Over the history of man, talk of a need for revolution hangs around. Today is no different. People feel that the government isn't doing this or that the right way. Often there is something to what is being said.
Many countries have had great bloodbaths of revolutions. Yet the blood keeps flowing long after the revolution, because there never was agreement on what to change to and the problems haven't been solved.
The French revolution must be the most repulsive I am aware of. Not only did they murder the monarchy and all relatives, but all their servants. They murdered all the rich and their servants. They murdered the founders of the revolution and anyone else they felt like murdering to appease the crowds. From all this finally came Napoleon, who continued the rampage of murder through his armies (hardened to conquest through such a bloody revolution).
Doctrine and Covenants 87 gives prophesy in regard the wars of the latter-days. Amidst it all it says that the Gentiles (meaning those who aren't Lamanites) shall have a terrible time (v5). Obviously this is speaking of the United States, as where but the Americas are there Israelites in such large number mixed with Gentiles in such large number?
"And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation."
Verse 6 seems to extend out to a earth wide problem.
"And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;"
So it seems we will have more than what we could term a "Second Revolution." Yet I don't think those calling for one would be too happy with what they will get. The trouble with starting revolutions is the question of who is going to stop it and where.
Jesus Christ was raised in the midst of a terrible regime. Corruption was that wide that John the Baptist made mention of it to the soldiers who asked what they should do.
"And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14).
Yet note that even though he could have, Christ knew that changing the government was pointless unless the people were different. A revolution can't help unless it is against a government in another place (as the American Revolution was). For the government is only an extension of the people. In other words people only get the government they deserve.
Christ knew that the answer to improving the government was to improve the people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You speak against the French Revolution and yet from it came democracy for the French. Are you suggesting they would have been better not to have had a revolution and remained under a monarchy?
Anonymous
I guess that gets down to the question of whether the means justifies the ends?
Most communists feel that the way to fix the problems in capitalism is to destroy the economy and create a revolution. Thereby setting up a Communist government in its place.
This eagerness for bloodbaths for the good of all is rubbish as far as I'm concerned.
How many French lives could have been saved if people had changed? Now things are better because people have changed. It is only through righteousness of the people that good government and fair rights can exist.
Countries may have elections and no monarchy, but that doesn't mean that they always have freedom.
Post a Comment