LDS view of Israel

[Latter Days Guy]

Well, I didn't want to threadjack; but we've got the guests and the band, so maybe we should just have the party:

LDG, do you also hold that Cuban exiles in Miami, Vietnamese refugees in San Francisco, and ethnic Chinese in Taiwan have legitimate claims over the territories they were forced to abandon fifty years ago?

If not, what makes the Palestinians any different?

 

Yes.

[Latter Days Guy]

Israel's legitimate annexation of land cannot be compared to Germany because Germany has a firm, non-negotiated, fully defensible border recognized by all nations and peoples.  Anytime Germany takes land outside of this border such as Austria and Poland is a clear usurpation of someone else's sovereign land.

 

Yes it can and I just did.  Israel had firm borders which it was given by the Partition of Palestine by the UN.  The land outside that border was the land given to the Palestinians.

 

Israel, on the other hand, was given a border by the British, they claimed it, tried to defend it, but the British gave somebody else dibs on that same land, so now it became an argument on who owns what.  The British threw up its hands because they know they made a mess of things and lobbed the entire matter to the UN.  But until TODAY, the UN cannot agree on where that border is.  The line keeps on moving so Israel decided way back in the 50's to claim their borders by conquest to finally end the racket... the reason they had to annex that land is because the last border UN drew (which did not completely get agreed on) was not defensible.  The annexed land, therefore, provides a barrier from which Israel can defend its borders.

 

No, the British didn't give them a border, that as I've said above was decided by the UN.  The UN is quite clear on what is and is not Israels borders, it is in fact Israel that will not finalize its borders as this would mean they couldn't get away with its land grab policy any more.  The occupied land is illegally held under International law, that Israel flouts this shows how much of a morally corrupt nation it actually is. 

 

It is legitimate because nobody has legitimate claims to that land.  Nobody.  The Palestinians do not.  The Israelis do not.  The British do not.  The UN do not.  So the land is up for grabs and the most effective way to claim it when negotiations fail time and time again is to conquer it before somebody else conquers your entire nation.  Remember, Israel is one little nation in the middle of superpowers able and willing to wipe them off the face of the planet.

 

Nobody other than the people who were actually living on the land at the time maybe or do they not count?  Israel is the local superpower, they have nothing to fear from their Arab neighbors seeing as they are the only nuclear power in the region.  They have ample opportunity to negotiate for peace but squirm their way out at each and every opportunity.  The only thing they are truly interested in is the establishment of the greater Israel.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

[Just_A_Guy]

The only thing they are truly interested in is the establishment of the greater Israel.

 

Yeah, I think I saw a move about that once . . .

 

[thoughts]

The Jerusalem Center and BYU's Semester Abroad has been famous for presenting a very ballanced and fully inclusive description of both Palestinian and Jewish modern views and history.   Until travel was so severely curtailed, the Center also employed both Palestinians and Israeli's who worked together quite peacefully and well.  

 

With the restrictions it is currently indeed harder to produce that fair and complete perspective.   But you cannot fairly use the Jerusalem Center to argue that Mormon's support the modern state of Israel's political positions.

Edited August 28, 2015 by thoughts

[Guest]

Nobody other than the people who were actually living on the land at the time maybe or do they not count?  Israel is the local superpower, they have nothing to fear from their Arab neighbors seeing as they are the only nuclear power in the region.  They have ample opportunity to negotiate for peace but squirm their way out at each and every opportunity.  The only thing they are truly interested in is the establishment of the greater Israel.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

 

The people who lived in that area were under Turkey.  Turkey disclaimed them.  The British took over and by right of conquest in WWI divied up the land to make several nations.  Israel just happened to be one of those that the British made 2 conflicting treaties over - hence the start of the conflict.  But, all people living in that land before the land became Israel are now Israelis.

 

I'm just now noticing you respond to posts within the quoted post.  I might be missing a lot of your answers.

 

Israel is not the only nuclear power in the region.  France, Pakistan, and India are also considered "in that region".

 

Your view of who is squirming is quite one-sided.  I can give you the point by point history but it's not going to matter because, like most people who have their minds already decided on the matter, it's just going to fall on deaf ears.

