Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 8002
Location: Pf, Texas

Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by ajax »

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1509 ... tml?pg=all" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Back in the 1840s, when Mormons were being persecuted in the Midwest, a battalion of about 500 of them volunteered for a long, overland march to serve in the war with Mexico.

Some died on the way, and by the time they reached their post in San Diego, the war was ending, but their readiness to serve, despite persecution, exemplified a hallmark of their church - duty to country."Our church has always taught members to obey the nation," says President Thomas S. Monson, one of the three-man First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"In time of war or stress, we have no hesitancy in following the flag," he added in an interview. "You won't find any more patriotic group."

While the leadership of Roman

Catholic and most mainline Protestant churches supported sanctions instead of arms to oust Iraq from invaded Kuwait, Mormon leaders backed the U.S.-led course.

"Once the United Nations took its action and President Bush took his stand, we were behind our leader," President Monson said, noting that Congress also ratified the U.N. action. "That's all that was needed."

"Interestingly, in our church, it is assumed and understood that when the leadership of our nation lines up behind a particular policy in a crisis, we support and sustain it," he said.

The patriotic streak is a characteristic trait of Mormons, linked to their U.S. origins, perhaps to counter their early vilified history. It is also based on church teachings and disciplines, which advise putting service ahead of self-interest.

President Monson, a forthright, amiable man of 6-foot-3 with the air of a confident businessman - which he once was - discussed that dutiful quality on a visit here from church headquarters in Salt Lake City.

"We're not just sheep that are going to roll over," he said. "Each individual makes decisions for himself." But an article of the church's faith concerns being subject to governing rulers and honoring the law.

"When the nation needs us, we respond," he said, noting that there are about 35,000 Mormons in the U.S. armed forces, 5,400 of them in Saudi Arabia. "They don the uniform and fight for freedom and our American heritage."

That disposition has typified Mormons throughout the U.S. wars of this century, including the Korean and Vietnam wars, which were widely opposed in many churches, but not officially by Mormons.

During those sometimes controversial wars, when many young men found refuge from the military by entering seminaries, Mormons cut mission service for young men so they could answer the draft.

"You rarely find any Latter-day Saints in the role of conscientious objector," President Monson said. "We don't believe in marches and protests and carrying placards."

He said the church encourages "grass-roots involvement" in democratic processes, but holds that needed changes can be brought about by working through the established system.

He said the tendency is connected with the church's emphasis on family, community, pride in heritage and the American legacy and also with certain church teachings, such as to be "loyal to the royal in you."

Doing that makes for being "loyal all the way," he said. "If there's no disloyalty in the person, then no disloyalty in country. From childhood on, we're instilled to be loyal."

Another church teaching urges every person to "learn his duty" and carry it out "with all diligence." Distinctively, church disciplines provide that mature members can be summoned from their lay professions to full-time church posts for three-year terms.

"You have to be careful what you ask a Mormon to do, he'll do it," President Monson chuckled. "They love the church and love the Lord."

Begun in 1830, the mission-minded church has grown to 4 million in this country, 7.6 million worldwide. It suffered harsh persecutions at the outset, pushing its people westward, eventually planting its center in Utah.

But even in that early period, volunteers turned out to serve the country although "if anything, they ought to have been angry," President Monson observed.

"We don't believe in people following blindly," he said. "They weigh things out . . . They're not just `yes men,' puppets on a string. They have free agency, accountable for their own actions, the right to choose."

But they're also instilled with the obligation to serve common interests beyond their own. If a person questions a national course, "he can serve in some capacity that will suit his conscience and country together," President Monson said.

His lay profession was in the printing-publishing industry along with gradually enlarging church assignments, from leading a big congregation to heading the church's mission in Ontario and Quebec, later serving as president and board chairman of the church-owned Salt Lake daily newspaper, the Deseret News.

Made a member of the church's Council of 12 Apostles in 1963, he became part of the church's three-man First Presidency in 1985 as one of two counselors to President Ezra Taft Benson, now 91, with President Gordon B. Hinckley, 80.
Hmmm.... :-?

