While I usually let the more articulate (and verbose) bloggers on Wheat & Tares cover things like this, I thought I’d give it a stab and write about the war in Ukraine and in particular the First Presidency statement on the war.
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
lds.org 2/25/2022
There was some complaining on Mormon internet groups that the Church had not made any comment, and then when they did, there was comments that they didn’t go far enough and never mentioned Russia. So lets talk about the hard place the church is in. They are already in a pretty precarious position in Russia, with missionaries in the past being deported for violating their visas and laws passed where missionaries are prohibited from preaching in private homes or on the street. A Russian temple was announced in a “major city” four years ago, but no further word has been published on its progress.
The Church has a history of playing nice with dictators with horrible human rights records in order to allow missionary work and temples to be build in those countries. It is well documented the stories on how a temple was built in the German Democratic Republic during the height of the cold ward. Also while I was a missionary in Chile in 1977, President Kimball visited, and had a friendly meeting with the Military Dictator Pinochet, who just a few years before had killed and “disappeared” countless people who supported the previous elected government of Allende. I even had a Chilean companion who was a student in a local university who had a classmate taken from class by solders and never seen again. From the 1977 Church News
—President Augusto Pinochet Ugarte of Chile. General Pinochet sent a government helicopter to take President Kimball and his party from Santiago to the “summer White House” in Vina del Mar on Monday, February 28.
1977 Church News
Pope Francis also refrained from naming Russia when he urged political leaders to examine their conscience before God and avoid actions that harm civilians and “discredit international law.” The Catholic church is trying to make nice with the Russian Orthodox Church, so that probably played into the statement.
What do you think of the FP statement? Did it go far enough? Does the hundreds of missionaries we currently have in Russia play a part in the wording of the statement? Could they have named Russia without putting the missionaries in danger? Is it time to bring all the Russian missionaries home?
Image by Clker-Free-Vector-Images from Pixabay
Wheat & Tares 
I guess when President Nelson announced a new temple for Russia in April of 2018, he was referring to the temple in Ukraine which is now (I presume) in Russian hands. Does anyone reading this really believe the COJCOFLDS will be building a new one in Russia any time soon?
I guess when President Nelson announced a new temple for China in 2020, he must be exercising some serious revelation. We all know a temple in China isn’t going up any time soon (maybe just maybe they slip one in Shanghai in some multi-purpose building, but I think the city of Shanghai denied that possibility). So the only logical conclusion I can come to us Nelson knows China is taking over Taiwan, thus we’ll get our China temple after all just like we got our Russian one. Boom.
The Church has a history of playing nice with dictators with horrible human rights records in order to allow missionary work and temples to be build in those countries.
I have been thinking a lot about sentiments like this, in particular since the Brad Wilcox thing I remember learning when growing up that the reason the restoration occurred in the 19th century was because this was an era when religious freedom would allow the church to develop.
…but then, we are told that at the same time, we have to be sympathetic to the church doing things to accommodate the prejudices and biases of the greater society. So a statement like this seems like doubling down on the rhetoric — well, the church just *has* to appease the dictators so that they can get a foot in the door. The church just *has* to appease racists to grow.
Like, I don’t expect much in terms of moral courage or anything like that from this church and its leaders. I expect that it will choose some people over others for whatever its strategic purposes are.
Given that the Russian regime has no problem with cracking down on perceived threats within the country, does the FP want to paint a target on the backs of Russian members of the Church? Is the “feel good” of a scathing condemnation of the Russian invasion (that, let’s face it, has little in the way of real world effects) worth the very real blowback that Russian members will have to deal with?
The Church needs a cogent world policy. Is it wise to continue in Russia and China? Now that we are there, what are our options? China is currently persecuting the Uyghurs, and has a sad history with the Tibetans. The FP shunned the Dalai Lama last time he was in SLC. How many compromises do we want to make in the name of the expediency?
One alternative is to concentrate our efforts in Africa and South America where the Church has the resources to make a difference. To redirect our missionary efforts toward assisting the poor. And provide real assistance. Another option would be to concentrate on refugees. Put Sharon Eubanks in charge.
I found the statement that was released to be troubling, particularly in light of the fact that some right wing pundits (and Senators like Hawley) are praising Putin because he’s at least “better than liberals.” My worries about what this both-sidesism portends:
– That the Church doesn’t want to alienate the Fox-news gulping conservatives who are completely unmoored and rooting for Russia to take over Ukraine which is likely to lead to broader conflict in Europe.