 

And saying that Israel has nothing to fear is very naïve.  Israel is so tiny and so controlled by the UN that if Iran ever launches a nuke against them they're going to be wiped out even if they manage to launch something to retaliate.  What's the point of a nuke if your country is dead?  So, the only way they can use their nukes is if they strike first - which they can't - because then the US, UK, France, Russia etc.. are going to retaliate and squash them.  They can't even admit publicly that they have a nuke.  All they can really do is go to the US Congress and threaten to do first strike.  The Israeli's are prepared to go to war as evidenced by their military not only whipping back any invasion in the 50's and 60's but also being able to gain enough ground that another invasion is least likely to follow.  But, the Israeli's have been respecting the UN mandates as far as it can without losing its sovereignty because they know they exist under the benevolence of the super powers.

 

Greater Israel... seriously?  Who are you talking to?  This is like talking to an anti-Mormon...

 

Israel's conquests are pretty easy to follow.  They are going after a defensible border.  Something they can hold sovereignty over.  Many negotiations failed because of the inability of the UN to negotiate a line that Israel can successfully defend that the Palestinians will agree to.  Israel is squirming for a reason.  What's the point of a border if you can't defend it?  The Palestinians, on the other hand, don't even bother showing up to negotiations.  In several instances, it was pretty clear that they don't want a resolution to the conflict.  Many statesmen believe this is by design - the Muslim nations are using Palestine as a whipping stick against Israel.

 

A current political candidate which we can't name on lds.net has this to say about borders:  A nation without borders is not a nation.  Israel believes this.  Israel will not agree to a border it can't defend against invasion.

Edited August 28, 2015 by anatess

[Latter Days Guy]

The people who lived in that area were under Turkey.  Turkey disclaimed them.  The British took over and by right of conquest in WWI divied up the land to make several nations.  Israel just happened to be one of those that the British made 2 conflicting treaties over - hence the start of the conflict.  But, all people living in that land before the land became Israel are now Israelis.

 

Nope they were under to control of the Ottomans, Turkey wasn't founded as a nation until 1922.  Britain didn't take over by right of conquest but by treaty via the League of Nations, they along with France carved up the middle east to form vassal states.  As there was no Israel how could the British make a treaty with Israel?  There was the Balfour declaration and Britain did make treaties with the indigenous Arabs to give them autonomy after the defeat of the Ottomans.  Apart from the ones who left to avoid the conflict and who now reside in refugee camps around the middle east. 

 

I'm just now noticing you respond to posts within the quoted post.  I might be missing a lot of your answers.

 

Israel is not the only nuclear power in the region.  France, Pakistan, and India are also considered "in that region".

 

Pakistan and India are in Asia, which the middle east is a region of, so yes Israel is the military super power of the middle east region.  I also guess that geography isn't your strong point as France is in Europe not the middle east or even Asia!

 

Your view of who is squirming is quite one-sided.  I can give you the point by point history but it's not going to matter because, like most people who have their minds already decided on the matter, it's just going to fall on deaf ears.

 

As could I but then it would fall on your deaf ears also.

 

And saying that Israel has nothing to fear is very naïve.  Israel is so tiny and so controlled by the UN that if Iran ever launches a nuke against them they're going to be wiped out even if they manage to launch something to retaliate.  What's the point of a nuke if your country is dead?  So, the only way they can use their nukes is if they strike first - which they can't - because then the US, UK, France, Russia etc.. are going to retaliate and squash them.  They can't even admit publicly that they have a nuke.  All they can really do is go to the US Congress and threaten to do first strike.  The Israeli's are prepared to go to war as evidenced by their military not only whipping back any invasion in the 50's and 60's but also being able to gain enough ground that another invasion is least likely to follow.  But, the Israeli's have been respecting the UN mandates as far as it can without losing its sovereignty because they know they exist under the benevolence of the super powers.

 

Israel isn't controlled by the UN, the UN has next to no power over Israel as it has the veto of the US in its back pocket.  And as Iran doesn't have any nukes then that fantasy isn't going to happen either!  As for Israel respecting the UN mandates, poppycock!  If they respected them then they would actually abide by them instead of ignoring them as they have done for over 60 years!

 

Greater Israel... seriously?  Who are you talking to?  This is like talking to an anti-Mormon...

