Russell M. Nelson is a Prophet

[Ipod Touch]

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

Quote

Because of the long history of hostility upon the earth, many feel that peace is beyond hope. I disagree. Peace is possible. We can learn to love our fellow human beings throughout the world. Whether they be Jewish, Islamic, or fellow Christians, whether Hindu, Buddhist, or other, we can live together with mutual admiration and respect, without forsaking our religious convictions. Things we have in common are greater than are our differences. Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit. Old Testament prophets held out hope and so should we. The Psalmist said, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.”28 “He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth.”29

Father Abraham was uniquely called a “Friend of God.”30 Peace was one of Abraham’s highest priorities. He sought to be a “prince of peace.”31 His influence could loom large in our present pursuit of peace. His sons, Ishmael and Isaac, though born of different mothers, overcame their differences when engaged in a common cause. After their father died, they worked together to bury the mortal remains of their exalted father.32 Their descendants could well follow that pattern.

Abraham’s posterity has a divinely decreed potential. The Lord declared that Ishmael would become a great nation33 and that the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would bless all the nations of the earth.34

So descendants of Abraham—entrusted with great promises of infinite influence—are in a pivotal position to emerge as peacemakers. Chosen by the Almighty, they can direct their powerful potential toward peace.

Resolution of present political problems will require much patience and negotiation. The process would be enhanced greatly if pursued prayerfully.

And:

Quote

Now, as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must “renounce war and proclaim peace.”37 As individuals, we should “follow after the things which make for peace.”38 We should be personal peacemakers. We should live peacefully—as couples, families, and neighbors. We should live by the Golden Rule. We have writings of the descendants of Judah as now merged with writings of the descendants of Ephraim.39 We should employ them and expand our circle of love to embrace the whole human family. We should bring divine love and revealed doctrines of restored religion to our neighbors and friends. We should serve them according to our abilities and opportunities. We should keep our principles on a high level and stand for the right. We should continue to gather scattered Israel from the four corners of the earth and offer the ordinances and covenants that seal families together forever. These blessings we are to bring to people of all nations.

By so living, our Master will bless us. He provided this promise: “Fear thou not; for I am with thee: be not dismayed; for I am thy God: I will strengthen thee; yea, I will help thee; yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.”40

Ours is His supernal cause. Ours is the cause of eternal glory for all humankind. And as peacemakers, we shall be called the children of God. I so testify in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

Quote

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally.

And:

Quote

It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

[Duncan]

The only thing I recall is this one pompous twit in our quorum said he was going to use Pres. Hinckley's talk but then said his own opinions. Now that I think about about when the US invaded someone the elders came over because nobody wanted to talk to two Americans, so ah we'll take you in!

[The Nehor]

1. I do remember. I was, like 95% of America, a military hawk immediately after 9/11. I was much more hesitant about Iraq. I was not as well-versed as I am now in foreign affairs but I did have a worry that defanging Iraq would destabilize the region and give Iran a boost towards regional supremacy.

2. Unlikely Geopolitics is complex and you have allies, neutrals, adversaries, and enemies. In many cases each nation has a different stance with other nations depending on the issue. Scripture suggests that for a Zion people either God will prevent your enemies from attacking or will fight your battles for you. We aren’t there. Usually nations try for proportional response. This will hopefully prevent another World War 1 where things spiraled out of control as everyone escalated everything and another World War 2 where indifference to foreign conflict and a fear of conflict allowed authoritarian states to aggressively expand unchecked into Austria, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and China.

Short answer: You need a Christian polity and a Christian leadership to implement such a policy which is a rare occurrence throughout history. By that I mean people genuinely aligned with Christ’s ideals and not being nominally Christian. I am not holding my breath.

 

Edit: There are a lot of geopolitical realities laid out in Isaiah. Probably worth reading that more. One of the weaker reasons to read Isaiah but still a decent one.

Edited August 24, 2021 by The Nehor

[Ipod Touch]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There are a lot of geopolitical realities laid out in Isaiah.

Interesting point.  Isaiah also points out several times that the LORD is over all and loves all nations.  A much different tone than can be found in Joshua or Judges.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

And:

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

And:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

A lot can change in 6 months!

If the summary at the top of the talk is an indicator, their message was the same, at least very compatible and congruent with each other:

"I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties."

and 

"Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit."

