Quantcast

Comments about ‘Emily W. Jensen: Burying their weapons of war: The example of the Ammonites’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, May 31 2011 10:30 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
FarnsworthPMacGillicuddy
Layton, UT

While Brother Pulsipher's "suggestion" that we emulate the Ammonites pacifism, I noticed that in the article, he doesn't mention Captain Moroni, and his valor in battle. Perhaps if Pulsipher didn't reside in the sleepy confines of Madison County, and lived in a more intense metropolitan area, he might not be so willing to "suggest" pacifism, as a means to greater spiritual insights.
It is rather easy to suggest turning the other cheek, when no threat exists, in particular, when no threat to your immediate family exists. I think that while his intentions appear to be "good", reality has a way of changing one's mind.
I for one am not ashamed to say I refuse to be a pacifist, and don't feel spiritually diminished at all.(nor ashamed)

higv
Dietrich, ID

The ammonites were a group of people that covenanted not to go to war to make up for past wrongs. There children who did not take the oath fought though. If we did not stop Hitler it would be bad. There are times when war is necessary to protect innocent people. In Old Testamant times it was necessary for protection. We are not to wage offensive wars. But like Captain Moroni need to be on the lookout for evil people fighting us.

reviewboy
LONG BEACH, CA

The Ammonites weren't pacifists. After that first memorable encounter when they lay prostrate and prayed even as they were slaughtered, they instead sought out Nephite protection (as answer to prayer) when the Lamanites resumed hostilities. They accepted land from the Nephites, and provided harvests to support the Nephite armies. When their land in Jershon was threatened by the course of the war, they accepted relocation to help maintain more defensible borders. They even considered breaking the oath to assist directly in the war effort, but ultimately allowed their children to volunteer to fight for the Nephites.

It wasn't war itself that they had renounced, but the Lamanite way of war - the motivation behind that nation's aggression. The parents abandoned the cause of blood feud; the children fought under the Title of Liberty. When / who / how / and why we fight (and don't) matters a great deal.

yarrlydarb
Ogden, UT

For those who have read this article, I would highly recommend reading President Spencer W. Kimball's First Presidency Message that appears in The Ensign Magazine, for June 1976.

The comments from Brother Berrett no doubt are valuable, but President Kimball's words were addressed to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to the world as he served as President and as a Prophet of God in our times.

What he had to say, I believe, will astound many active members of the Church.

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

It doesn't matter what president Kimball said in 1976 - it was just his opinion, not doctrine. Although I think there are some good lessons in the Book of Mormon, I don't think it should be relied on for historical value. If you believe that the events in the Book of Mormon happened as they are stated than I guess it can help you quite a bit. I rather think it is a religious fiction, with little historical value. While the book can inspire, uplift, and guide it should not be taken literally in my view.

yarrlydarb
Ogden, UT

Dear Brahmabull,

It does matter, if your a member of the LDS Church.

If you are not, or do not believe that President Kimball was a prophet, that's fine. You certainly don't have to so believe.

But if someone does believe that the Church is true and that it is lead by a Prophet of God, then the words of President Kimball are not just his opinion, they are the words the Lord would have him say (see D&C 1: 38).

Brahmabull
sandy, ut

yarrlydarb - Yes I am a member of the church. The frustration is that people automatically dismiss a prophets statements if they are controversial. This is my problem. I agree that when a prophet speaks he is speaking for god. But most members now days reject statements by Brigham Young (and others) such as the adam-god doctrine, the word of wisdom, and many other points of doctrine. People have said "doesn't matter what a past prophet said, it is what the current prophet says that matters." I don't disagree that a current prophet may be important, but why do we dismiss statements made by past prophets just because they are controversial or taboo? So if you say that about Brigham Young than you must also say that about all of the prophets. That is the point I was trying to make.

New Yorker
Pleasant Grove, UT

Interesting exchange yarrlydarb and Brahmabull. You can see that the epistemological has to be resolved before anyone can move ahead. And just what epistemological model do "big tent" Latter-day Saints propose?

Silly Rabbit
Magna, UT

Brahmabull

I understand what you are saying on your second comment, when I teach in church I have read things that modern prophets have said "yes while they were prophets" and I have had people come to me and tell me that "we'll that doesnt pertain to now days that was back then to their time" (yea the 1950's). These people are sometimes ward leadership, and I always let them "so why do we still read out of the BoM that was in the 400BC's". Well that always shuts people up, a lot of church members would rather believe Nephi's words then Ezra Taft Bensons, when they should believe in both. When I tell people that they like to tell me "well Ezra Taft Benson was controversial and had weird beliefs". Thats why too many people in the church today are sheep that are becoming lost, they pick and choose which doctrine to follow.

rickdoctor
Chandler, AZ

I cannot find anything that Jesus said that would conflict with the advice to 'emulate' the example of the Ammonites. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, avoid contention, avoid the spirit of contention, avoid disputations, avoid being even angry with your brother, the spirit of contention is from Satan, etc. -- need I go on? Nothing Jesus ever said supports 'war'.
Modern LDS often take a pick-and-choose approach to gospel principles, and try to make excuses for those scriptures that don't agree with their politics or individual desires. Elder Nelson in the last conference referred to the improper 'cafeteria approach' to religion.
Just where do you 'hide' Jesus when you advocate 'wars' of any kind? Brave warriors like Moroni and others in the BofM do NOT create a new principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Principles are enternal truths. Wars are evidences of the weaknesses of man, in every instance, and find no justification within the gospel whatsoever. Jesus never said that if your enemy is 'evil' it changes his teachings and principles -- these are man-made excuses, and from your perspective your enemy is always 'evil'. "War is hell...war is evil".

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments