Jesus Really is Anti-War

[Calm]

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.

Except you will already have had to 'take up arms' (or at least have them in your house and trained with them) in order to be successful in defense, would you not? One cannot operate as a pacifist except in the moment of attack, it would seem one must prepare for 'war' in order to prevent it as much as win it.

[Jeff K.]

How does our view of Christ preclude our view of the Old Testament Jehovah? Were they two distinct personages?

[Jeff K.]

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.

Do you know what "universal" means? It means always and at all times. The second part of your statement contradicts the first statement. Christ may actually be in favor of war in some circumstances, and those circumstances may change based on the environment Christ finds his people to be in.

[Calm]

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.

And if we had a relatively rigid standard for doing so that was not altered by personal interest it would be very wise or at least easier to discuss whether or not a particular decision was righteous. From my observations of wars in the past 50 years, inconsistency in reasons presented seems to be the only consistency no matter how the justifications (and some I believe are true justifications, whether they were sufficient or not, I don't know). It is all rather depressing.

[Jason]

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.

I disagree.

One of our scout leaders while I was groing up was a man who had been a member of the Hitler Youth and who had fought with the German army against the Allies during WWII.

I do not beleive that he sinned in doing so. He was obeying the law.

I also do not see any exception in the 12th Article of Faith saying "...unless they go to war for reasons other than preservation of their citizens lives."

[Vance]

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

Sorry but, I still think I refuted your illustration.

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.

Well, it is nice that we can find some agreement.

BTW, Thanks for posting this. It has been a very interesting topic.

[Calm]

How does our view of Christ preclude our view of the Old Testament Jehovah? Were they two distinct personages?

I think what David was referring to was not the individual of Christ/Jehovah, but the claims made for him by the writers of certain scriptures. Just how wise is it to assume various scriptures to be reliable in their descriptions of God interacting with men.

I assume that you don't believe that all claims of God ordained war made outside of scriptures are valid. Do you believe we should automatically assume that claims for God ordained war made inside of scripture (especially in scripture we don't know the line of transmission for) are without question truly God ordained/directed?

[David Bokovoy]

Except you will already have had to 'take up arms' (or at least have them in your house and trained with them) in order to be successful in defense, would you not? One cannot operate as a pacifist except in the moment of attack, it would seem one must prepare for 'war' in order to prevent it as much as win it.

No. I don't own a gun and never will. I used "take up arms" in the figurative sense. I tend to follow Isaiah's directions for Jerusalem in terms of preparing for defense (see Isaiah 7-.

"Like Hosea, Isaiah rejects the attempts of the king and his counselors to solve their problems by political means: 'take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us' (8:10). The presence of the Lord requires complete reliance on him. Isaiah's advise would have been difficult for any ruler to follow. It required that he simply put his faith in the Lord, not try to defend himself by making alliances, and certainly not by appealing to Assyria. In Isaiah's estimation, YHWH was more to be feared than either the Syrian-Israelite coalition or Assyria." John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 314.

[Jason]

And if we had a relatively rigid standard for doing so that was not altered by personal interest it would be very wise or at least easier to discuss whether or not a particular decision was righteous. From my observations of wars in the past 50 years, inconsistency in reasons presented seems to be the only consistency no matter how the justifications (and some I believe are true justifications, whether they were sufficient or not, I don't know). It is all rather depressing.

Why limit yourself to the last 50 years? As far as I can tell, there was a "personal interest" for the nations involved in every war ever.

In fact, I think if you're willing to subject your soldiers to possible injury and death that there must be some potential benefit to their nation.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

I agree.

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.

So I take it you have a problem with this? IT seems as if you are talkng out of both sides of your mouth here. Maybe I mis-understood you, I am willing to say that I am. Help me out here.

I still would like to know were you draw the line with war? With pasts talk with you it would seem that the war is just as long as the president has a D by his name. It seems as if you have a issue with the last war faught under GWB.

No one likes/wants a belligerent world policeman who does what it wants just because it can do it through the force of arms.

I agree. And?

They are called Banana Republics for a reason.

Which is were we are headed but that is a topic for a different forum and discussion.

[Calm]

I disagree.

One of our scout leaders while I was groing up was a man who had been a member of the Hitler Youth and who had fought with the German army against the Allies during WWII.

I do not beleive that he sinned in doing so. He was obeying the law.