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Vision »

And the Savior taught,

38 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt alove thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

HMMMM IS RIGHT.
Last edited by Vision on May 28th, 2013, 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Fairminded »

This was a truly disheartening read. It's hard to argue against the fact that the Gospel preaches one thing and the Church advocates another.

dman
captain of 100
Posts: 116

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by dman »

We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates......

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Fiannan »

Thomas Monson was giving his opinion, nothing more. In fact if you compare talks from actual prophets including Spencer W. Kimball and Ezra Taft Benson you would find that the more controversial parts of Monson's claims are dealth with.

By "actual" I mean who gave their opinions while called.

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by AussieOi »

Yep, opinion of patriotic old men.

We've had this discussion 10,000 times before, mostly over the church support for Iraq war and pres Hinckleys support for that, and how that contradicts d&c 98 , which is how war is meant to be participated in
their opinions

VERY wrong
very unchristian.
sad. You'd think they know better, being schooled by leaders very much against wars.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10430
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by marc »

dman wrote:We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates......
Yes, but not iniquitous ones. Abinadi wasn't sent to King Noah to sell Avon. King Benjamin teaches how to be a proper ruler and king. And his son, King Mosiah, when rearranging the affairs of the kingdom, said wisely:
12 Now it is better that a man should be judged of God than of man, for the judgments of God are always just, but the judgments of man are not always just.

13 Therefore, if it were possible that you could have just men to be your kings, who would establish the laws of God, and judge this people according to his commandments, yea, if ye could have men for your kings who would do even as my father Benjamin did for this people—I say unto you, if this could always be the case then it would be expedient that ye should always have kings to rule over you.

14 And even I myself have labored with all the power and faculties which I have possessed, to teach you the commandments of God, and to establish peace throughout the land, that there should be no wars nor contentions, no stealing, nor plundering, nor murdering, nor any manner of iniquity;

15 And whosoever has committed iniquity, him have I punished according to the crime which he has committed, according to the law which has been given to us by our fathers.

16 Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you.

17 For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction!

18 Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage.

19 And were it not for the interposition of their all-wise Creator, and this because of their sincere repentance, they must unavoidably remain in bondage until now.

20 But behold, he did deliver them because they did humble themselves before him; and because they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage; and thus doth the Lord work with his power in all cases among the children of men, extending the arm of mercy towards them that put their trust in him.

21 And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood.

22 For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God;

23 And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness.
And we see all sorts of abominations today because of iniquitous leaders!

User avatar
BMC
captain of 100
Posts: 458
Location: The tent of my Fathers
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by BMC »

dman wrote:We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates......
Most do not understand the grammar of the 12th Article of Faith. It is one complete sentence, and not two clauses. It has no coordinating conjunction, like the word And. Most when reading it will add words that are not there that change its meaning entirely.

Original:
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One sentence, one thought, no coordinating conjunction whatsoever and not two clauses, one independent thought. Often people read it and understand it wrong, much like this:

12 (1) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, (2) "and" in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

The real meaning and correct way to understanding the 12 Article of Faith, is that we only believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates SO LONG AS THEY obey, honor and sustain the law. Because it is a complete sentence and one thought this it what it means. When the Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates break the law, and or pass laws or whose actions go against the law or is contrary to the teachings of God, we no longer believe in being subject to them. We are not obligated to obey corruption. Lets, take a step back with the traditional thought of how the 12th Article of Faith is understood. In Hitlers Germany, would you obey Hitler and kill innocent Jews. This should be indication enough that the typical way the 12th A of F as understood today is simply wrong, and people need to have a better understanding and command of our English language to know what something really means.

nvr
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1112

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by nvr »

Most do not understand the grammar of the 12th Article of Faith. It is one complete sentence, and not two clauses. It has no coordinating conjunction, like the word And. Most when reading it will add words that are not there that change its meaning entirely.

