Thoughts on the Church's Response to Ukraine Conflict

[smac97]

On February 25, 2022 the Church published the following statement, which is pretty clearly responsive to the conflict in the Ukraine (even though it does not specifically mention the names of the countries) :

Quote

The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has issued the following statement:

We are heartbroken and deeply concerned by the armed conflict now raging. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has members in each of the affected areas and throughout the world. Our minds and hearts have been turned toward them and all our brothers and sisters.

We continue to pray for peace. We know that enduring peace can be found through Jesus Christ. He can calm and comfort our souls even in the midst of terrible conflicts. He taught us to love God and our neighbors.

We pray that this armed conflict will end quickly, that the controversies will end peacefully and that peace will prevail among nations and within our own hearts. We plead with world leaders to seek for such resolutions and peace.

The First Presidency

I thought I saw a Patrick Mason commenting on Facebook that this response was unacceptable or insufficient.  I can't find it (it was a comment about someone else's post, and I don't know how to look for those, and I don't know if it was the Patrick Mason either).

A friend from law school posted this on Facebook:

And then he commented:

Quote

Your prayers don't have to be neutral or play "both sides-ism" -- pray that Russia will lose and that Ukraine will be free and sovereign.

This is fine for individual members of the Church, but what are your thoughts as to the Church as an institution?  Do you think it should specifically side with the Ukraine and condemn Russia's invasion?  Or is the Church's global presence such that praying for the end to "this armed conflict ... quickly"  is more appropriate?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2022 by smac97

[juliann]

It isn't "armed conflict" it's an invasion. It's theft. It's murder. It's rape. It's infanticide. I'm having a hard time imagining this kind of response if Utah was being bombed into rubble. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

It isn't "armed conflict" it's an invasion. It's theft. It's murder. It's rape. It's infanticide.

The Ukraine and Russia are fighting each other.  "Armed conflict" is an apt, objective description.

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I'm having a hard time imagining this kind of response if Utah was being bombed into rubble. 

That's an interesting question.  Would the Church be as clinical?  As objective?  Or would it use more emotive descriptors?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nacho2dope]

This was Patrick's response on Twitter.
 

[Nacho2dope]

The response of the church seems to be in line with pasts responses:
 

The Church Responds to War

Japan launched an attack against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on 7 December 1941. When the United States responded the following day by declaring war on Japan and then on Germany, many Latter-day Saints became directly involved in the hostilities. Once again the Saints had to examine their feelings about war. They were guided by the Book of Mormon’s teachings which denounced offensive war but condoned fighting “even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary” in defense of home, country, freedom, or religion (Alma 48:14; see also 43:45–47). In their annual Christmas message, issued less than a week after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the First Presidency stated that only through living the gospel of Jesus Christ would enduring peace come to the world. Echoing the counsel given by President Joseph F. Smith at the outbreak of World War I, the Presidency exhorted members in the armed forces to keep “all cruelty, hate, and murder” out of their hearts even during battle.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times/chapter-forty?lang=eng#note11

 

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

On February 25, 2022 the Church published the following statement, which is pretty clearly responsive to the conflict in the Ukraine (even though it does not specifically mention the names of the countries) :

I thought I saw a Patrick Mason commenting on Facebook that this response was unacceptable or insufficient.  I can't find it (it was a comment about someone else's post, and I don't know how to look for those, and I don't know if it was the Patrick Mason either).

A friend from law school posted this on Facebook:

And then he commented:

This is fine for individual members of the Church, but what are your thoughts as to the Church as an institution?  Do you think it should specifically side with the Ukraine and condemn Russia's invasion?  Or is the Church's global presence such that praying for the end to "this armed conflict ... quickly"  is more appropriate?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Russian people do not appear to be at fault in this conflict--as it sounds like most of the soldiers are there against their will or did not know they would be invading.  And Russian members are probably losing children/parents/family members too.  And they will suffer from the sanctions as well, also without most russians having any way to impact what their country is doing.