I also do not see any exception in the 12th Article of Faith saying "...unless they go to war for reasons other than preservation of their citizens lives."

There have been various statements by church leaders over the years supporting this as well. Why would they say something in support, especially since they weren't required to do so, if it was not appropriate to do so? (I am not saying these men are infallible, but it would seem that there is enough consistency of position to assume doctrinal status...for me at least).

[Calm]

Why limit yourself to the last 50 years?

Because beyond that time period, it is no longer a personal observation.

[BCSpace]

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.

That was the left-wing fantasy reason yes along with oil.

[Lightbearer]

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.

As already stated, I think it is very apparent that GBH was not deceived. I also find it almost funny for politically minded Saints such as yourself to assume it is so easy to deceive prophets, seers, and revelators but they themselves can see clearly.

I wondered after 9-11 if the U.S. would be justified in taking up arms against terrorists who conspire to destroy the freedom of all lands, I had no doubt after hearing this talk by a prophet of God:

("The Times in Which We Live" President Gordon B. Hinckley, 171st Semiannual General Conference, October 2001)"Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions. This is not a matter of Christian against Muslim. I am pleased that food is being dropped to the hungry people of a targeted nation. We value our Muslim neighbors across the world and hope that those who live by the tenets of their faith will not suffer. I ask particularly that our own people do not become a party in any way to the persecution of the innocent. Rather, let us be friendly and helpful, protective and supportive. It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.

We of this Church know something of such groups. The Book of Mormon speaks of the Gadianton robbers, a vicious, oath-bound, and secret organization bent on evil and destruction. In their day they did all in their power, by whatever means available, to bring down the Church, to woo the people with sophistry, and to take control of the society. We see the same thing in the present situation.

We are people of peace. We are followers of the Christ who was and is the Prince of Peace. But there are times when we must stand up for right and decency, for freedom and civilization, just as Moroni rallied his people in his day to the defense of their wives, their children, and the cause of liberty (see Alma 48:10).

On the Larry King television broadcast the other night, I was asked what I think of those who, in the name of their religion, carry out such infamous activities. I replied, "Religion offers no shield for wickedness, for evil, for those kinds of things. The God in whom I believe does not foster this kind of action. He is a God of mercy. He is a God of love. He is a God of peace and reassurance, and I look to Him in times such as this as a comfort and a source of strength."

Members of the Church in this and other nations are now involved with many others in a great international undertaking. On television we see those of the military leaving their loved ones, knowing not whether they will return. It is affecting the homes of our people. Unitedly, as a Church, we must get on our knees and invoke the powers of the Almighty in behalf of those who will carry the burdens of this campaign.

No one knows how long it will last. No one knows precisely where it will be fought. No one knows what it may entail before it is over. We have launched an undertaking the size and nature of which we cannot see at this time.

Occasions of this kind pull us up sharply to a realization that life is fragile, peace is fragile, civilization itself is fragile. The economy is particularly vulnerable. We have been counseled again and again concerning self-reliance, concerning debt, concerning thrift. So many of our people are heavily in debt for things that are not entirely necessary. When I was a young man, my father counseled me to build a modest home, sufficient for the needs of my family, and make it beautiful and attractive and pleasant and secure. He counseled me to pay off the mortgage as quickly as I could so that, come what may, there would be a roof over the heads of my wife and children. I was reared on that kind of doctrine. I urge you as members of this Church to get free of debt where possible and to have a little laid aside against a rainy day.

We cannot provide against every contingency. But we can provide against many contingencies. Let the present situation remind us that this we should do.

As we have been continuously counseled for more than 60 years, let us have some food set aside that would sustain us for a time in case of need. But let us not panic nor go to extremes. Let us be prudent in every respect. And, above all, my brothers and sisters, let us move forward with faith in the Living God and His Beloved Son.

Great are the promises concerning this land of America. We are told unequivocally that it "is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ" (Ether 2:12). This is the crux of the entire matter

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No. I don't own a gun and never will. I used "take up arms" in the figurative sense. I tend to follow Isaiah's directions for Jerusalem in terms of preparing for defense (see Isaiah 7-.

This is certainly your perogative. For me and my house a gun works just fine.

[David Bokovoy]

I disagree.

One of our scout leaders while I was groing up was a man who had been a member of the Hitler Youth and who had fought with the German army against the Allies during WWII.