Original:
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One sentence, one thought, no coordinating conjunction whatsoever and not two clauses, one independent thought. Often people read it and understand it wrong, much like this:

12 (1) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, (2) "and" in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

The real meaning and correct way to understanding the 12 Article of Faith, is that we only believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates SO LONG AS THEY obey, honor and sustain the law. Because it is a complete sentence and one thought this it what it means. When the Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates break the law, and or pass laws or whose actions go against the law or is contrary to the teachings of God, we no longer believe in being subject to them. We are not obligated to obey corruption. Lets, take a step back with the traditional thought of how the 12th Article of Faith is understood. In Hitlers Germany, would you obey Hitler and kill innocent Jews. This should be indication enough that the typical way the 12th A of F as understood today is simply wrong, and people need to have a better understanding and command of our English language to know what something really means.
Interesting - When did this start to be interpreted as a directive to follow in lockstep any and all passed laws? The second interpretation is what I had always assumed was the meaning.The concept had always been a bit troubling for me.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10430
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by marc »

"We" includes kings, presidents, rulers, AND magistrates. How is it troubling?

User avatar
BMC
captain of 100
Posts: 458
Location: The tent of my Fathers
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by BMC »

nvr wrote: Interesting - When did this start to be interpreted as a directive to follow in lockstep any and all passed laws? The second interpretation is what I had always assumed was the meaning.The concept had always been a bit troubling for me.
I am sure it happened by and by, only because it has been taught wrong and understood wrong for so long. It has become our traditional way of thinking and understanding. Certainly this is how it is understood by most today, even me for a time and like you it never sat well with me and did not feel right.

Last year, I really began to start taking notice of words and their true meaning. It was only then did I truly begin to understand other things as well, what is really being taught. For example, like the law of tithing and the word "surplus", looking up not only in Blacks Law dictionary 1st edition but the dictionary of that day, Noah Webster 1828 edition to understand what those words meant when they were used and not our current understanding of those words today. Meanings of words have changed overtime...

I believe the correct way to view the 12th A of F, is that we believe in being subject to their laws so long as they obey the law. This sits well with me, and is a grammatically correct interpretation of its meaning.

User avatar
marc
Disciple of Jesus Christ
Posts: 10430
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by marc »

And it falls right in line with King Benjamin's and King Mosiah's addresses.

User avatar
BMC
captain of 100
Posts: 458
Location: The tent of my Fathers
Contact:

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by BMC »

coachmarc wrote:And it falls right in line with King Benjamin's and King Mosiah's addresses.
Yes sir! Sure does and thanks for posting the scripture.

jo1952
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1699

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by jo1952 »

Some thoughts to ponder: God has never wanted to place kings over His children. He knows how easily we can be subjected to unrighteous dominion under kings. We can see both in the OT and in the BoM that the people WANTED to live under the direction of a king. So God gave them kings; albeit reluctantly. We can also see the differences of what happens to the people when they have a righteous man who is their king, versus what happens to the people when they have an unrighteous man as their king. All rules and laws, no matter their source, place us in some type of bondage.

The children of Israel were so used to being in bondage, that they did not know how to experience their freedom. So what happened? They kept coming to Moses to tell them what to do. There is wisdom in understanding that this is where the Law of Moses came from; i.e., the people's desires to have laws so that they could know how to conduct themselves because their physical freedom was not comprehended by them.

Not much has changed since then. Jesus Christ removed us from our bondage to sin; i.e. the Law. He showed us physically so that the children of Israel could have something to compare with to help them see what they needed to understand spiritually; and thus, be freed from the bondage of sin which keeps our spirits bound to the earth where physical death keeps us. What IS the Gospel message in its simplest and purist form? That Christ died and rose again from the dead. That He LIVES. His spirit overcame the bondage to all of the laws that mankind is bound by! He thus fulfilled the Law AND the Prophets.

What has happened since that time? We find that we are still in bondage to the sin He overcame. Why? Because we do not know how to experience our freedom from sin. So sin still binds us. We can't see this freedom; even though we have it! Christ paid the price to have those bonds removed from our spiritual eyes and ears. But we can't see it. God is still faithfully giving us what we want; just as He did in the days of Moses. He did it again through the auspices of what became orthodox Christianity after Christ's Ascension. The leaders of the Christian church were happy to reach for power and dominion over the believers. It wasn't long before they held unrighteous dominion over the spirits of the believers. The believers have loved and hungered being led in this way.