 

The aims of the Zionist movement from its inception in the late 18th century was for the establishment of a Jewish nation in the middle east within the borders of what they call greater Israel, which is the land that the biblical nation of Israel occupied at the height of power.  Its not rocket science!

 

Israel's conquests are pretty easy to follow.  They are going after a defensible border.  Something they can hold sovereignty over.  Many negotiations failed because of the inability of the UN to negotiate a line that Israel can successfully defend that the Palestinians will agree to.  Israel is squirming for a reason.  What's the point of a border if you can't defend it?  The Palestinians, on the other hand, don't even bother showing up to negotiations.  In several instances, it was pretty clear that they don't want a resolution to the conflict.  Many statesmen believe this is by design - the Muslim nations are using Palestine as a whipping stick against Israel.

 

But then Israel won't define its borders so the point is mute.  And as for the Palestinians not showing up, in 2002 the Arab League along with the US, Britain and other western nations attended a peace conference where the Arab League presented their proposed peace plan for the region.  Israel refused to attend, they also told the Palestinian Authorities that if they attended they would not be allowed to re-enter Palestinian Authority controlled land, effectively saying they would be blocked from returning home.  Time after time Israel refuses to attend, often to the consternation of the US who are left with egg on their face when Israel fail to show again!

 

A current political candidate which we can't name on lds.net has this to say about borders:  A nation without borders is not a nation.  Israel believes this.  Israel will not agree to a border it can't defend against invasion.

So going by what this so called person states, that means Israel isn't a nation as it refuses to define its borders.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[bytebear]

Not sure if it was mentioned, but Orson Hyde, LDS Apostle, in 1841, dedicated the land to be restored to the kingdom of Israel. So the church, in its earliest years had an interest in the preservation of Israel.

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/10/orson-hydes-1841-mission-to-the-holy-land?lang=eng

[Just_A_Guy]

The 2002 proposal demanded that Israel, with its population of 8,000,000, accept four million Palestinians into its heartland.

 

I'll bet you Brits, with your population of 64 million, wouldn't accept thirty-two million immigrants into your borders--not even if they were (heaven forbid!) Americans.  And frankly, if we Yanks had spent the last sixty years fantasizing about the day when we could drive the Jews--er, Brits--into the sea, and you were big enough schmucks to let thirty two million of us into your borders--I doubt we'd just suddenly decide to drop our old disagreements, either.  Especially if Britain enjoyed a first-world standard of living while the US had a third-world economy and a second-rate leadership with a history of blaming the Brits for their own failures, inadequacies, and corruption.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Latter Days Guy]

The 2002 proposal demanded that Israel, with its population of 8,000,000, accept four million Palestinians into its heartland.

 

I'll bet you Brits, with your population of 64 million, wouldn't accept thirty-two million immigrants into your borders--not even if they were (heaven forbid!) Americans.  And frankly, if our respective cultures had been brought up to hate each other and, in that context, you guys were big enough schmucks to agree to let yourselves be colonized in such a way--well, we wouldn't stop at sending 32 million colonists.  No one would.

Nope, not at all.  They would return to the land that would become the Palestinian state, i.e. the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Hardly their heartland, infact not even their land at all!  Though at the rate of expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank there soon won't be any viable land left for a Palestinian state.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

Nope, not at all.  They would return to the land that would become the Palestinian state, i.e. the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Hardly their heartland, infact not even their land at all!

 

Untrue.

 

First, look at this from a logical/linguistic standpoint.  If the Palestinian State is going to be sovereign and independent, why mention the right of return at all?  Israel would have no say into which persons or groups a truly independent/sovereign Palestinian State is going to permit to immigrate into its own borders.  

 

Second, look at the history and the relevant documents.  The Arab proposal required return in accordance with UN Resolution 194 which demanded the refugees be allowed to return to "their home"--i.e., wherever they were from before the 1948 war.  A Palestinian family whose forbears left Tel Aviv would be expected to be permitted re-entry to Tel Aviv.  (And all this notwithstanding the fact that many of the original refugees were offered an opportunity to stay, but voluntarily left because they didn't want to coexist with Jews and trusted Arab assurances of military aid.)

 

No, LDG.  The Arab "peace initiative" was merely for a change in tactics in the never-ending quest to destroy the Jewish State; and in rejecting the proposal der Juden committed the unpardonable sin of refusing to sign a suicide pact.

