Comments on: In Our Ward: Lesson 26: Converted unto the Lord

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:23:23 +0000

Thanks. I’ll explore. If you easily find something else, I’d love to see it, but this gives me a time and place to look.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:00:35 +0000

A quick google search pulled this result- http://onthisdayinmormonhistory.blogspot.com/2008/10/october-2nd.html

I’ve read it elsewhere though. I’m at work, so I feel a bit guilty spending too much time researching where I read it, but I’ll get back to you this evening.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:44:44 +0000

Jonathan, any idea where you’ve read about the Church and CO’s so that I could check out those claims? My understanding is that there is not and never has been any official Church sanction for CO status, that anyone claiming CO status was doing so not because of anything the Church taught, or that was incumbent on any member, but only because an individual’s personal philosophy pointed that way. Absent such support, it would be incongruous to take responsibility for anyone claiming such status, beyond offering the same pastoral visits/support that have been made available to LDS members in service. It’s worth checking out, though.

And in any case, this is one of the several possible responses to war exemplified favorably in the Book of Mormon, and I want to be sure it gets included as we move into the more aggressive responses of the next few lessons.

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:51:25 +0000

Thank you so much for reminding us that the refusal to fight is indeed one righteous response to war. I was so glad to hear you mention that in the closing moments during yesterday’s class. I’ve read elsewhere that the Church paid for the “expenses” incurred by LDS “conscientious objectors” in WWII work camps/internment camps. Perhaps it’s a stretch, but to me, that indicates an agreement on the First Presidency’s part (at the time anyway), with your assessment that the refusal to fight is “okay”. Any thoughts/historical insights on that?

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 15:02:33 +0000

Paul, we didn’t get any further than discussion of the first seven verses of Alma 23! The discussion was that good and wide-ranging, and that part directly addressed the stated purpose of the lesson. Because I could see that was where our time was going, I didn’t even try to go beyond that point in discussing any of the history of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies.

It really is a shame that we have to move along so fast that we have to choose between discussion of very limited issues, and anything like an adequate coverage of the narrative itself. I haven’t worked on those future lessons yet, but I do very much hope to return to the Anti-Nephi-Lehies in whatever part of the war chapters are in my half of the lessons.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:52:22 +0000

“The refusal of the Anti-Nephi-Lehies to fight, even at the cost of their own lives, is not a course that many, if any, of us are prepared to adopt.”

Not only at the cost of their lives, but also at the cost of the Nephites who defended them after their move to Jershon.

Great lesson outline, Ardis. I really enjoyed your perspective, particularly regarding the behavior discussion at the beginning.