Father once more turned to using the method of a Holy Prophet of God by giving Joseph Smith the responsibility to Restore the True Gospel message to the world. For awhile, those who heard the Restored message were freed from their spiritual bondage to the laws. They freed themselves from the bondage of sin. THAT is why we saw miracles follow them. The bonds disappeared; and the manifestations of the Spirit were again accessed as they were in the ancient church. But a constant string of Prophets is not necessary. Christ already fulfilled not only the Law; Christ also fulfilled the Prophets!

Today members of ALL churches are still in the mode of desiring to have a "spiritual" leader lead them. Instead of allowing God to lead them by the member of the Godhead whom He sent to do that leading on a direct one-on-one basis, we place our hands and, literally, our spirits under the dominion of mankind. There are plenty of mankind who happily accept the power this gives them. Once more, we are getting what we want. Rather than going directly to God to be led, we WANT and HUNGER for the leadership of men. So, once again, THAT is what Father is giving us. In the case of the LDS Church, the people specifically want and crave to be led by a "prophet".

Some of us can see that these men are men of the world and are not men of God. They may be inspired men; but all of us can be inspired by the influence of the Holy Spirit. It is up to the individual believer to seek FIRST the kingdom of God so that we can get out of spiritual bondage to sin.

When we desire to have someone else lead us, that is what we get. It places us under someone else's dominion. We have forgotten our first love. Our love for God and our commitment to God which is manifested by the covenant we make through baptism by water was a promise to seek God FIRST! NOW we are seeking to be led by prophets as our intermediary between ourselves and the the Holy Spirit; forgetting our first love. Because we do not personally learn to experience freedom from the bondage to sin which price Jesus Christ has already paid, we ask God to send us others to do this for us. And that is what God gives us.

Shalom,

jo

User avatar
Fairminded
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1956

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Fairminded »

BMC wrote:
dman wrote:We believe in being subject to kings, Presidents, rulers and magistrates......
Most do not understand the grammar of the 12th Article of Faith. It is one complete sentence, and not two clauses. It has no coordinating conjunction, like the word And. Most when reading it will add words that are not there that change its meaning entirely.

Original:
12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

One sentence, one thought, no coordinating conjunction whatsoever and not two clauses, one independent thought. Often people read it and understand it wrong, much like this:

12 (1) We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, (2) "and" in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

The real meaning and correct way to understanding the 12 Article of Faith, is that we only believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates SO LONG AS THEY obey, honor and sustain the law. Because it is a complete sentence and one thought this it what it means. When the Kings, Presidents, Rules, and Magistrates break the law, and or pass laws or whose actions go against the law or is contrary to the teachings of God, we no longer believe in being subject to them. We are not obligated to obey corruption. Lets, take a step back with the traditional thought of how the 12th Article of Faith is understood. In Hitlers Germany, would you obey Hitler and kill innocent Jews. This should be indication enough that the typical way the 12th A of F as understood today is simply wrong, and people need to have a better understanding and command of our English language to know what something really means.
:ymapplause:

dman
captain of 100
Posts: 116

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by dman »

The law is the law of the land. I don't recall any prophet telling the church members in different countries to disobey the governing authority. I am sure there were lds soldiers in Nazi Germany who fought for Germany. Any deaths they caused are not on their heads. Brigham young sent out the Mormon battalion at the request of the us gov't. A gov't that never came to their aid in Missouri. I don't see how president monsons words are inconsistent with what has been done since the time of Joseph smith. I think the article of faith applies perfectly in this situation.

User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by AussieOi »

Onward Christian soldiers.....

Vision
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2324
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Vision »

dman wrote:The law is the law of the land. I don't recall any prophet telling the church members in different countries to disobey the governing authority. I am sure there were lds soldiers in Nazi Germany who fought for Germany. Any deaths they caused are not on their heads. Brigham young sent out the Mormon battalion at the request of the us gov't. A gov't that never came to their aid in Missouri. I don't see how president monsons words are inconsistent with what has been done since the time of Joseph smith. I think the article of faith applies perfectly in this situation.