 

[Ipod Touch]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

A lot can change in 6 months!

Indeed.  And I certainly don't mean to imply that there was some great gulf between Nelson and Hinckley.  

 

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

If the summary at the top of the talk is an indicator, their message was the same, at least very compatible and congruent with each other

I agree with this.

I think what stands out to me most about President Hinckley's talk was the "warning" against impeding nations going to (justified and righteous) war.  At that time there were protests at BYU and I think a student left BYU (rather than waste  both his and BYU's time with an honor code process) after being arrested at a protest in SLC.  My impression at the time was that President Hinckley was referring -- at least in part -- to contemporary anti-war protests.

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

And:

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

And:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

I distinctly remember where I was and what I was doing when listening to Pres. Hinckley's talk you bring up, same as other significant moments in my life and do remember some members not being too excited about it. 

[bOObOO]

46 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

1.  I remember. I thought it was sad that our nation's commander in chief at the time determined war was necessary, and that Congress and the House had generally agreed.  War is never pleasant but sometimes necessary.  I hoped it would end soon.

2. Yes, easily.  Our nation has the military strength to destroy all the bad guys in the middle east and yet they are not doing that or even trying to do that now.  I think that counts as turning a cheek.  It may be necessary to go to war later, but for now, we're leaving.  Military power doesn't solve all of the world's problems.  There will always be some people who will choose to be the bad guys so it is impossible to get rid of all of them.  And maybe later, with more time, they will grow out of it and choose to be good.

[Vanguard]

1 hour ago, Ipod Touch said:

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

And:

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

And:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

Your post reminds me of the following CS Lewis passage from Mere Christianity -

People say, "The Church ought to give us a lead." That is true if they mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way. By the Church they ought to mean the whole body of practising Christians. And when they say that the Church should give us a lead, they ought to mean that some Christians— those who happen to have the right talents—should be economists and statesmen, and that all economists and statesmen should be Christians, and that their whole efforts in politics and economics should be directed to putting "Do as you would be done by" into action. If that happened, and if we others were really ready to take it, then we should find the Christian solution for our own social problems pretty quickly. But, of course, when they ask for a lead from the Church most people mean they want the clergy to put out a political programme. That is silly. The clergy are those particular people within the whole Church who have been specially trained and set aside to look after what concerns us as creatures who are going to live for ever: and we are asking them to do a quite different job for which they have not been trained. The job is really on us, on the laymen. The application of Christian principles, say, to trade unionism or education, must come from Christian trade unionists and Christian schoolmasters: just as Christian literature comes from Christian novelists and dramatists —not from the bench of bishops getting together and trying to write plays and novels in their spare time.

We cannot always count on our clergy to spell out the direction one ought to take regards to politics, economics, and so forth. I would add a bit to Lewis' commentary by saying we need men & women in the world of politics, economics, and so forth who are devoted to the finest Christian principles - whether they be Christian or not - to give us a lead on such important decisions.

[Bernard Gui]

57 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Our nation has the military strength to destroy all the bad guys in the middle east and yet they are not doing that or even trying to do that now. 
 

IMO, that devalues the lives of our military folks that fight the war. War may be be morally questionable, but sacrificing the soldiers by fighting with no intent to win is without question immoral. The letters between Pahoran and Moroni make this crystal clear. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, that devalues the lives of our military folks that fight the war. War may be be morally questionable, but sacrificing the soldiers by fighting with no intent to win is without question immoral. The letters between Pahoran and Moroni make this crystal clear. 

It also ignores that our recent occupations have been failures. Yeah, the U.S. military can defeat a conventional enemy force with ease and occupy a place but then it is just an ongoing disaster until we leave chaos behind.

Strong growing empires use military strength judiciously and win. Dying empires entrench themselves in drawn out quagmires involving overwhelming force that still end in defeat or retreat. It is pretty clear where the US is.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Indeed.  And I certainly don't mean to imply that there was some great gulf between Nelson and Hinckley.  

 

I agree with this.

I think what stands out to me most about President Hinckley's talk was the "warning" against impeding nations going to (justified and righteous) war.  At that time there were protests at BYU and I think a student left BYU (rather than waste  both his and BYU's time with an honor code process) after being arrested at a protest in SLC.  My impression at the time was that President Hinckley was referring -- at least in part -- to contemporary anti-war protests.

