Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
I'm not sure of her current status; but a few years ago a good and well-intentioned young woman got the approval of her Meeting to follow what she, and they, considered 'a leading' to promote nuclear power as a safe way of mitigating human-caused climate disruption...
This article isn't that well-written, and contains a typo or two; but basically conveys the truth of the situation:
Bottom line, these things are insanely dangerous even when constructed to spec and operated conscientiously, which they aren't and won't be. The pressures to cover up and mickey-mouse troubles with such expensive, high-tech projects are intense. Meanwhile, the radiation a reactor generates keeps right on randomly disrupting the chemical bonds of every structure used to contain it; the damage this produces over time makes any eventual problem increasingly intractable & dangerous...
What does this say about the nature of a 'leading' and our methods for discriminating a true leading from self-deception?
If the leading didn't go further than her local monthly meeting, I would suggest that the Quaker Process worked. My experience is that monthly meetings can develop a great sense of community and fail to balance great personal relationships with deep spiritual discernment. They also don't have access to as large a knowledge base as quarterly and yearly meetings and can be misinformed. Personally I am a Thorium advocate but those I know in the nuclear field insist the present systems are safe. Of course they don't live in Japan or Russia. As an aside if you haven't watched the foreign series "Occupied" you are missing a possibly prophetic show.
My suspicions are similar to yours Forrest; while I am not as ardently anti-nuclear as yourself I do have doubts about instituting a nuclear power project without a plan for disposal of the waste products. And in this current political climate I have serious reservations about the kinds of controls that would be in place or their enforcement.
I'm not sure that my reservations about nuclear power are the same as having a reservation about whether your Friend has had a properly discerned leading. I have learned in my own case that sometimes discernment is only fully possible in media res and not a priori. We do the best discernment we can but when we are in the thick of things we see things differently and we need to be open in the moment. It may be that following this leading will take her somewhere she needs to be in order to speak more fully in that new place. That is why some kind of ongoing support she follows her heart is going to be necessary.
The Light shines within, and shines without. The Light is Peace, Infinite and Neverending. The Light does not condone nuclear war, nuclear power plants, or anything but the Word of Jesus, which is Peace. And my very Quaker ancestors were pacifists who would never raise a hand in anger or use Nuclear technology which they didn't have and probably abhor in their Place in the Light.
Someday we will be part of the Light. We journey towards this end day to day. We must pray for Peace upon the Earth and that all who see nuclear power as an option have their eyes opened to the Light.
Yes, the Light shines within, without, reflects from us, and connects all sentient beings. I think this interconnection is important to remember. Doing something for the benefit of mankind does not necessarily benefit all life that we are connected to. And harming the environment will eventually harm mankind.
Curious, what do you call entering the Light when you die? Buddhists call it Sukhavati (blissful) referring to the state of encountering the light. Gnostics call it Pleroma (fullness) referring to the fullness of light. I saw a quote of George Fox about an ocean of light which seems to suggest the same thing.
Sorry how long it's taking me to settle on this.
James, the Quaker process worked if the goal was to express the Meeting's sense of community and sympathy for their young member; if its goal is to approximate truth, whole truth, How Stuff Be -- then it frequently falls short (as do we.) While we may yet be led to apply some technical fix to the "problems" caused by our previous technical "fixes", while that may turn out appropriate and necessary -- I certainly haven't gotten a clue as to what that fix would look like (although Gerard O'Neill's engineering class' proposal for orbital solar power would probably be much more doable now, technically, than in the 80's when they concluded it could have been done. The main obstacles then, of course, were political disinterest & sheer public ignorance.)
Mainly, the current Quaker (& academic-retainer class) reverence for 'expert opinion' is probably excessive, certainly seems to overwhelm our reliance on God for deciding whether a given expert opinion reflects truth -- or occupational-ideology.
Yeah, David, we're talking about a very bright, dedicated, promising woman who probably needs to make her own mistakes until she better appreciates the dangers of technically-trustworthy designs implemented by corrupt human agencies -- and I really don't know why her Meeting members made the decision they did. But if this is "Will of God' then it illustrates His Will to have us to blunder now & then; what can I say?
Keith, again I feel a lot of agreement that the presence of God within each & all trumps the urge to have an absolute outward Statement of Truth to force on anyone who doesn't share the inspiration that led to it. But I'm also sure that God is concerned with this world and what we-all do with-&-to it, how that affects everyone and everything living in it.
The externals are more under God's control, far less under ours, than we think -- but we aren't truly aligned with God's will when we're pushing things the wrong direction.
Carolyn, the Light 'condones' all sorts of stuff -- things that I, too, feel would not at first have occurred to me. Maybe we're really supposed to play with a little Fire now & then. But such things are certainly toys we shouldn't play with except under Adult supervision.
Chris, I don't know what happens if-&-when we physically die; but I suspect we just call it "Wow!"