Have you studied the Savior's life and teachings? Have you studied the Anti Nephi Lehi's and what they became? Have you read 3rd Nephi 6 :14?

firend
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1296

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by firend »

dman wrote:The law is the law of the land. I don't recall any prophet telling the church members in different countries to disobey the governing authority. I am sure there were lds soldiers in Nazi Germany who fought for Germany. Any deaths they caused are not on their heads. Brigham young sent out the Mormon battalion at the request of the us gov't. A gov't that never came to their aid in Missouri. I don't see how president monsons words are inconsistent with what has been done since the time of Joseph smith. I think the article of faith applies perfectly in this situation.

Nazi soldiers should have done their due dilligence in knowing what they were fighting for. They will be held responsible. The nazis that mowed down the Jews with machine guns had a responsibility to know what they were doing was wrong. Imagine lds nazi murdering Jews, and his excuse is it was the law of the land. Imagine a nazi Mormon who who visited the United States before the war and went to church in salt lake. He met some good people. Oh, but fast forward a few years and some of the men he met in the ward in salt lake have become prisoners of war, and he is told to kill them. Wow, good seeing at church a few years ago, sorry....bang bang your dead.

I suppose by this logic that Daniel was wrong to pray since the law of the land forbid prayer. Joseph smith himself was wrong them to live polygamy in nauvoo against Illinois state law. Does this mean that if the law of the land comes out with a new law to murder all the babies it is ok?

We obey God, and only obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate Gods laws.

User avatar
caddis
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1196

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by caddis »

Nazi soldiers should have done their due dilligence in knowing what they were fighting for. They will be held responsible. The nazis that mowed down the Jews with machine guns had a responsibility to know what they were doing was wrong. Imagine lds nazi murdering Jews, and his excuse is it was the law of the land. Imagine a nazi Mormon who who visited the United States before the war and went to church in salt lake. He met some good people. Oh, but fast forward a few years and some of the men he met in the ward in salt lake have become prisoners of war, and he is told to kill them. Wow, good seeing at church a few years ago, sorry....bang bang your dead.

I suppose by this logic that Daniel was wrong to pray since the law of the land forbid prayer. Joseph smith himself was wrong them to live polygamy in nauvoo against Illinois state law. Does this mean that if the law of the land comes out with a new law to murder all the babies it is ok?

We obey God, and only obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate Gods laws.



:-BD

cayenne
captain of 100
Posts: 758

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by cayenne »

caddis wrote:
Nazi soldiers should have done their due dilligence in knowing what they were fighting for. They will be held responsible. The nazis that mowed down the Jews with machine guns had a responsibility to know what they were doing was wrong. Imagine lds nazi murdering Jews, and his excuse is it was the law of the land. Imagine a nazi Mormon who who visited the United States before the war and went to church in salt lake. He met some good people. Oh, but fast forward a few years and some of the men he met in the ward in salt lake have become prisoners of war, and he is told to kill them. Wow, good seeing at church a few years ago, sorry....bang bang your dead.

I suppose by this logic that Daniel was wrong to pray since the law of the land forbid prayer. Joseph smith himself was wrong them to live polygamy in nauvoo against Illinois state law. Does this mean that if the law of the land comes out with a new law to murder all the babies it is ok?

We obey God, and only obey the law of the land as long as it does not violate Gods laws.

+1000000

I always found it is dis-gusting to hear about lds nazis killing lds Americans. What about next war. Russian and chinese invade Utah and some are Lds and they slaughter some steak presidents and bishops, maybe even some high ups. Is that ok? Just doing what my papa lawmakers said.