I think we all hear what we want and/or need to hear, and all the better when we listen in good faith. There are many things that can be gleaned from his message about the war against terrorism. One point is that there is "another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation."

He qualifies the two remarks you cited with, "...generally" and, "It may even be..."

I don't see his talk as addressing the rightness of the war and the wrongness of protesting it, but how people express their differences. He is expressing his personal feelings and personal loyalties in an exemplary manner. He once advised against two earrings and explained why, using the rationale of a man striving to set the example of how we feel about ourselves and treat our bodies. No harm, no foul for those who feel or appreciate differently.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

And:

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

And:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

You are very perceptive, and I appreciate you calling this to our attention.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

A lot can change in 6 months!

If the summary at the top of the talk is an indicator, their message was the same, at least very compatible and congruent with each other:

"I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties."

and 

"Peace is a prime priority that pleads for our pursuit."

The main question is Is this an American church or a world church? Most LDS members live outside the USA.  Is God an American citizen? 

[bOObOO]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, that devalues the lives of our military folks that fight the war. War may be be morally questionable, but sacrificing the soldiers by fighting with no intent to win is without question immoral. The letters between Pahoran and Moroni make this crystal clear. 

What? are you saying devalues the lives of our military folk?  I simply said: Our nation has the military strength to destroy all the bad guys in the middle east and yet they are not doing that or even trying to do that now.  The fact that our military commanders are choosing to not use their military strength to destroy others is an example, I think, of turning a cheek, as our Lord counseled we do.  Even when we can win we should not always fight others.  There is a time for fighting, and there is also a time to turn a cheek or two.  Wisdom can help us to know what to do when.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The main question is Is this an American church or a world church? Most LDS members live outside the USA.  Is God an American citizen? 

Interesting, I took his message as beneficial to the members of any nation, using the US war as a springboard for teaching these principles. But I would say definitely (even back then) that it is a worldwide Church, and God is not an American citizen.

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

What? are you saying devalues the lives of our military folk?  I simply said: Our nation has the military strength to destroy all the bad guys in the middle east and yet they are not doing that or even trying to do that now.  The fact that our military commanders are choosing to not use their military strength to destroy others is an example, I think, of turning a cheek, as our Lord counseled we do.  Even when we can win we should not always fight others.  There is a time for fighting, and there is also a time to turn a cheek or two.  Wisdom can help us to know what to do when.

No, I was not casting aspersions on you. Just commenting on fighting wars with no intentions of winning. If we choose to send our soldiers into harms way it should be with the understanding that we will do all to insure they are victorious. IMO Afghanistan is not an example of cheek-turning. It’s an example of fighting without intent to win. See Moroni’s epistle to Pahoran.  

Edited August 25, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bOObOO]

24 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No, I was not casting aspersions on you. Just commenting on fighting wars with no intentions of winning. If we choose to send our soldiers into harms way it should be with the understanding that we will do all to insure they are victorious. IMO Afghanistan is not an example of cheek-turning. It’s an example of fighting without intent to win. See Moroni’s epistle to Pahoran.  

I think all who start a fight have some intention of winning.  Possible exceptions would be those who think they can profit somehow from losing, but even in their mind they would see that as a win of some sort.  Depends on what you think winning is, I suppose.

[pogi]

17 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

As I reflect on the many General Conference talks I listened to as a member, there are a handful that remain fresh in my mind, even today.  One of these talks was given by President Nelson in October of 2002.  It is entitled "Blessed are the Peacemakers" and was given just as the US was ratcheting up public discourse about invading Iraq.  One reason this talk resonated with me is because I was struggling with which side of the debate I was on.  My impression was that President Nelson gave this talk in response to the pro-war sentiment that had been growing since 9/11.

  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/blessed-are-the-peacemakers?lang=eng

And:

The tone of President Nelson's talk was a bit different from the talk given by President Hinckley in 2003: "War and Peace".  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2003/04/war-and-peace?lang=eng

At the time it seemed to me that President Nelson and President Hinckley were presenting slightly different views.  And IIRC, the Church released a statement affirming that both men were actually in full agreement.  I can't seem to find this statement but I think it is fair to say that some were left with the impression that President Hinckley was a bit more hawkish than President Nelson.  This discussion played out in Elder's quorum as well.  Pro-war folks quoted President Hinckley and anti-war folks offered up President Nelson.  

