Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy Met w/ Elder Cook (Not 1st Presidency) / Trib Speculations

[smac97]

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy did not meet with President Nelson or highest LDS leaders. Why not?

Quote

Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy did not meet with President Nelson or highest LDS leaders. Why not?
He huddled instead with apostle Quentin Cook. The move may reflect the faith’s desire to avoid taking sides in Ukraine’s war with Russia.

The Church has more than 5,000 members in Russia (3 stakes, 7 districts, 14 wards, 43 branches), five missions, and one (announced) temple.

Quote

Most heads of state who stop in Utah take an obligatory meeting with top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was no different.

But the courageous leader of a war-ravaged nation didn’t sit down Friday with the church’s prophet-president, 99-year-old Russell M. Nelson, or either of his two counselors, Dallin H. Oaks and Henry B. Eyring, in the governing First Presidency. Even though all three Latter-day Saint leaders are in their 90s, they often meet with visiting dignitaries.

Instead, Zelenskyy had a private exchange with a church delegation led by apostle Quentin L. Cook, spokesperson Irene Caso said in an email. “They discussed the church’s presence in Ukraine and humanitarian assistance throughout the region.”

While certainly a high-level church authority, Cook is in the second tier of leadership, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which ranks beneath the First Presidency.

I am curious how often members of the Q12 represent the Church in meetings with political figures, particularly international ones.

Quote

For his part, the Ukrainian president welcomed his audience with the church representatives and the chance to share his country’s plight.

“I spoke about the spiritual toll that Russian terror has had on Ukraine and Ukrainians, specifically the 170 ruined and hundreds of damaged religious organizations,” Zelenskyy wrote later on X, formerly called Twitter. “I was pleased to learn from Elder Quentin L. Cook that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been conducting its humanitarian activities in Ukraine since 1994. And on July 8th, its volunteers also assisted the victims of the Russian strike on Okhmatdyt Children’s Hospital. I am grateful to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members for their active volunteer efforts, humanitarian assistance, and prayers.”

We've likely not been on Mr. Zelenskyy's radar.

Quote

The Zelenskyy-Cook meeting may be further evidence that the Utah-based faith, with 17.2 million members around the world, is striving to steer clear of global politics.

Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the church issued what some observers saw as a weak statement, lamenting the bloodshed and pleading for a speedy peace without naming either warring nation.

"Some observers..."

The Church is a global organization, headquartered in the United States.  I think it is appropriate that the Church not been seen as aligned with the United States in a political sense, and that it seeks to generally remain neutral in that sphere (though this can be difficult, since "politics" has tendrils spread into essentially every facet of modern life).

Quote

Of course, one reason for the guarded comments may have been that thousands of Latter-day Saints can be found in Russia and Ukraine. The February 2022 news release even noted that the church “has members in each of the affected areas.”

Well, yes.  The Church ought to be concerned about the welfare of the Russian Saints, particularly given the Church's difficult tenure in that country and Mr. Putin's proclivities.

Quote

Another clue came a year later, when the church amended its long-standing statement on political neutrality.

“The church does not seek to elect government officials, support or oppose political parties, or, generally, take sides in global conflicts,” the guidelines state. It is “neutral in matters of politics within or between the world’s many nations, lands and peoples.”

That means the faith does not “typically issue statements regarding disputes in or between nations, lands or peoples; rather, it teaches the gospel of Jesus Christ, with the knowledge that living these principles limits contention and hostilities.”

I had not noticed this amendment.

Quote

At the same time, the church does “provide humanitarian assistance around the world, including areas of international conflict,” the new neutrality statement explained. “While political strife may be a factor in causing the need for assistance, the church will generally not comment on the conflict itself.”

That likely means members of the First Presidency will continue to be cautious about how much to publicly support presidents and prime ministers who knock on their door — no matter how worthy their cause seems to be.

The Church will generally seek to remain politically neutral, yes.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

Not exactly on topic but I'm listening to "A Full Life" by Jimmy Carter and it made me think that it would be cool if the church did President Zelenskyy's genealogy like they did for President Carter, he loved it while speaking about it in the book. 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not exactly on topic but I'm listening to "A Full Life" by Jimmy Carter and it made me think that it would be cool if the church did President Zelenskyy's genealogy like they did for President Carter, he loved it while speaking about it in the book. 