Yes, Russia is in the wrong and Ukraine needs to be liberated and kept free, but from a church point of view, with members in both countries who are suffering (not to the same extent) and both are important to the church.  Given that, I think that the church's statement is likely as partisan as it can be.  Especially since it has a presence in Russia and is trying to build a temple in siberia and probably doesn't want to be kicked out completely.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

A friend from law school posted this on Facebook:

 

-Smac

 I don't really understand this sentiment.  Does she think that if we don't pray for Ukraine to win that God will be confused and accidentally cause the wrong outcome?

[CA Steve]

"Armed conflict" is as objective a description of a war between Russia and Ukraine as "boxing match" would be of a fight between Muhammad Ali and Peewee Herman.

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 I don't really understand this sentiment.  Does she think that if we don't pray for Ukraine to win that God will be confused and accidentally cause the wrong outcome?

I think "peace" - the cessation of the armed conflict - wrought by Russia taking over the Ukraine - is not what the Ukrainians want.

"Peace" by surrendering to tyranny, to what may well become an in-slow-motion "genocide," is not what the Ukrainians want.  

With "peace" there must also be freedom and sovereignty.  I think that is her point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2022 by smac97

[JustAnAustralian]

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

[Calm]

Knowing how the Church is looked at in Russia by many, I highly doubt their condemnation would have influenced anything, but persecution of the Saints there, who are a part of their stewardship.  I suspect concern for them was the greater part of what determine how strongly worded a statement would be.  The Church is quite practical and compassionate and thinking of all victims, which includes a good portion of the Russian people.  
 

The invasion is a crime against the Ukraine and their own people.  I hope the Russian leadership and those who enabled them have a particularly intense, extended, and painful session of learning to accept accountability for their selfishness (I always feel guilty about hoping someone doesn’t repent too early on in their time in Hell/Spirit Prison***) but this time the guilt is pretty minimal).

Let’s not forget the even more practical side of responding by the Church, something that has a much bigger impact imo than a published statement…

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-helping-europe-refugees

Quote

Many are asking how The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been helping with the developing humanitarian crisis resulting from the current armed conflict. From the earliest hours, the Church began contacting friends and collaborating organizations in the region to assess needs and purchase food and other necessities.

Through decades of experience in providing assistance during natural disasters, refugee crises and other humanitarian conditions, we have developed a tested and proven model for identifying needs and providing assistance. This model includes empowering local leaders to use the Church’s financial resources to purchase goods and services in the local economy to provide what is truly needed.

Following this pattern, the Europe Area Presidency is working with the Church headquarters teams to identify and address needs. Relief supplies — including sleeping bags, cots and tents — are being delivered to local government agencies, the Red Cross and other NGOs who are attending to Ukrainian refugees arriving in bordering countries. Additional aid is being organized. Church members and friends have also been invited to fast and pray for those so deeply impacted. More will be shared about their efforts in the coming days and weeks.

Church members around the world have inquired about how to help or contribute. We invite them to do so through the Church’s Humanitarian Aid Fund, which will be used to address this and other crises.

 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Nacho2dope said:

This was Patrick's response on Twitter.
 

The Church also doesn't involve itself in political debates about elective abortion, either.  Even though that issue, per the doctrines of the Church, has "a clear right and wrong side."

And Mason sort of undermines himself in acknowledging the difficulty the Church faces in being "an international organization."  Given that difficulty, surely there is a judgment call to be made about public statements from the Church.

The Church has called for peace.  That is appropriate.  Could it have publicly spoken against Russia and in favor of the Ukraine?  Yes.  Ought it do this?  Well...

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think "peace" - the cessation of the armed conflict - wrought by Russia taking over the Ukraine is not what the Ukrainians want.

"Peace" by surrendering to tyranny, to what may well become a "genocide," is not what the Ukrainians want.  

With "peace" there must also be freedom and sovereignty.  I think that is her point.

Thanks,

-Smac

I get her point about not wanting peace. 

