Jesus against members subjecting themselves to kings, presidents, and rulers who have decided to go to war?

Is Jesus against members serving in the military and honoring their commitment in times of war?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

I rather suspect that there are very few people who are truly "pro-war" in the sense that they delight in war for its own sake. There are people ready to use war to get what they want, or possibly those who delight tearing down their enemies in war, but that isn't quite the same thing.

There do appear to be many people who are "anti-war" in the sense that they believe no war is ever justified, but I would not include the Savior in that crowd. Certainly he does not wish his brothers and sisters to kill each other in war, but that is not quite the same thing.

So I would say that Jesus, while generally preferring peace, is neither pro- nor anti-war.

Link to comment

Although I think "anti-war" is a bit much, I certainly think that "pro-war" is much farther from the truth.

"Not only is a preemptive strike out of the question but Moroni's people have to let the enemy attack at least twice before responding, to guarantee that their own action is purely defensive (see Alma 43: 46). The highest compliment that Alma can pay Moroni is "Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon" (Alma 48: 18), who, as we have seen, renounced all military solutions to the Lamanite problem."

This is a classic example of misquoting/misrepresenting what the scripture actually says.

Alma 43:46 . . . Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

Sorry but I don't think "offense" has to mean "attack".

If someone enters into my house uninvited (first offense), and threatens me/wife/children with a weapon (second offense), and then I shed his blood, I think I am fully justified.

I don't think I have to wait until after the intruder's second attack to be justified in the use of deadly force.

I just hope and pray I am never pushed to such action, never the less I believe in being prepared.

D&C 38:30 I tell you these things because of your prayers; wherefore, treasure up wisdom in your bosoms, lest the wickedness of men reveal these things unto you by their wickedness, in a manner which shall speak in your ears with a voice louder than that which shall shake the earth; but if ye are prepared ye shall not fear.

Link to comment

Ya, you libs are off in neverland..... Know-one is questioning that Christ isn't a peacemaker. But, it is absolutely clear that war for "righteousness" sake is absolutely necessary.

I really don't get how liberals especially mormon ones cannot understand that simple concept, that even the Iraq and other wars fit the definition because those wars bottom line are against "tyranny" and "evil" and promoting freedom and peace as the ideal, getting rid of the bad guys who are causing the problems so the peacemakers can have a chance to create peace.

Not only that, but it floors me that liberals who are supposedly the "champions of the little guy", willingly want to allow tyranny rain elsewhere in this world simply because "hey, it's not on my doorstep, or they aren't threatening my survival". Two problems with that belief, the first is that it goes against the liberal ideal of "love" that they think they have above conservatives, and second, the U.S. is involved in wars over there because they DO have a direct effect on American interests, that being Fanatical Islam as a direct threat. North Korea despite it's posturing is not a direct threat, so we obviously even with some human rights issues over there, wouldn't have any business messing with them. In fact, liberals are always saying that "we don't belong in Iraq, and we should let them be". Well, that argument would have some merit if we were in North Korea, but when it comes to fanatical Islam as promoted by certain Arab block countries. Well, that's an interest. And the war for oil idea is still dumb, because almost all the oil goes to China or elsewhere, not the U.S.

Anyway, blah blah blah.....

While it is true that Christ's people should strive to be as the Christ, it is also clear that God is a Warmonger (by the liberal definition). That means Christ's people still must deal with evil, and that means war. The scriptures are full of it, and there is no escape from this reality until man is ready in his heart for the Millennium to begin.

Link to comment

For starters, I think there needs to be a much clearer definition of what 'anti-war' means as it relates to God's view of conflict.

Are we talking pacifist-never-fight antiwar? Or, are we talking about an antiwar unless absolutely nessessary sort of mentality?

Also, I think that any examination of Jesus' presumed pacism should account for all the wars and killings ordered by God in the scriptures.

Six

Link to comment
Ya, you libs are off in neverland.....

Congenial as always.

I really don't get how liberals especially mormon ones cannot understand that simple concept, that even the Iraq and other wars fit the definition because those wars bottom line are against "tyranny" and "evil" and promoting freedom and peace as the ideal, getting rid of the bad guys who are causing the problems so the peacemakers can have a chance to create peace.