President Hinckley was trusting of our political leadership and stated:

And:

At the time I ultimately ended up on the pro-war side and was behind the Iraq invasion and occupation.  I deeply regret this now.  But I don't want to sound pollyanish. Sometimes defensive war is necessary.  I understand and accept this.  In any case, this raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Does anyone else remember President Nelson's talk?  If so, how did it impact you at the time?

2. Can a nation implement a Christian foreign policy in reality?  Can nations realistically "turn the other cheek?"  Or is it a simple fact that nation states will always be in some type of conflict and response to this conflict is always required.

Reflecting on the past 20 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see how wise and truly prophetic President Nelson's talk was.  

There is a tension in Christianity between the hawks and doves, each defending their position from Christian principles.   Within Mormonism, some look to Captain Moroni for inspiration and uphold the title of liberty in defense of war, while others are more inspired by the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who covenanted not to participate in war - while perhaps not being strictly pacifist as they did not object to their sons and the Nephites warring for them, they took a much more dovish approach as they buried their weapons and were willing to be murdered before taking up a sword themselves in defense. 

I think most Christians (minus the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Jehovah's Witness) agree that war can be justified.  The problem arises in that we are subject to governments and leaders who do not place Christ at the center of their foreign policy and may involve us in unjustified wars.  And while President Hinkley is right that these leaders have access to greater political and military intelligence, we should not trust that they will always be transparent with that intelligence, or will make righteous choices based on that intelligence.  Some may even falsify or give misleading intelligence to the American people in an effort to inspire war for unjust causes - potentially causing us to be blind minions of war lords in the guise of defense and liberty.  And without the ability to assess the intelligence that our government leaders have, how can we possibly make an informed decision about any particular war?  We are at the mercy of often corrupt men.  What is a Christian to do?  Can we be conscientious objectors without the ability to make an informed decision, and when our prophets are silent on the matter?

When it comes to one of the most dammingly consequential of all commandments - thou shalt not kill - it seems that this choice is largely made for us and we are left without much direction.  

It seems that in the days of old, prophets were much more vocal about their position (and the position of God) in regards to the righteous justification of any particular war.  In modern times, the prophets seem to be playing a much less involved role, leaving us without much direction in regards to the justification of any particular war.  Any ideas as to why?

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[rongo]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

It seems that in the days of old, prophets were much more vocal about their position (and the position of God) in regards to the righteous justification of any particular war.  In modern times, the prophets seem to be playing a much less involved role, leaving us without much direction in regards to the justification of any particular war.  Any ideas as to why?

Revelation by committee (councils), extreme risk-aversion, and buy-in with PR culture. This is true of a lot of things, not just war. The Church is exceedingly careful in saying anything about anything, and things are carefully scripted. 

[CV75]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is a tension in Christianity between the hawks and doves, each defending their position from Christian principles.   Within Mormonism, some look to Captain Moroni for inspiration and uphold the title of liberty in defense of war, while others are more inspired by the Anti-Nephi-Lehies who covenanted not to participate in war - while perhaps not being strictly pacifist as they did not object to their sons and the Nephites warring for them, they took a much more dovish approach as they buried their weapons and were willing to be murdered before taking up a sword themselves in defense. 

I think most Christians (minus the Anabaptists, Quakers, and Jehovah's Witness) agree that war can be justified.  The problem arises in that we are subject to governments and leaders who do not place Christ at the center of their foreign policy and may involve us in unjustified wars.  And while President Hinkley is right that these leaders have access to greater political and military intelligence, we should not trust that they will always be transparent with that intelligence, or will make righteous choices based on that intelligence.  Some may even falsify or give misleading intelligence to the American people in an effort to inspire war for unjust causes - potentially causing us to be blind minions of war lords in the guise of defense and liberty.  And without the ability to assess the intelligence that our government leaders have, how can we possibly make an informed decision about any particular war?  We are at the mercy of often corrupt men.  What is a Christian to do?  Can we be conscientious objectors without the ability to make an informed decision, and when our prophets are silent on the matter?