What I don't get is her point about the importance of not praying for peace, as if God will get the answer wrong if we don't word our prayer correctly.  Do we/people believe that God is hemmed in by the words that we choose to use? Or that we can sincerely but incorrectly pray for the wrong thing and accidentally cause it to happen?

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

My thinking as well.  The statement doesn't have any power to help the Ukrainians no matter how it is worded, but worded the wrong way it could harm the Russian Saints.

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And they will suffer from the sanctions as well, also without most russians having any way to impact what their country is doing.

Yes, it will be the masses of Russians suffering yet again for the power/money hungry games of their sickeningly corrupt leadership.  That country has been cursed for centuries.

The Russian leadership will not be the ones actually suffering from the sanctions, physically at least.  They have always been very capable of protecting themselves from discomfort.  Perhaps if the sanctions lead to them falling out of favor and they end up somewhere beyond being confined to their villa.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

 

I think "peace" - the cessation of the armed conflict - wrought by Russia taking over the Ukraine is not what the Ukrainians want.

"Peace" by surrendering to tyranny, to what may well become a "genocide," is not what the Ukrainians want.  

With "peace" there must also be freedom and sovereignty.  I think that is her point.

 

I get her point about not wanting peace. 

What I don't get is her point about the importance of not praying for peace, as if God will get the answer wrong if we don't word our prayer correctly. 

I suspect she believes God will catch her drift, but that "peace at all costs"-type folks will not.

From a very mediocre 1995 movie, First Knight, comes one brilliant scene involving King Arthur when menaced by a tyrant who ostensibly sought "peace" through abdication:

Malagant: So, is Lionesse to come under Camelot's protection?
Arthur: Is Lionesse in need of protection?
Malagant: Come, Arthur.  I'm here to settle this business.  We both know Lionesse is too weak to stand alone.  Let's say, half each. The lesser gives way to the greater.  What nation is greater than Camelot?  Land of justice, the hope of mankind.  Come, your hand on it. We'll all live together as friends.
Arthur {declining}: You offer me what isn't yours to give.
Malagant {looking around at the other knights at the Round Table}: You all know me.  You know I'm a man of my word.  Don't make an enemy of me.  I mean no harm to Camelot.
Arthur: You know the law we live by.  And where is it written, "Beyond Camelot, live lesser people, too weak to protect themselves.  Let them die," hmm?
Malagant: Other people live by other laws, Arthur.  Or is the law of Camelot to rule the world?
Arthur: There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true is right and good and true for all mankind under God... or we're just another robber tribe.
Malagant {angry}: Your fine words are talking you out of peace...and into war.
Arthur: There's a peace only to be found the other side of war.  If that battle must come, I will fight it!
Other Knights: -And I!  -And I!  And I!
 

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do we/people believe that God is hemmed in by the words that we choose to use? Or that we can sincerely but incorrectly pray for the wrong thing and accidentally cause it to happen?

I suspect she was hoping to persuade people to her point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2022 by smac97

[juliann]

30 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

This is very true. 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

A solid point.

I wonder if Patrick Mason considered it.  I think he probably did not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

My nephew was branch president in Montenegro for a year (Adriatic North Mission). The Church doesn't put signs on the branch buildings in most of Serbia, because of encouraged physical persecution by the Orthodox Church. The Church definitely doesn't need to get into statements that pick sides on this and many other geopolitical issues. Especially when, as has been noted, the statements won't have any effect other than pretext for further persecution. Keeping your head down when it's wise to do so isn't cowardice. 

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect she believes God will catch her drift, but that "peace at all costs"-type folks will not.