I do not beleive that he sinned in doing so. He was obeying the law.

I also do not see any exception in the 12th Article of Faith saying "...unless they go to war for reasons other than preservation of their citizens lives."

I'm not going to pass judgment on this specific individual. But clearly if a person was aware of the atrocities Hittler was committing and still fought to support him during WWII, the 12th article of faith is not going to help that individual escape divine judgment.

[Calm]

No. I don't own a gun and never will. I used "take up arms" in the figurative sense. I tend to follow Isaiah's directions for Jerusalem in terms of preparing for defense (see Isaiah 7-.

"Like Hosea, Isaiah rejects the attempts of the king and his counselors to solve their problems by political means: 'take counsel together, but it shall be brought to naught; speak a word, but it will not stand, for God is with us' (8:10). The presence of the Lord requires complete reliance on him. Isaiah's advise would have been difficult for any ruler to follow. It required that he simply put his faith in the Lord, not try to defend himself by making alliances, and certainly not by appealing to Assyria. In Isaiah's estimation, YHWH was more to be feared than either the Syrian-Israelite coalition or Assyria." John J. Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, 314.

Your position seems very consistent.

It appeals a great deal to me, but it also seems inconsistent with the way the church leaders in the past (both scripturally and in modern history) have operated for the most part.

[David Bokovoy]

Your position seems very consistent.

It appeals a great deal to me, but it also seems inconsistent with the way the church leaders in the past (both scripturally and in modern history) have operated for the most part.

I've also been know to wear flip flops too!

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Agreed, and it does go back a lot further that the last 50 years. May I introduce you to Major General Smedley Darlington Butler.

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few

[Doctor Steuss]

Next time, please just give a link (requires less scrolling in order to ignore).

[Obiwan]

War is only a "racket" to those who prescribe nefarious means to everyone who believes in war as an important and necessary thing at times. But guess what, those of us that believe in war for the sake of good, don't look at it "your" foolish way, we believe in it because it is simply THE RIGHT THING TO DO for our brother.

It's not about "money", it's not about "oil", it's not about anything so petty. So, believe your degrading negative fantasies all you want, because you can't understand any other way, but the rest of us know what it's actually all about. It's about LOVE.

[wenglund]

In an absolute and universal sense, Jesus is opposed to war.

So, according to your perceeption, Jesus is against our fighting in the cultural war on the family?

In terms of scale, then you must view Jesus as opposed to a father personally "waring", to the point of physical violence and death, against evil men who may seek to rape and kill his family and steal or destroy his property, his freedoms and liberties?

And, you must then view Jesus as opposed to Nephi "waring" against Laban and taking his life.

To you, Jesus must have been opposed to the intents and purposes of Zions March organized and led by Joseph, as well as the Nauvoo Leagion. Right?

While I sympathize with opposing war as a general rule, I personally think it unwise and overly extreme to be opposed absolutely and universally. In fact, I believe there are exceptional cases where Jesus would think there is a moral imparative to go to war. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[alter idem]

As Vance pointed out, saying "Jesus is Anti-war" is not true. Alma 43:46-47 shows his position on war. It is sometimes necessary.

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.

Also, the forces of Good fought the War in Heaven, and it had devastating eternal consequences for the vanquished. They died spiritually, being shut out of God's presence, denied a body or a chance at salvation--damned for eternity. That was some war.

[Calm]

It's not about "money", it's not about "oil", it's not about anything so petty.

Are you claiming these reasons were not involved at all or just that they weren't the primary reason (because I have a hard time believing that oil was not involved at all when a great deal of effort was made to secure the oil wells, etc. as soon as possible).

Ach, I am letting myself be drawn down a rabbit hole....I probably should delete this post but I am curious as to what exactly Obiwan's position is, if it's as black and white as his responses seem to indicate.

[alter idem]

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)

In Alma we have the story of Amalikiah who tried to be king. The Nephites were able to put down the insurrection, but the dissenters fled the land. Moroni recognized that they still posed a threat, so he sent his men to capture them. When they did, they forced them to covenant to uphold the 'cause of freedom' and those who refused were executed. This is an example of where the righteous still had to do some of the 'dirty work' in order to protect themselves. From this example, I don't think we can expect that the righteous can stand back as pacifists in every situation.