:-BD

jo1952
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1699

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by jo1952 »

Matthew 26:52

Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

User avatar
TZONE
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1724

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by TZONE »

Than why did Ether fight for the wicked people of his time when he states, "They are without hope"... He KNEW they were wicked yet he fights with the wicked agaist the wicked in HOPES they will repent but knowing they most likely won't.... He loved them so much to do ANYThing... There are two sides to every story.

jo1952
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1699

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by jo1952 »

TZONE wrote:Than why did Ether fight for the wicked people of his time when he states, "They are without hope"... He KNEW they were wicked yet he fights with the wicked agaist the wicked in HOPES they will repent but knowing they most likely won't.... He loved them so much to do ANYThing... There are two sides to every story.
Whatever our choices, or whatever our reasons, God works with us and still makes sure that His purposes are fulfilled. There is a greater mystery being spoken of in everyone's comments which is not being addressed. I have discovered that most posters on this forum don't want to discuss it. None of God's teachings contradict each other.

Shalom,

jo

User avatar
Rensai
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1340

Re: Thomas S Monson on War (1991)

Post by Rensai »

dman wrote:The law is the law of the land. I don't recall any prophet telling the church members in different countries to disobey the governing authority. I am sure there were lds soldiers in Nazi Germany who fought for Germany. Any deaths they caused are not on their heads. Brigham young sent out the Mormon battalion at the request of the us gov't. A gov't that never came to their aid in Missouri. I don't see how president monsons words are inconsistent with what has been done since the time of Joseph smith. I think the article of faith applies perfectly in this situation.
I think this is dead wrong. Its not the coward who goes along with a tyrannical government who receives approval from heaven; its the rebel who will take a stand for whats right, against all odds. Chuck Baldwin explains this well.
What Will They Say To Say To Shadrach, Meshach, And Abednego?

By Chuck Baldwin

May 10, 2012

Archived column:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/4823" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let me start with a story. A man who had survived the great Johnstown
flood died and went to Heaven. And not long after, all of the
inhabitants of Heaven were allowed to take center stage and tell
everyone about the most significant event that had happened to them
while on Earth. The man couldn’t wait to tell everyone about his
surviving the great Johnstown flood. After a long wait in line, it was
finally his turn. The man was so excited to tell everyone his story.
But just as he was climbing the stairs to the platform, an angel
leaned over to him and whispered, “Don’t forget; Noah is in the
audience.”

I am reminded of that story when I read the Scriptural passage in
Hebrews 12: “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so
great a cloud of witnesses.” The witnesses the Apostle speaks of are
the great champions who have gone on before us, which are mentioned in
chapter eleven. Included by implication in the great “Hall of
Faith” of Hebrews 11 are the three young Hebrews: Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego (verse 34, “Quenched the violence of fire.”)

So, what was it that got these three young men included in this list
that along with the likes of Abraham, Moses, and David? You’ll find
their story in Daniel chapter three. In a nutshell, they refused to
bow down to the image of the king. In other words, THEY DISOBEYED A
CIVIL GOVERNMENT THAT HAD BECOME TYRANNICAL. And for refusing to
submit to the king, they were thrown into a burning fiery furnace.

Come to think of it, many of the people named in the Hebrews 11
“Hall of Faith” got there because of civil disobedience. Speaking
of Moses, the Scripture says, “By faith he forsook Egypt, not
fearing the wrath of the king.” So, when did Moses forsake Egypt?
When he killed the Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave
to death. That’s when!

Rahab is also mentioned in this Biblical “Hall of Faith.” Who was
Rahab, and what did she do? She was a prostitute who lied to
government soldiers and helped the Hebrew spies escape the city of
Jericho. Gideon, Barak, Samson, and Jephthae are also listed. Who are
they, and what did they do? They were men who led armed rebellions
against oppressive governments to which they had been subject.

Daniel is inferred in Hebrews 11 when it says, “Stopped the mouths
of lions.” What did he do? He refused to submit to his civil
government when commanded to not pray aloud (for only thirty days).
And for refusing to submit to his government, he was cast into a den
of hungry lions. Yes, God delivered Daniel from the lions and the
three young Hebrews from the burning furnace of fire. But the point
is, they each DISOBEYED civil government, and God brags on them for it
in Hebrews 11.