From a very mediocre 1995 movie, First Knight, comes one brilliant scene involving King Arthur when menaced by a tyrant who ostensibly sought "peace" through abdication:

Malagant: So, is Lionesse to come under Camelot's protection?
Arthur: Is Lionesse in need of protection?
Malagant: Come, Arthur.  I'm here to settle this business.  We both know Lionesse is too weak to stand alone.  Let's say, half each. The lesser gives way to the greater.  What nation is greater than Camelot?  Land of justice, the hope of mankind.  Come, your hand on it. We'll all live together as friends.
Arthur {declining}: You offer me what isn't yours to give.
Malagant {looking around at the other knights at the Round Table}: You all know me.  You know I'm a man of my word.  Don't make an enemy of me.  I mean no harm to Camelot.
Arthur: You know the law we live by.  And where is it written, "Beyond Camelot, live lesser people, too weak to protect themselves.  Let them die," hmm?
Malagant: Other people live by other laws, Arthur.  Or is the law of Camelot to rule the world?
Arthur: There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. Either what we hold to be right and good and true is right and good and true for all mankind under God... or we're just another robber tribe.
Malagant {angry}: Your fine words are talking you out of peace...and into war.
Arthur: There's a peace only to be found the other side of war.  If that battle must come, I will fight it!
Other Knights: -And I!  -And I!  And I!
 

I suspect she was hoping to persuade people to her point of view.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps.  I guess I just don't see the point.  Whether or not the common people agree with her perspective impacts absolutely nothing.  I can see making the point (and I agree with her) but I don't see any reason to connect it to prayer.  

It's the pragmatist in me I think, that is struggling to see a relevant reason for the tweet (or whatever it was).

[CA Steve]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The statement doesn't have any power to help the Ukrainians no matter how it is worded, but worded the wrong way it could harm the Russian Saints.

I disagree. If the prophets words have no impact on world wide opinions then what does that say about our influence throughout the world? Coming out against this aggression would add to the outcry against Putin and hopefully do more good for the Ukrainians than it threatens Russian Mormons.

I get that it may endanger the saints in Russia and since I know no one there it is easy for me to wish we would take a much harder line against this invasion. Honest question, should the church mute what it says based on the possibility bad guys somewhere might harm members or even our future prospects in the area in question, especially in an event of such global impact like this one?

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is fine for individual members of the Church, but what are your thoughts as to the Church as an institution?  Do you think it should specifically side with the Ukraine and condemn Russia's invasion?  Or is the Church's global presence such that praying for the end to "this armed conflict ... quickly"  is more appropriate?

Yes the church should side with Ukraine.  Call it out. Evil is evil. Aggression is aggression. The Pope is not being timid about this. This was milk toast. Stand for something. If I recall there was a prophet a few years ago that used to say that.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The Ukraine and Russia are fighting each other.  "Armed conflict" is an apt, objective description.

The people of Ukraine are fighting because they were invaded.  By an aggressor. That has a much larger army. Armed conflict is being mealy mouthed.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Perhaps.  I guess I just don't see the point.  Whether or not the common people agree with her perspective impacts absolutely nothing. 

"The common people" vote, and politicians of various nations with some semblance of democratic governance are answerable to their respective constituencies.

It makes sense for people, when communicating about this, be clear about the terms on which they think "peace" can and ought to be reached.

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see making the point (and I agree with her) but I don't see any reason to connect it to prayer.  

Perhaps it was a rhetorical flourish, along the lines of the purported Oliver Cromwell quote, "Trust in God and keep your powder dry" or St. Ignatius' "Pray as though everything depended on God; act as though everything depended on you."

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's the pragmatist in me I think, that is struggling to see a relevant reason for the tweet (or whatever it was).

I think she is rebutting (or preempting) any notion that peace-through-surrender-to-Russia is, or ought to be, an option for the Ukrainians.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 4, 2022 by smac97

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes the church should side with Ukraine.  Call it out. Evil is evil. Aggression is aggression. The Pope is not being timid about this. This was milk toast. Stand for something. If I recall there was a prophet a few years ago that used to say that.

What are your thoughts about JustanAustralian's comment?

Quote

The church (as with all other non Russian orthodox churches) are already limited by counter terrorism laws in Russia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarovaya_law (this is why we started calling the missionaries there volunteers). The church in Russia is also relatively small. All I see a direct criticism of Russia doing is making life even more dangerous for church members in Russia.

Thanks,

-Smac