Not only that, but it floors me that liberals who are supposedly the "champions of the little guy", willingly want to allow tyranny rain elsewhere in this world simply because "hey, it's not on my doorstep, or they aren't threatening my survival". Two problems with that belief, the first is that it goes against the liberal ideal of "love" that they think they have above conservatives, and second, the U.S. is involved in wars over there because they DO have a direct effect on American interests, that being Fanatical Islam as a direct threat. North Korea despite it's posturing is not a direct threat, so we obviously even with some human rights issues over there, wouldn't have any business messing with them. In fact, liberals are always saying that "we don't belong in Iraq, and we should let them be". Well, that argument would have some merit if we were in North Korea, but when it comes to fanatical Islam as promoted by certain Arab block countries. Well, that's an interest. And the war for oil idea is still dumb, because almost all the oil goes to China or elsewhere, not the U.S.

Anyway, blah blah blah.....

While it is true that Christ's people should strive to be as the Christ, it is also clear that God is a Warmonger (by the liberal definition). That means Christ's people still must deal with evil, and that means war. The scriptures are full of it, and there is no escape from this reality until man is ready in his heart for the Millennium to begin.

If you've read the Book of Mormon, you would know that God commands the Nephites against this sort of thinking. They were powerless if they took the war to the pagan, blood-thirsty Lamanites and Gadiantons, for "it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed." (Mormon 4:5)

Link to comment

As well, as the scriptures teach, no righteous man glories in war.... That's not the question as liberals think of conservatives. The real question is, is liberty for all a Christlike attribute? Was the Lamanite the Nephites brother still? Is the Arab not our brother still?

Bottom line is, is when evil is allowed to flourish, there is no safety, no peace, for anyone, anywhere, or at anytime. This is something that liberals simply cannot comprehend. Armageddon is going to happen.... And it's going to happen because evil was allowed to flourish in the Mideast far too much.

Remember, even God himself annihilated the entire planet save Noah and those with him because the world had gotten too wicked, that every spirit born to earth didn't have a chance at knowing the good. Likewise, the righteous of the earth have the same duty if we actually are following our duty. Evil is either annihilated or contained, or it will overwhelm and destroy all. Liberals need to know the "fullness" of the scriptures better.

Link to comment

BCSpace:

As JBH himself worked diligently to send our young missionary aged men on missions for the Church as opposed to Vietnam. I believe you are misreading his comments.

As to the debacle in Iraq I have seen nothing to convince me that Iraq was involved in anyway with the 9-11 incident. The cause celebre for the US invasion of Iraq. Additionally I see nothing in Scripture that precludes prophets from being deceived by lies, even sophisticated lies by their own political leaders.

Link to comment
Armageddon is going to happen.... And it's going to happen because evil was allowed to flourish in the Mideast far too much.

Someone call President Monson -- we have another prophet among us.

Liberals need to know the "fullness" of the scriptures better.

You're hijacking this thread about modern politics and foreign policy.

Link to comment

Congenial as always.

Well sorry, but I don't like those who tolerate or do evil in the supposed name of "good". Just like how liberals kill babies because of the supposed better thing of choice, but won't kill an animal because they are innocent. Perversion of truth is perversion, no matter who it's from.... You need to consider the "side" you are actually on and promoting.... No good mormon should embrace liberal ideology.

If you've read the Book of Mormon, you would know that God commands the Nephites against this sort of thinking. They were powerless if they took the war to the pagan, blood-thirsty Lamanites and Gadiantons, for "it is by the wicked that the wicked are punished; for it is the wicked that stir up the hearts of the children of men unto bloodshed." (Mormon 4:5)

Right back at you.... If you actually read ALL OF THE SCRIPTURES, you would know that every situation is unique, that you can't take one example as you do and ignore others that are contrary to your point, just as Christians can't take a couple of Grace verses create a doctrine which goes contrary to the works and law related verses. That's EXACTLY what your doing here, but in relation to war.

LDS Doctrine is clear on the subject..... War for righteousness sake, to lift another, is always right if it's the right time. It's like I said with North Korea. While there are abuses going on there of men, it's clearly "not" the right time. But, fanatical Islam is clearly a clear and present danger. So, stop abusing the scriptures for your own liberal ideology. There is a BIGGER picture to consider....

Link to comment

This is a classic example of misquoting/misrepresenting what the scripture actually says.

Alma 43:46 . . . Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.

Sorry but I don't think "offense" has to mean "attack".

Sorry Vance. I'm going to have to disagree with you and side with Nibley. Note that Noah Webster

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...