– That some of our Church leaders ARE the Tucker Carlson acolytes, believing his utterly ridiculous stance on the Russia threat.
– That China will be emboldened toward Taiwan (as Josh H points out), which is a very real threat as China and Russia get cozier and cozier.
– That the Church is just another pawn in Putin’s tool kit, like the heads of Russian companies installed by Putin so they will not oppose him. He gives people things he doesn’t care about (letting missionaries into Russia) to obtain silence from those who might otherwise (rightly) oppose him on moral grounds.
– That the Church is just another Evangelical sect pumping money into hate groups like the World Congress on Families to suppress gay rights in dictator-led regimes like Russia since they lost that argument in all reasonable parts of the world. Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven. And therefore, why wouldn’t they prefer, on some level, an oppressive, violent, corrupt regime that agrees with them about their single-minded focus on destroying the lives of gay people, rather than democracies which protect the freedom of the LGBT community to participate fully as citizens.
– That we aren’t even acknowledging the moral-acting Russian people who are opposing this takeover of a neighboring country, and there are many, and they will bear consequences from their evil ruler, as will Zelensky and others in Ukraine.
– That we as a Church also did not stand up to Nazi Germany because we can’t even oppose truly evil forces in the world for fear of reprisal.
– That we are so focused on adding Church members (easy to measure) that we can’t take a moment to see if we are creating good people who follow the teachings of Jesus (hard to measure).
OTOH, I agree with Not a Cougar that we don’t want to paint a target on the backs of Russian church members. But we should have withdrawn missionaries from Russia, IMO.
Much of the LDS church leadership acts like a dictator. Obedience, .obedience, obedience. Do not questions us, even when we are wrong. Sounds like an army lead by a dictator. This may be harsh but it has been my truth and life experience. My mission president was a mini-Hitler/Putin himself. I have lost leadership roulette over the past 30+ years and have seen many dictator like persons flourish in the church instuution. How many spiritual refugees has the LDS church caused? Why can church leaders scold and literally yell at members and especially missionaries for a variety of invalid reasons and create shame and depression among its own membership? How can Holland talk about taking up muskets and then ask for peace? How many Ukraine type invasions has the LDS church created in families and communitie?….from not letting parents into their own children’s weddings, or tell LGBTQ that they are better off dead, to protecting sexual predators, etc. They state it was God’s will, God’s inspirations, or to protect families. But it was only to protect the church instuition and solidify their power. God was not involved.
The LDS leadershop uses Putin rationale…we went into Ukraine to free them from neo-natzis and to save the people.
When the church runs into a bully larger then themselves, then they play nice and not want to offend and asks for peace.
Putin is a bully. The LDS is not even a crumb on the Russian radar. Like Oaks stated at the U. Of Virginia, the Q15 gives one message to the members of its own church and a different massage to everyone else.
When I was a TBM I thought that these wars and conflicts served the greater good. We were told, God allows this to happen to open doors for missionary work. Or this is to humble the people to listen to the missionaries.
In my mission, in Central America our mission president had us convinced that war was coming because of the population’s unrighteousness
I suspect most TBM’s can only see world events through the lens of the LDS church and only the LDS church.
When you take off those glasses you realize how horrible war is and that no loving God would allow war to humble his children or to allow a $200B church to spur its membership statistics.
I think reading to book of mormon too much desensitized LDS members to the true effects of war.
Angela C: I loved your response above. Especially the “Better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven” line which I intend to repeat over and over!
I was in the Philippines (1974-1976) during the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos. I spent eight months in Iligan, Mindinao, the large island in the south of the country. There the government was battling an insurgent group, the Moro Liberation Front. A curfew meant that hose out during it were shot, no questions asked. During those eight months, there were exactly 5 days where as a missionary going out in the morning we did NOT see dead bodies in the street. Over the course of martial law, thousand of people disappeared. I personally observed an election where the pre marked ballots supporting the government’s position were distributed for voters to put into ballot boxes. During this time, an Area General Conference was held on Luzon, Monday and Tuesday, August 11 and 12, 1975. Attendees included Presidents Kimball and Romney of the first Presidency; Elders Benson, Hinckley and Ashton of the Council of the 12; seven Assistants to the Twelve; Paul H. Dunn; H. Burke Peterson of the Presiding Bishopric; Barbara Smith, president of the Relief Society; and more. Later President Kimball reported “We had a very pleasant visit with Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who gave up his Saturday morning with his family to meet with us at the presidential palace.” It is not as though the church did not know what was going on. While still in the old mission home in Salt Lake City, Elder Boyd K. Packer met with the new missionaries going to the Philippines and cautioned us to never express any opinion about the government of the Philippines to church members or generally in public, noting that there were secret police every where.