They probably did. It used to be routine. I assume it still is.

[The Nehor]

He primarily came to address the National Governor’s association. Visiting Church leaders was a side visit.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Elder Cook seems to be the point man for the First Prez. on things.

[rpn]

The Church has deliberately kept a very low profile on Ukraine. And should for a whole lot of reasons.   When I read the first article about it yesterday I wondered to myself if the Trib was going to avoid making itself part of the story.   Seems to me though that Elder Cook has been the head person on the  issue since the beginning and is the correct person to have had the most recent interaction.   He was likely intentionally chosen from the beginning because he wasn't so high up in the hierarchy.

Edited July 13, 2024 by rpn

[blackstrap]

The early days of the Church provided ample reasons to remain politically neutral. We learn by experience. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, rpn said:

The Church has deliberately kept a very low profile on Ukraine. And should for a whole lot of reasons.   When I read the first article about it yesterday I wondered to myself if the Trib was going to avoid making itself part of the story.   Seems to me though that Elder Cook has been the head person on the  issue since the beginning and is the correct person to have had the most recent interaction.   He was likely intentionally chosen from the beginning because he wasn't so high up in the hierarchy.

I suspect the Church leadership favors Ukraine privately because liberal democracies and nations moving towards that state are more likely to allow religious freedom and let missionaries in. Saying it publicly though risks retaliation against church members in Russia.

 

Oh boy. Turn on the news if you haven’t seen this yet.

[LoudmouthMormon]

If we convert enough people on earth, (or even enough of the right people), there won't be any more global conflicts upon which to take sides. 

[Kenngo1969]

A great reason—another great reason—to remain neutral politically is because eventually, all of us will be subject (whether we humble ourselves or whether we are compelled to be humble) to Christ.  A few months ago, on another forum I frequent, someone asked me (in Spanish, ironically) whether Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat when He returns.  Neither, I answered.  He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, what He says will go, and likely, it will offend people of all political stripes.[1]

________________-

END NOTE

1. Would it put too fine of a point on what the real problem of those who are offended is if President Benson's address, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," were retitled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Savior"?  

[Dario_M]

I wanna meet president Jeffrey R Holland. 

Edited July 15, 2024 by Dario_M

[The Nehor]

On 7/14/2024 at 7:25 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

If we convert enough people on earth, (or even enough of the right people), there won't be any more global conflicts upon which to take sides. 

Historically this hasn’t worked that well with pretty much any religion.

On 7/15/2024 at 7:53 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

A great reason—another great reason—to remain neutral politically is because eventually, all of us will be subject (whether we humble ourselves or whether we are compelled to be humble) to Christ.  A few months ago, on another forum I frequent, someone asked me (in Spanish, ironically) whether Jesus would be a Republican or a Democrat when He returns.  Neither, I answered.  He will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, what He says will go, and likely, it will offend people of all political stripes.[1]

________________-

END NOTE

1. Would it put too fine of a point on what the real problem of those who are offended is if President Benson's address, "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," were retitled "Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Savior"?  

That is not a good reason imo. That is just saying we should be neutral to avoid being wrong about anything. It also assumes that the government God will set up in the Millenium would somehow also be the ideal for our current state which seems doubtful.

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

... That [eventually, all of us will be subject to Christ] is not a good reason [for the Church of Jesus Christ to remain neutral politically] imo. That is just saying we should be neutral to avoid being wrong about anything. It also assumes that the government God will set up in the Millenium would somehow also be the ideal for our current state which seems doubtful.

I don't have any idea what you are trying to say here, or why you have taken issue with what I have written.  You're welcome to your disagreement and to your apparent misunderstanding of what I have written.  I will leave you to them. I did not originate the idea that eventually, all will be subject to Christ, so if you take issue with it, you will have to take it up with those who did originate it.  See Philippians 2:9-11, Isaiah 45:23, Romans 14:11.

Edited July 17, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[Stargazer]

Topical to this is this recent post to Ward Radio on YouTube:

 

[Dario_M]

I don't know any of those people.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I don't know any of those people.

Probably not a bad thing.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Probably not a bad thing.

Hahahaha.