Jesus Really is Anti-War

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

And God givess them their lives back again. It is called the Resurrection for a reason. When conservatives can do that. MAYBE we can talk.

[David Bokovoy]

I don't disagree with your OP, but I thought I'd nit-pick. Since the LXX lacks this phrase in Isaiah, would the Hebrew passage have still been popular enough that they would have associated Christ with the prophesied peace-maker, or would Christians have seen Christ only as the powerful Angel of Great Counsel?

Hey Joseph,

Truth is I'm not sure. I would have to do some research. Despite the fact that the NT relies upon the LXX, it's been my assumption that Jesus' earliest followers would have been more familiar with the Hebrew/Aramaic versions of scriptural texts. The LXX becomes important in their later missionary efforts.

[Obiwan]

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.

Uh, that's what prophets do.... He however did't say "not" to go to Vietnam, nor that Vietnam was an "unrighteous" war, like you all.

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.

Who do you think the U.S. was fighting all these years over there??? Fanatical Islam and Iran guy.... It wasn't primarily Iraqi's you know. As well as other strategic reasons. Liberals need to learn to think beyond the obvious.

[Obiwan]

You might consider learning some tact. Since I don't have a liberal ideology, your presumptuousness and rudeness makes you look a bit silly.

Well, you are on this issue..... So chill out.... I've said nothing overtly offensive yet, so stop making the thread about me simply because you don't like some of my generalizations about your ideology. Stick to the subject instead of acting all high an mighty "more perfect" than me.

[Joseph Antley]

Stick to the subject instead of acting all high an mighty "more perfect" than me.

The subject that David started, or the U.S. foreign policy subject that you interjected into the thread?

[Senator]

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.

Mods,

This is, and can be an interesting thread. So I ask if you feel the need to lock, please make it surgical

[Obiwan]

The subject that David started, or the U.S. foreign policy subject that you interjected into the thread?

Good heavens.... Get over yourself. A person is allowed to address related subject matter examples of their point.

Again, deal with the points instead of the poster.

[David Bokovoy]

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-

Hey Wade,

In an absolute and universal sense, Jesus is opposed to war. This does not mean that I believe Jesus would be opposed to people taking up a weapon to defend their lives under the guidelines presented via the Book of Mormon. And yes, clearly Christians should refuse to subject themselves to kings, presidents, and rulers who decide to go to war for reasons other than the preservation of their citizens lives.

[Doctor Steuss]

That's not the question as liberals think of conservatives.

Just because you have a myopic outlook on those who differ from you, please don

[ttribe]

Hey Wade,

In an absolute and universal sense, Jesus is opposed to war. This does not mean that I believe Jesus would be opposed to people taking up a weapon to defend their lives under the guidelines presented via the Book of Mormon. And yes, clearly Christians should refuse to subject themselves to kings, presidents, and rulers who decide to go to war for reasons other than the preservation of their citizens lives.

Hmmm...is this the same Jesus (Jehovah) who commanded the Israelites to take up arms to expel the residents of the Promised Land?

[David Bokovoy]

Hmmm...is this the same Jesus (Jehovah) who commanded the Israelites to take up arms to expel the residents of the Promised Land?

It's not the same Jesus (Jehovah). There are some serious historical and theological problems with the book of Joshua and the biblical doctrine of racial genocide. I believe the Bible in as much as it has been translated correctly.

[thesometimesaint]

Obiwan:

I have no problem with prophets working in defiance of the Draft. The Church took no position on the Vietnam war, some were for it, and some were against it. I know I was subject to the Draft.

We were fight for oil. Amazing how our oil got under their sand. Or have you chosen to forget Operation Iraqi Liberation. Read Project New American Century report of 2000.

The US gave TOW missiles to Iran under Reagan.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey Wade,

In an absolute and universal sense, Jesus is opposed to war. This does not mean that I believe Jesus would be opposed to people taking up a weapon to defend their lives under the guidelines presented via the Book of Mormon. And yes, clearly Christians should refuse to subject themselves to kings, presidents, and rulers who decide to go to war for reasons other than the preservation of their citizens lives.

What about the defence of other nations citizens? Were do you draw the line? Remember that were much is given much is required.

Do you support the current war or is it an unjust war?

[Calm]

Hmmm...is this the same Jesus (Jehovah) who commanded the Israelites to take up arms to expel the residents of the Promised Land?

I do not have a particular position as of yet on this issue...primarily for reasons such as the above.

Ammon was willing to cut off the arms of those who attacked the flocks. In that day and age, that likely meant death, right? And since the others had fled and he could have as well, it would seem he was not simply defending his life.

The position does not seem to me to be clear cut, except that if the decision of violence is made, it should be made based on the inspiration of the Spirit.

[Senator]

It's not the same Jesus (Jehovah). There are some serious historical and theological problems with the book of Joshua and the biblical doctrine of racial genocide. I believe the Bible in as much as it has been translated correctly.

Crap!

Just when I was about to quote this:

"That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another"

....and then say that I was beginning to think I was getting the hang of LDS theology!!

[ttribe]

I do not have a particular position as of yet on this issue...primarily for reasons such as the above.

Ammon was willing to cut off the arms of those who attacked the flocks. In that day and age, that likely meant death, right? And since the others had fled and he could have as well, it would seem he was not simply defending his life.

The position does not seem to me to be clear cut, except that if the decision of violence is made, it should be made based on the inspiration of the Spirit.

I believe I find myself in the same (or similar) boat.

[Vance]

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

[Chronos]

Obiwan, cool down or you will be out of the thread.

~Chronos

[Lightbearer]

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.

Actually the stakes were a little higher than just killing or maiming the body... if one lost in the War in Heaven the soul was lost as well. That war continues on earth with the forces of darkness, sometimes it manifests itself in a "shooting war" and it is started by evil and corrupt men who desire to enslave men. If the righteous do not stand up against them then they would march forth and enslave the world. War is indeed hell, but sometimes it is a necessary evil to stop tyranny and oppression and terrorists who would drench the earth in blood. It nobody opposed even the dictators in our era there would be far more death and misery and destruction than the world has ever known. Hitler is the prime example all can usually agree on. What if nobody resisted and opposed his goose-stepping thugs? Or the Evil Empire of the Soviet Union? Or the murderous thugs who spread their terrorist thuggery even to American soil? If there was no war for Independence we would not be having this conversation now. If there was no Civil War the United States would still be a slave state. Is anything worth fighting for? Did you read any of my post or just glossed over it because I began by bring up the obvious, the War in Heaven. When Jesus comes again, will peace be established by diplomatic posturing or will it be in the destruction of the wicked by fire? Who by the way will be in the midst of the greatest battle in history Armageddon? Does that mean I endorse picking a fight with our enemies? NO, we sue for peace, but not at the price of freedom. If that great War in Heaven did not learn us anything it was that freedom is to valued over even life itself.

[David Bokovoy]

I really like your stuff David, BUT PPLLEEAASSEE!!!

Why did you just provide the 5th definition?

Because as I illustrated, via the editorial context, the 5th definition is the correct one.

Look, in principle, I agree with you. If a person comes into my house and threatens my wife and children, I'm going to take up arms. I'm not going to wait until the second attack to protect them, nor do I believe Jesus would expect me to.

[Doctor Steuss]

Consider Hugh Nibley's important observations:

[...]

The section on Book of Mormon wars in Since Cumorah was probably one of my favorite things of Nibley's that I've read. It took something that's pretty all over the place when read in the BoM (jumping back and forth from different fronts, interjection of war correspondence, etc.) and gave it a fantastic depth and showed (IMO) the character of Moroni to be that of an endlessly peaceful optimist (who was subject to losing sight of his personal mores when reaching points of frustrated desperation). Good stuff.

I know that you

[Calm]

I believe I find myself in the same (or similar) boat.

Too be honest, I dont' think that one can find a truly "righteous" war these days as there are too many financial or 'comfort' aspects involved in any international relationship these days due to the essentially global economy and I don't see most individuals---especially those who have been wallowing in the political sphere for eons---as being selfless enough to be able to remove those self-centered considerations completely from the judgment of whether or not to employ violence or specifically war (hypothetically if we did elect a truly selfless individual who made the call for war based on only whether it was a righteous one, I wouldn't be troubled that there were potential material benefits resulting from that war...I just am not aware of any political/governmental leader in the history of our country who made this type of decision independently of the fact of whether or not it would financially benefit our country or at least some citizens).

Even in the public justifications of the various wars the political leaders point to benefits for our citizens to demonstrate that money isn't being thrown away, even in a good cause.

I am saying this not to shift this to a political discussion of recent decisions for war, but rather to demonstrate that using modern history in this type of a discussion is most likely fruitless because finding a purely righteous war to examine is impossible and any 'tainted' war might render tainted conclusions. I think we are therefore left with scriptural examples and as David has already pointed out, even those are problematic if we believe that the writers' political POVs may have influenced their presentations.

[David Bokovoy]

The section on Book of Mormon wars in Since Cumorah was probably one of my favorite things of Nibley's that I've read. It took something that's pretty all over the place when read in the BoM (jumping back and forth from different fronts, interjection of war correspondence, etc.) and gave it a fantastic depth and showed (IMO) the character of Moroni to be that of an endlessly peaceful optimist (who was subject to losing sight of his personal mores when reaching points of frustrated desperation). Good stuff.

I know that you

[Vance]

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.

Sorry, but this is a distortion of the facts.

Iraq attacked Kuwait.

America (with allies) defended Kuwait by using the force of arms to expell the Iraqi army from Kuwait.

Hostilities stop upon Iraq signing a cease fire agreement.

Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire agreement, at about the same time as the 9-11 attacks.

America resumed hostilities because of the violations of the cease fire agreement.

The 9-11 attacks resulted in America getting involved militarily in Afganistan.

Additionally I see nothing in Scripture that precludes prophets from being deceived by lies, even sophisticated lies by their own political leaders.

As I see it, problem here is that it is you that have been deceived by lies and not GBH.

But I still love you.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

I believe defense of others CAN be a legitimate rationale for war. But we need to be very particular about when and where we(as in the US) invades a foreign country and imposes our will upon them. It is one thing to dispose a tyrant who is oppressing his own people, despicable as that is, and no threat to his neighbors; and deposing the head of a government we don't particularly like at the moment. No one likes/wants a belligerent world policeman who does what it wants just because it can do it through the force of arms.

They are called Banana Republics for a reason.