It gets more interesting:
PUTIN’S ATTACK ON UKRAINE IS A RELIGIOUS WAR
Russia’s aggression against its neighbor isn’t just power politics and geostrategy, it’s about core issues of faith and identity.
by
John Schindler
Feb 24
https://topsecretumbra.substack.com/p/putins-attack-on-ukraine-is-a-religious?utm_source=url
There are no foreign missionaries (or “volunteers”) in Russia. (https://www.thechurchnews.com/global/2022-02-25/status-of-lds-church-missionaries-in-ukraine-volunteers-in-russia-244215)
Calls in this forum for the church to remove missionaries from Russia are misinformed and inapt. They were removed before the clamor for their removal in this forum.
I support the church’s carefulness. I do not individual Russian Latter-day Saints treated like Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are seen as criminals in Russia. I do not want Russian Latter-day Saints to be branded as foreign agents. I wish others who post on this blog would appreciate the church’s carefulness, rather than seeking another opportunity to criticize. The threat to Russian Latter-day Saints is real.
Sometimes, silence is the best policy. Sometimes, care for others matters.
“The truest obedience to God is the opposition to tyranny” Leon Uris (Mila 18)
I recall part of a talk given by Jeffrey Holland in 1998 GC where he stated,
“are we giving them a kind of theological Twinkie—spiritually empty calories? President John Taylor once called such teaching “fried froth,” the kind of thing you could eat all day and yet finish feeling totally unsatisfied.”
And that is how these PR released statements feel to me. What does it do? How does it actually help? It’s pretty empty overall.
Josh H: just to clarify that’s a line from John Milton’s Paradise Lost, and it definitely bears repeating. It applies to many situations.
Ji: thanks for clarifying that.
I agree with NotaCougar. In terms of real world effects, how much good could even the most perfectly worded statement in the world do vs. how much harm to the members of the church in Russia would a more forceful statement cause? Seems like a lot of harm to risk and very little benefit to gain.
Sincere question, what good does a statement from the church do? Who does it actually help and how? Can anyone share an example of someone who is helped by a statement from the church?
I agree with NotaCougar. In terms of real world effects, how much good could even the most perfectly worded statement in the world do vs. how much harm to the members of the church in Russia would a more forceful statement cause? Seems like a lot of harm to risk and very little benefit to gain.
To piggy back on Counselor- Sincere question, what good does any statement from the church do? Who does it actually help and how? Can anyone share an example of someone who is helped by a statement from the church?
I have no inside information on the church’s operations, but I like what I see in this regard. It seems to me that the Church ofJesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not argue with governments on political matters — Jesus also did not, by the way — rather, the church ministers to individuals. The church was in Chile (and the Philippines) before Pinochet (and Marcos), during Pinochet (and Marcos), and after Pinochet (and Marcos). Same for what became and what was East Germany. I think our Savior cares far more about individual salvation that He does about political arguments, and the church is trying to reach individuals.
If someone wants to change a government’s politics, he or she should find an organization other than the church. And that is the way it should be. And yes, church members should be anxiously engaged in good causes. Here’s what our Savior said: “Verily, I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness. For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves.”
I do not want the church to attack Russia, but I am going to another Pro-Ukraine (anti-Putin) rally this afternoon. I do not hate the church for not directly joining in my good cause, but I invite others of good will to join me at two o’clock at the White House.
ji, thanks so much for the information about the missionaries in Russia. The fact that jumped out to me is that even before the war we only had 50 foreign missionaries (volunteers) in Russia. I agree that the church could not say anything more in their statement without damaging even further its relationship with the Russian government. Question: is there a tipping point by a leader or country’s behavior that would lead the Church to condemn it? Obviously Pinochet’s murderous ways did not cross that line. Is there a line, or will they always be neutral?
@ji, I don’t disagree that the Church can’t say much here without endangering Russian members.
But otherwise I disagree with your comment. The Church *does* interfere with and speak out on political matters, including in ways that endanger individuals – particularly LGBTQ folks. The church has been active in Eastern Europe helping to pass discriminatory laws in countries where LBGTQ folks are truly persecuted. It is making their difficult lives even more difficult.