Edited August 29, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

My solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem (and the problems for pretty much any world conflict): they should all become Mormons.  The violence would instantly stop, and frankly they would all be so much happier...

[SpiritDragon]

No, the Palestinians didn't leave their homes to attack Israel, the majority left to escape the conflict.  Or are you saying they should have just stayed and been slaughtered?  Have we suddenly gone back to the middle ages?  Legitimate annexation of land?  In that case surely Hitler had every right to march into the Rhineland, annex Austria, and invade Poland, the Netherlands, France and keep them as they were just annexing territory! 

 

 

A key difference to keep in mind is that these territorial gains are from defensive wars  Hitler was clearly out to attack as the aggressor to invade other territories. Had France, Poland and Austria all suddenly launched an unprovoked attack on the Germans they indeed should have been entitled to claim some territory for future defense.

Edited August 31, 2015 by SpiritDragon

[Blackmarch]

The larger Christian community is divided on Israel's place in world events.  Some, including me, believe that Israel remains an important part of end-times prophesies, and that God still has special plans for the nation and people.  Some call the most pro-Israel viewpoint Christian Zionism.  Other Christians (often mainline groups, Lutherans, Reformed) teach Replacement Theology--that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and the Jews, and we should read the Bible in that light.  As a result, Many Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, and others who espouse pre-millennial (or Dispensationalist) beliefs about the end times are very supportive of political Israel.  Those espousing Replacement Theology tend to be negative, seeing Israel as a human rights abuser, and they tend to have sympathy for Palestinians.

 

Is there an LDS view on all this--or are perceptions diverse?

yes LDS view that Israel both as a nation and place will be important. as to how much importance and when such importance is relevant will vary among members.

I tend to be supportive of the Israeli political state in general. but am of the thought that the first real massive conversion or return of the middle east jews to God and Christ as a whole or a majority instance will occur around when Christ saves them from armageddon.

 

As a political state it's almost like a mirror of the neighboring states.. corruption and freedoms are almost on the same level as it's neighbors. It's not drastically different in those regards (but i would say it is above average tho)

Edited September 3, 2015 by Blackmarch

[Finrock]

As I understand things from the limited scripture study I have done is that all of the promises made to Israel will be kept. All of God's words will be fulfilled.

 

In a coming time yet, which I feel is sooner than later, the Jews will recognize their Messiah and will worship Him, even Jesus Christ.

 

God has not forsaken His people Israel.

 

-Finrock

[garryw]

My view of Israel is that I am an Israelite.  My view is that Israel existed prior to the creation of the earth.  

[spamlds]

I had to look up "Replacement Theology" before chiming in.  Here's a sample of what I found:

 

Supersessionism, also called replacement theology or fulfillment theology, is a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism.^[1] Supersessionism is the belief that the Christian Church has replaced the Israelites as God's^[2] chosen people^[1][3] and that the Mosaic covenant has been replaced or superseded by the New Covenant.^[4] From a supersessionist's "point of view, just by continuing to exist, the Jews dissent."^[5] This view directly contrasts with dual-covenant theology which holds the Mosaic Covenant as still valid for Jews. While supersessionism was a core tenet of the Church for the majority of its existence, and remains a common assumption among Christians, since the Holocaust it has been rejected by some mainstream Christian theologians and denominations.^[6]:1–5

 

Mormons have a unique view on Israel.  Israel is the body of the righteous spirits who were valiant in the pre-mortal life and were foreordained to be messengers and administrators of the covenant on earth. 

 

We most often think that foreordination applies to a pre-mortal calling conferred upon individuals, but perhaps the most important meaning of foreordination is in reference to the blessings and responsibilities that were foreordained to an entire group. Moses spoke of this type of foreordination as he spoke of all the house of Israel. "Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the Lord's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance." (Deut. 32:7-9; italics added.)

 

Commenting on this Old Testament passage and its implications to the doctrine of foreordination generally and to the house of Israel specifically, President Harold B. Lee said:

 

It would seem very clear, then, that...Jacob, who was later to be called Israel, and his posterity, who were known as the children of Israel, were born into the most illustrious lineage of any of those who came upon the earth as mortal beings.