When it comes to one of the most dammingly consequential of all commandments - thou shalt not kill - it seems that this choice is largely made for us and we are left without much direction.  

It seems that in the days of old, prophets were much more vocal about their position (and the position of God) in regards to the righteous justification of any particular war.  In modern times, the prophets seem to be playing a much less involved role, leaving us without much direction in regards to the justification of any particular war.  Any ideas as to why?

 

RE: "Any ideas as to why?" One possibility is that the general membership has 191 years of practice with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, each generation benefits from the prior's practice, and more members with such practice are forming a larger community as time goes on.

[bOObOO]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

It seems that in the days of old, prophets were much more vocal about their position (and the position of God) in regards to the righteous justification of any particular war.  In modern times, the prophets seem to be playing a much less involved role, leaving us without much direction in regards to the justification of any particular war.  Any ideas as to why?

We are those prophets today.  Lehi and Nephi and King Benjamin and Mosiah and Alma etc were one among many prophets in their own time,  We don't have only President Nelson as a prophet in our own day.  We have 14 other men we sustain as prophets seers and revelators and when is the last time you heard nothing but silence from them?  And we also have us who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, too! 

Silence?  A much less involved role?  You were just saying something yourself too. Don't you believe you also speak and speak often with the spirit of prophecy God has given to you?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Interesting, I took his message as beneficial to the members of any nation, using the US war as a springboard for teaching these principles. But I would say definitely (even back then) that it is a worldwide Church, and God is not an American citizen.

My questions were rhetorical, not to be taken literally.  We can take the messages of the prophets as generic, or very specific and directed at some national policy of the moment.  One finds that distinction in interpretations of the words of Isaiah, for example.  Isaiah was indeed directing his immediate comments toward the policies of the Kingdom of Judah (and King Hezekiah), just as Jeremiah and Lehi were later directing their comments toward the policies of that same kingdom.  In the midst of all that, one can find generic lessons.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: "Any ideas as to why?" One possibility is that the general membership has 191 years of practice with the Gift of the Holy Ghost, each generation benefits from the prior's practice, and more members with such practice are forming a larger community as time goes on.

That is one possibility.  I personally don't trust that our generation is competent enough to where they no longer need direction from a prophet in such consequential matters.  Without access to good information and with the loud political noise and voices from every direction, many righteous and well intentioned members are often led astray.  Many of these members pray and seek personal revelation on matters, thinking that they have received divine direction, only to find out that they have been deceived and their inspiration was clouded by political and misleading noise - often leading to regret. 

While personal revelation is critical, we are not there as a people to no longer need the direction of a prophet (which we can then pray and receive personal revelation/conviction of).

Case in point:

Quote

PROVO — A Utah County woman was convinced her faith-based decision to keep her family of six unvaccinated was right, but that feeling didn't last long after her husband contracted a severe case of COVID-19. Now, he's fighting for his life in the hospital.

She prayed about it and said she went forward with her answer: The family would be fine without it.

"I do believe it's really hard to get an answer when the noise around you is so loud," she said.

And while she's been filled with regret, when they arrived at their first ICU in early July, she was mad.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50219844/utah-family-shares-regret-over-not-getting-covid-19-vaccine-because-of-fear-and-lies

5 days after this article was posted, the first presidency urged all members to get vaccinated.  That direction from the prophet and first presidency may have made all the difference in the world for this family.

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

38 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

We are those prophets today.  Lehi and Nephi and King Benjamin and Mosiah and Alma etc were one among many prophets in their own time,  We don't have only President Nelson as a prophet in our own day.  We have 14 other men we sustain as prophets seers and revelators and when is the last time you heard nothing but silence from them?  And we also have us who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, too! 

Silence?  A much less involved role?  You were just saying something yourself too. Don't you believe you also speak and speak often with the spirit of prophecy God has given to you?

I haven't heard anything from the apostles either in regard to the righteous justification of specific wars. 

Yes, we can receive personal revelation.  But we are not all prophets that have authority from God to receive revelation for the church as a whole.  See my post to CV75 as to why I think prophetic direction would be helpful.  Despite the ability to receive personal revelation, our generation is still in need of a guiding prophet.   I am just curious as to why they are not as guiding in modern days as in olden days, in regards to war.

 

Edited August 25, 2021 by pogi