I’m glad the Church is being thoughtful in protecting Russian and Ukrainian members. I wish that the Church generally would focus on humanitarian measures instead of meddling in politics. But the reality is that the Church DOES meddle. I wish it had as much concern for queer folks in Russia as it does for straight Russian members.
(If you aren’t familiar with this meddling, I’m sure someone will post about it in the near future.)
(Also, I think there’s a big difference between not meddling in political matters and in (a) pandering, which is what seems happened with Pinochet and (b) excommunicating LDS Saints who stood up for what was right, as it did in Germany. Neutrality may be wise, but support is immoral.)
Along with, or as in my case, instead of, fasting and praying, please consider donating to relief organizations.
And our stake in Western Europe is preparing to receive refugee members of the Church from the Ukraine, if necessary. Glad to see the church taking action here. Hopefully much more is happening behind the scenes.
That the pope may not have mentioned Russia specifically is greatly overshadowed by the fact he visited the Russian embassy to the Vatican and did so in a way that it would be widely reported. The action says more than the omission of a name. That said, the Mormon church’s political power remains confined to the western United States, so there is little point in terms of efficacy to calling out Putin and the Russian government by name or even to making a more pointed statement.
I am of the opinion that criticism of the church’s statement is the product of generalized frustration with the church rarely (ever?) taking a principled stand on anything that doesn’t somehow touch church doctrine or finances. The church was so concerned with gay marriage laws in Hawaii and California that it filed legal briefs opposing proposed laws and worked to rally members as activists. If a public statement in support of the Ukrainian people and government is unwise and ineffective (it is both), then the church could at least do as much in a more life-threatening situation as they did in California to fight the scourge of those terrifying gay people (tongue in cheek, to be clear). Tell bishops they are free to lead a congregational prepare on behalf of Ukraine and encourage their wards to donate to relief organizations. Do something that suggests a beating heart and set of values that appears more than corporate.
I’ve always been inspired by the example of Bishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador, who eventually became a martyr to the cause and the best living example of liberation theology. He was willing to die for a cause he thought worth the cost, and while his example has no value in the current Ukraine/Russia conflict, I would just once like to see the Mormon church take the side of the oppressed and downtrodden based on principle alone.
Edit: I meant to say ‘prayer’ not ‘prepare’ in that second paragraph.
jaredsbrother,
Bishop Oscar Romero was a hero as an individual. The worldwide institutional Roman Catholic church did not proclaim liberation theology, and many individual Catholics opposed it and still do. Your respect for the man is well-placed, but comparing an individual to an institutional church seems inapt. You need to look for individual heros.
Elisa,
I do not know the efforts you are talking about.
Eugene,
That is good to hear. There is good in the church.
It’s good to know the church is against war.
BTW, my ward’s opening prayer in sacrament meeting was a rather moving plea to our God for peace, mentioning Ukraine specifically and eloquently and at length. Of course, other wards may have had different experiences.
Excellent post and comments – WaT is a refreshingly candid and thoughtful site. LDS Inc. continues its well rehearsed execution of Machiavelli’s playbook. Their outwardly apparent hard line and hierarchical strategy masks an underlying insecurity and uncertainty. Hence the refusal to acknowledge and apologize.
Fair enough, ji. I appreciate the points you make. My point was that institutional religions rarely, if ever, make shifts without having some kind of individual conscience exert pressure. The current pontiff has advocated for more principles of liberation theology than any in the history of the Roman Catholic church, even if he is not a full-throated advocate for LT. I would Romero’s sacrifice plays a part in that. In a Mormon context, I am similarly moved by Steward Udall’s 1967 letter to President McKay on racial discrimination.
Institutions are moved by the actions of individuals who are willing to serve as an example of sacrifice that the institution is not. Perhaps the prayer in your ward today is another example. Perhaps it would have made a difference in the church’s opposition to Prop 8 if a bishop or stake president in the Bay Area had said, no, I’m not doing this. In any case, with institutions, principled stands on anything usually have to start with individuals espousing principled positions, even if, or perhaps because, they stand in contrast to the overarching organization.
We had ward conference yesterday. There was absolutely no mention of war, Russia, or Ukrain, but one of the men giving a prayer gave thanks for the rain. We have been having incredible rain with over 2 meters (80 inches) of rain in the last week and thousands of homes flooded. Thanks for the rain?