 

All these rewards were seemingly promised, or foreordained, before the world was. Surely these matters must have been determined by the kind of lives we had lived in that premortal spirit world. Some may question these assumptions, but at the same time they will accept without any question the belief that each one of us will be judged when we leave this earth according to his or her deeds during our lives here in mortality. Isn't it just as reasonable to believe that what we have received here in this earth life was given to each of us according to the merits of our conduct before we came here?10

 

Also, as previously cited, the Apostle Paul taught the doctrine of election to the Saints in Rome and Ephesus. Election, in this instance, is a type of collective foreordination-a selection of spirits to form an entire favored group or lineage. Although it is a collective foreordination it is nonetheless based on individual premortal faithfulness and spiritual capacity. Elder Melvin J. Ballard, in a classic address given in 1922 entitled "The Three Degrees of Glory," explained how some were foreordained to be of the house of Israel.

 

There was a group of souls tested, tried, and proven before they were born into the world, and the Lord provided a lineage for them. That lineage is the house of Israel, the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and their posterity. Through this lineage were to come the true and tried souls that had demonstrated their righteousness in the spirit world before they came here. Our particular branch is the house of Joseph through his son Ephraim. That is the group whence shall come the majority of the candidates for celestial glory.11 

(http://emp.byui.edu/OpenshawR/Pearl%20of%20Great%20Price/Called%20and%20Prepared%20from%20the%20Foundation%20of%20the%20WorldWith%20the%20War%20in.htm)

 

Israel is more than just the Jews.  Abraham was not a Jew and he did not live under Mosaic Law--he lived under the gospel (Galatians 3:8).  Isaac and Jacob were not Jews.  They lived under the same law as Abraham.  The Old Testament focuses on their posterity who ended up living under the Law of Moses as a "schoolmaster" them to Christ.

 

Thus Israel includes all those who are foreordained to be messengers of the covenant.  The Restoration began with Joseph (the Gatherer) reaching out to the other Israelites through missionary work.  Patriarchal blessings tell us that members of all the various tribes have been identified as converts join the Church.  That work continues and will continue until the end of the Millennium and all of those who are called are gathered in.  Oddly enough, there are Jews who are "not of Israel" because they are not part of the foreordination and not called to election of Israel (Romans 9:6).  

 

As far as political Israel goes, latter-day saints have prophetic statements from Joseph Smith that tell us that confirm the Bible's predictions that Israel would be gathered and restored to rebuild the temple.  This is part of the Restitution of all things. Joseph also instructed that the time would come when the preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles would generally end and our missionaries will be sent to the Jews, that the "first shall be last and the last shall be first."

 

We don't believe that Christianity supplanted, superceded, or replaced the covenant with Abraham's seed.  Jesus taught a Restored Gospel, too.  He restored back to Israel what Abraham and the ancient patriarchs back to Adam had enjoyed.  Mormonism is a restoration of that same gospel.  Those who embrace it are either of the house of Israel by foreordination, blood, or adoption.  When a Jew or Gentile embraces the gospel today, is baptized, and confirmed, he enters into the ancient Abrahamic covenant and becomes the seed of Abraham and of the house of Israel.  He enters into the covenant into which he was called and elected before his birth.  

Edited September 20, 2015 by spamlds

[yjacket]

I do find it interesting how history works.  Prior to WWII, Americans by and large wanted nothing to do with Jews. I wish we went back to that same mentality with regards to Israel.  I don't care to have anything to do with Israel-it's not my fight, it's not my county, it's not my people, it's not my heritage.  

 

My heritage, my people, my country, my fight lies within the United States and within the LDS religion. We have so many issues and problems to take care of here that we don't need to go overseas looking for monsters to destroy . . .especially monsters of other people.

 

The most recent Repub. debate highlighted this fact.  In the closing statements, how many politicians stated they would "stand with Israel" . . . I don't want you to stand with Israel-I want you to stand with the Constitution!

 

Israel can darn well take care of itself and if it is important enough for people here to support them, then that person personally needs to send them money or contribute in some other fashion. A huge portion of our problems with the middle east come specifically because we fancy ourselves as Israels defenders; last time I checked a Prophet of God was not directing the United States and I don't think God has commanded POTUS to defend Israel.

 

I don't want my blood and treasure fighting Israel's battles.