So, what are all these “Romans 13-ers” going to say to Daniel,
Moses, and Gideon when they get to Heaven? What are they going to say
to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego? What are they going to say to
those men who “overthrew kingdoms” (Heb. 11:33), “waxed valiant
in combat” (vs. 34), and “turned to flight . . . armies”?
(Armies are government-sanctioned, government-supported,
government-ordered entities--vs. 34.)

I cannot count the number of times I have heard some TV or radio
preacher say something to the effect, “Well, I’m glad we were
given freedom here in the United States, but our Founding Fathers were
wrong to rebel against the British Crown. According to Romans 13, they
should have submitted to King George.” Barf! Gag! Spit! What
hypocrisy!

To all of the Romans 13 Pharisees out there, I say, if you are really
going to believe and preach that garbage, at least be honest enough to
stop celebrating Independence Day on July 4. It was the day when men
became traitors to Great Britain and officially declared a
revolutionary war. And stop flying the Stars and Stripes in your
church auditoriums. It was the flag of rebellion. How dare you say
America’s founders violated Romans 13 in one breath and with the
next breath say you thank God for the freedom that was purchased AT
THE SACRIFICE OF THE BLOOD OF THE MEN YOU SAY VIOLATED ROMANS 13!
Pardon me, but I just cannot think of anything that is more
hypocritical than that!

And remember this about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego: it was AFTER
they disobeyed their king and were thrown into the furnace of fire
that they met the Son of God. It was King Nebuchadnezzar who said,
“I see four men loose . . . the fourth is like the Son of God.”
(Daniel 3:25)

Think about it: where did Moses meet the Lord? In the wilderness by a
burning bush after he had defied Egyptian tyranny by killing an
Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew slave to death. Where did
Gideon meet the Lord? In a threshing floor as he willowed his grain in
defiance of evil civil authority. When did Stephen meet the Lord? When
political and religious leaders were stoning him to death for refusing
to submit to their iniquitous injunctions. And think of this, too:
where did the Lord Jesus meet man? On a bloody Roman cross--being
placed there by the civil and religious rulers of His day.

Most Christians today are looking to meet the Lord in a heated or air
conditioned church sanctuary with padded pews and ornate windows, with
an orchestra playing and a choir singing, and fried chicken waiting
for them after the service. But that’s not where you’re going to
find the Fourth Man.

When you resist the religious Pharisees who are trying to intimidate
and coerce you into submitting to their legalism and tyranny, then you
will see the Fourth Man. When you resist the power establishment that
demands that you accept their politically correct philosophies and
ideologies, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you refuse to be
bought, bribed, or bullied by the “good old boy” network that
seeks to control you, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you
resist your family and friends who try to shame you into abandoning
the principles of liberty and freedom that God, Himself, has planted
in your heart, then you will see the Fourth Man. When you are
threatened and persecuted and you say, “I must obey God rather than
men,” then you will see the Fourth Man.

Do you really think you’re going to find the One who went to a
bloody cross in a meadow of roses? The only roses He knew were the
ones whose thorns were smashed on his skull. You won’t find him in a
garden, unless it’s the Garden of Gethsemane. You’ll find the One
who went to the Cross in the same place that Shadrach, Meshach, and
Abednego found Him: in the Burning Fiery Furnace.

God said told us that when we pass through the floodwaters, and when
we walk through the fire, we would find Him to be with us. (Isaiah
43:2)

Of course, let me be careful to say that real Christians are
peacemakers. They desire to live a quiet and peaceable life with their
neighbors, their civil authorities, and even with other nations. They
readily recognize and respect lawful, God-ordained authority. But, at
the same time, they will not surrender that which is holy and give it
to swine! They absolutely will not become toadies for unlawful
government that attempts to usurp the God-given authority and
jurisdiction to which it has been divinely assigned!

I am often reminded of this quote from Mahatma Gandhi: “There are,
I am sorry to say, many Temples in our midst in this country which are
no better than brothels.”

Gandhi's quote could be said of many so-called churches in America
today, for they, too, have become little more than glorified brothels
that pimp for the government. “Submit! Obey! Don’t resist!” they
constantly preach. I wonder what they will say one day to Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego?

Post Reply