This is the same areas that had fires 2 years ago. Climate change! Extreme weather.
My original inclination when I read the post was to say that the church should condemn Putin. But after I gave it some thought and read ji’s comments, I feel a little differently and have been swayed by ji to some extent. The church is better positioned as apolitical. Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and that his kingdom was not of this world.
As for my personal thoughts on the situation: Putin is overstepping his bounds. He is the clear villain here. Those praising Putin’s moves (mostly firebrand right-wing media personalities such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson) are out of their minds. The less popular but still somewhat relevant left-wing media personalities (such as Hasan Piker) are similarly out of their minds and have no idea what they’re talking about. Those saying that what Russia is doing is similar to what the US has done are making a false equivalence. The US military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) was undertaken with the support of dozens of the largest countries in the world including China, Russia, all major players in Europe. It even included support from major Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Pakistan, and even Iran. After the 9/11 attacks, almost the whole world was sympathetic to the US and supported a war effort to oust the Taliban from power for harboring al-Qaeda. The Iraq War effort was also built on a large coalition, albeit fewer supporting countries. Saddam was truly a ruthless dictator who brutally murdered thousands and thousands of Iraqi Shi’ites and Kurds, using even chemical weapons, banned by the Geneva Convention of 1925. I fully-heartedly disagree with the Iraq War and didn’t support it in 2003, but it had a stronger basis of legitimacy than the Russian invasion of Ukraine by miles. Now on Kosovo. NATO did bomb Serbia in support of Kosovar Albanians in 1999 without UN approval. But again, it was undertaken with the support of all NATO countries. Milosevic was widely considered an aggressor and suspect of war crimes. He had over 60 charges against him, although he died before a conviction could be reached. His detention by and trial before the ICC had widespread international support. Kosovo is currently recognized as a legitimate independent state by 117 countries around the world. By contrast, only a small number of countries recognize Crimea (occupied by Russia and claimed as part of Russia in 2014) as part of Russia. The overwhelming majority of the international community recognizes Crimea as part of Ukraine. The international community overwhelmingly recognizes Luhansk and Donetsk as part of Ukraine. Zelenskyy legitimately won the 2019 Ukrainian election and while he may not be corruption-free (Ukraine most certainly has a corruption problem), he is most certainly not the “Nazi” and violent anti-Russia tyrant that Putin is claiming him to be. Putin’s claims don’t have a leg to stand on. They are pure lies and fabrications. He has no legitimate justification for his invasion of Ukraine.
Elisa,
Seriously, how did the LDS Church help pass discriminatory laws in Eastern Europe? It couldn’t even get many Utah LDS to mask up and vaccinate.
Well @Old Man, it’s not hard to get anti-LGBTQ laws passed in countries that are extremely homophobic I guess. I’m sure you remember the controversy when Sochi hosted the Olympics and had a terrible human rights record against queer folks.
Someone will probably post more on this topic later and I want to make sure to present all the right evidence so the context can be understood, and want to be accurate, but I don’t have time for a detailed post today. But tl;dr:
1 – the World Congress of Families is a Christian coalition that arose during the fight against gay marriage in the US. After losing the battle in the US, they started working with sister organizations in Eastern Europe to fight gay marriage there where they were getting more traction.
2 – Dallin Oaks is a board member of World Congress, has spoken at their events, and people believe that the same political groups that the LDS church spun up earlier to fight Prop 8 in Cal and marriage equality in Hawaii (they created organizations that didn’t appear on their face to be affiliated with the church but were) helps fund WCF. This last point, however, is what I’m tracking down so that I don’t misstate anything.
Here’s an article with some background on efforts in Romania but the same has happened in Russia.
https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-romania-referendum-20181005-story.html?_amp=true
Sadly the church’s vague response and unwillingness to even name the players involved is expected. It’s not unlike many other responses. It’s a bland message that will get no attention for it deserves none.
As noted in a few comments by Roger Hansen and Eugene, we can certainly do so much more than just pray for peace. We can support refugees; we can provide funds for displaced families; we can seek government sanctions against the aggressor, just to name a few. The church could share links to organizations we can patronize, knowing that members will support church-sanctioned organizations. The church could tell us how it intends to help with its war chest.
Our response to COVID was a fast and to then move on. Our response to war is to pray and move on. Two enthusiastic thumbs down.
@ Old Man: The World Congress of Families has been designated a hate group by the Human Rights Campaign: https://www.hrc.org/resources/exposed-the-world-congress-of-families
And the Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2019/03/27/anti-lgbt-hate-group-world-congress-families-convene-verona
In addition to having Oaks as a board member, it also includes several anti-LGBT and transphobic extremists named in the articles I’ve linked. Your tithing dollars at work, folx. The group has allied with Viktor Orban (Hungary’s dictator), the fascist right in Italy, the far right in Moldova, and has advance anti-LGBT legislation in Russia. It is an interfaith, politically conservative group that specifically targets LGBT rights and women’s reproductive rights, primarily in Europe and Africa, having (mostly) lost that war in the US, although they will keep trying to oppress and marginalize these groups to promote the cishetero patriarchal family values they espouse while decimating the rights of everyone else.
This is a more general overview of WCF – which acknowledges its association with the LDS church, lists Oaks as a board members and other LDS individuals as key financial contributors, and focuses on its ties to Russia, where it originated, and open support of Putin. (I can’t get this link to work because it’s too long so you’ll have to copy and paste.)
https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/WCF_Report_REV_6-17-15_FINAL_(1).pdf?_ga=2.202828818.2046728544.1646012855-103342973.1646012855
@Angela C and Elisa, thanks for sharing the information about Elder Oaks participation in the WCF and support of its harmful agenda. I feel like this should be common knowledge among LDS members but its not. Or maybe they are in favor of being part of it. Either way, revealing the political activities of the Q15 is always useful so people understand what they are sustaining in church.
@10ac it’s shocking and troubling that we’d be taking our cues from & supporting a country / regime with such horrible human rights abuses. I’d like to do some more digging on what’s happened since the 2015 report I linked above & what exactly is the Church’s involvement and then give an update …
Bishop Bill–I have wondered the same thing: “where (is there) a threshold of evil beyond which the church leadership would feel compelled to condemn?” There are many lovely hypotheticals, but I would hope that SOMETHING would be “enough” to elicit more than platitudes and tip-toeing around hurt feelings. When does the Cause of Right have more importance than the Missionary Efforts?… I just had hoped for more.
Elisa, I love this “…there’s a big difference between not meddling in political matters and in (a) pandering, which is what seems happened with Pinochet and (b) excommunicating LDS Saints who stood up for what was right, as it did in Germany. Neutrality may be wise, but support is immoral”
Cosmo, Cougar, JJ (others)–I definitely am tempted to agree with this perspective (“what good would it do / would it have any (positive) effect?”)…but what I struggle with is that this seems like an application of the Tragedy of the Commons. There are SO MANY organizations in the world who have a platform and SO FEW who speak up about these things. I longingly imagine a world where EVERY ONE of those organizations would forcefully speak out in plain terms against the war, violence, and human rights abuses that evil governments and leaders commit…would that have a positive effect? Additionally, the sentiment “what good would it do?” seems to be dependent upon the idea that God is a pragmatic being. I think He certainly values EXPEDIENCY (scriptures use the term “expedient” fairly often)…but does God just “shut up” and NOT call out evil because it might hurt a dictator’s feelings or result in persecution of church members?
And this of course gets even more problematic when individuals (not organizations) who DO stand up for truth are not only IGNORED, but also PERSECUTED by the church (e.g. Helmut Hübener)…any time the 12th Article of Faith is used as a gag or a club, I think I know where the true and right position actually is.
Regardless of what the Church says (such as an anodyne, non-specific statement against international conflict), what really matters is what the Church does (or chooses not to do). That’s why I really hope the Church already has chartered cargo planes full of humanitarian aid in the air and on their way to Ukraine’s western neighbors, ready to distribute to the hordes of displaced Ukrainians. If not, that would be a much greater travesty than a refusal to publicly condemn tyranny.
From Elisa’s link above, there are hints about the Church’s financial support of this hate group that sees Putin’s Russia as “a great ally for conservatives” (Larry Jacobs, managing director of WCF in 2013):
“The Howard Center, which houses WCF, has an annual budget of around $500,000. Less than $200,000 of that is earmarked for WCF. This means that WCF relies on outside funders to help organize and pay for its conferences.11 These funders include American conservative and Christian organizations and Russian oligarchs. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a major sponsor of the 1999 World Congress and maintains close ties to the organization, including the presence of high-ranking Church Elder Dallin Oaks as an honorary member of the Howard Center’s board.12 The Knights of Columbus contributed at least $75,000 to WCF and was a major funder of the 2007 World Congress.13 In Russia, WCF events have been sponsored by major companies, including some of the country’s largest financial service companies, private equity firms, manufacturers and restaurant chains.
” It has ties to several religious organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Russian Orthodox Church. Speakers at WCF meetings have included representatives from the Southern Baptist Convention, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, and the Center for Family Ministries. WCF partners are some of the largest and most influential conservative groups in America and in the West — including Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom, American Family Association, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America and National Right to Life Committee. A 2001 conference in Washington, D.C., was sponsored by, among others, the Family Research Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Beverly LaHaye Institute, the Catholic Family, Human Rights Institute, Concerned Women for America, the Brigham Young University Management Society and Southern Virginia University. The group listed 29 “partner organizations,” with a combined total annual budget of approximately $216 million, in a planning brochure for the canceled 2014 Moscow World Congress.”
Good thing for the Church that it maintains opacity in its financial reporting. But here is the article in the Deseret News from Oct 2015 (POX, anyone?) touting the Church’s involvement with this group in glowing terms (what else would DN do?) and talking about financial entanglement: https://www.deseret.com/2015/10/25/20575184/salt-lake-city-hosts-the-world-congress-of-families
The article couches everything in terms of housing and transportation, but the speakers at the conferences are all about preventing gay rights and women’s reproductive rights throughout the world, including in oppressive regimes which are the most friendly to these ideas.
Jack Hughes, I too pray that the church is amassing a major humanitarian relief program. I’ve seen the polish saints organized and offering refugee supplies/homes/etc. much more will be needed in the coming days and months.
Eliza and Angels C. , I had no idea, but that’s makes me livid. I hope it immediately ends.
Re: the message from the FP, they should have used the word “Ukrainian”. I can understand the tension in using the word “Russian” (vs the govt of Russia) as there are many Russians being arrested protesting Putin, and many ethnic Russians under fire in Ukraine. Still, that FP announcement was as bland as milk toast- not even mentioning the conflict or geographic region? If a historian were to read it in the future, they’d had no clue (except for the date) as to what in the heck the church was saying. Massive eye roll. Also, thumbs down for not helping the members prep ahead of time for refugee/humanitarian support, not calling for and at of prayer before the conflict started (like the Pope did), and being late to the table.
I’m so sick of our appeasement. Didn’t we learn anything from Rudy Wobbe, Helmith Hubner, and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe (the 3 LDS youth against Hitler)?
The only way forward is for us to put everything g we’ve got into humanitarian efforts in Slovakia, Poland, Cz Republic, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. And, when the time comes- the US.
As to Bishop Bill’s question about the FP statement:
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is (including perhaps even the Bosnian genocide of the 1990s) the worst European atrocity since WW2. Fortunately, Europe and the Western world seem to be responding with some vigor to the crisis.
There is a reason that Christ taught us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s. Tyrants come and go, but will always be with us. The Church, I assume, is operating out of concerns about members in Russia and Ukraine, and how they are going to fare under tyranny. How provincial of the Church to have such concerns! Self-righteous denunciations of the Church and it’s failure to issue a stronger statement are much more satisfying, aren’t they?
In most of the comments to Bishop Bill’s post, I sense no concern about the appalling humanitarian disaster unfolding in Ukraine. Or how we as Church members collectively, or as individuals, can help the Ukrainians. Only Bishop Bill’s posts and Ji’s comments show any empathy for Ukraine. (Geoff-Aus’ comment was illuminating—distressing, but illuminating).
We all have our issues with the Church. I am a believer who has chosen to stay in the Church despite my unhappiness with Church positions on several issues: But there is a larger issue here than our dissatisfactions with the Church.
At a time of genuine crisis for the world, many denizens of Wheat and Tares use the Ukrainian crisis as a chance to indulge in long-winded diatribes against past and present Church failings.
I find this self-absorbed and distressing.
I wish we would all encourage the Church and its members to make humanitarian contributions.
I appreciate the First Presidencies thoughts on the armed conflict of one nation invading another, but I would appreciate even more the renunciation of the genocide we are about to read in Sunday School the next few months. I am sooo sick of the justifications we come up with concerning atrocities committed by “the good guys” in the scriptures.
FYI, our stake Just Giving co-ordinator or what ever they are called, has clearly communicated that the best help we can give is through existing charities and church humanitarian aid rather than silly clothing collection and donation, and provided links with those charities.