Jump to content

Sustaining The Laws Of The Land


paulhadik

Recommended Posts

on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

If we can actively fight to change these laws or protest against evil in government, then why would you argue that Christians should not actively proselytize in countries where Christianity is forbidden? do the needs and hopes of the flesh ever outweigh the needs of the soul?

Link to comment

I'd like to know why you think we should have been pacifists?

There is righteous anger, and a time to fight the righteous battle. How long were we being controlled by England before we fought back? How long were African Americans enslaved before they decided enough was enough to fight back?

Things will come in their due time, so for now we simply keep our heads low and our noses clean.

Link to comment

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

Here is a law that we don't have to follow directly, and we are not in conflict with the land. Do Mormon's feel abortion is right? I would suspect most do not. Does this mean we go bombing clinics? Nope. They have a right to be there, and we would protect that right just like any other law of the land. My saying for abortion is this: We are pro life in my family, and pro choice for everyone else. The law says you have the right to choose, and I, nor anyone else has the right to stand in your way.

The law of the land in a free country has a blurred line. Do we honor the laws before us? We should, yes. Do we have to like them? Sometimes not, and we can change them (if you believe in the political system of a free society). We definitely sustain the process by which laws are created, and we sustain the laws as they stand (unless prompted by the Holy Ghost that such laws are against the will of the Lord), but sustaining laws does not mean we agree with such laws. We can change them if the majority says so. But we don't stand in the way of their execution. Such is life, Mormon or not.

Link to comment
on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

The slaying of Laban by Nephi is a prime example otherwise.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

A government has certain responsibilities to meet or rebellion and war are justified (D&C 134, BoM etc.). China does not meet those requirements.

There is also the 'be all things to all people' principle which I think is also justified to establish a missionary foothold (China and Israel are prime LDS examples).

Link to comment

on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

If we can actively fight to change these laws or protest against evil in government, then why would you argue that Christians should not actively proselytize in countries where Christianity is forbidden? do the needs and hopes of the flesh ever outweigh the needs of the soul?

C'mon Paul, read the Declaration of Independence...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The people of China have the same right. We cannot do it for them nor should we.

Link to comment
The people of China have the same right. We cannot do it for them nor should we.

Would the American Revolution have succeded without French help? I think not. Besides sending us supplies and troops, they went to war with Britain which diverted military pressure away from our shores.

The scriptures actually imply that helping others in this way is right and that we are commanded to do so.

Link to comment

As a member who grew up outside the U.S., I have never felt comfortable with the emphasis placed on honoring country and patriotism. It always struck me as a provincial position. It is fine to talk about how wonderful it is to be patriotic and love your country when you live in a Democratically elected country where the leaders have the best interests of the country at heart.

However this is not the case in most of the world, and I would argue that we are close to losing that in the United States.

I remember criticizing the current President and being told that I could not be a good member of the church unless I respected our leaders. I just cannot understand this at all. So if I was living in Nazi Germany I should have respected my leaders there?

If I was living in revolutionary America, I should have respected the leadership of the English?

What if members of the church go to war against each other on different sides of the conflict? Are they both supposed to obey and respect their leaders?

Now, as for the China situation, it is a little different for us that many other Christian groups. We don't believe that unless the Chinese accept Christ in this life they will burn in hell for eternity. The Lord will give them a chance to accept, so it isn't as incumbent on us to break laws and risk lives to teach them as it is for those who believe that millions will be extra crispy soon unless they go.

Link to comment

on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

If we can actively fight to change these laws or protest against evil in government, then why would you argue that Christians should not actively proselytize in countries where Christianity is forbidden? do the needs and hopes of the flesh ever outweigh the needs of the soul?

The laws you referance are very "gray" areas. The kind of laws that we are to participate

in are laws such as polygamy, e.t.c the laws that you referance are not applicable to any of us unless we

make them applicable, just because we are to uphold the laws of the land did not mean we were

to personally have slaves and dont let blacks drink from the same water fountain? just because

the laws of the land said these things were law, does not mean we were meant to get involved with

wrongdoing. And as far as abortion rights, personally i beleive its not the governments business

to order yes or no because of all the other issues that go along with either banning or having

the right. And "Any" religon as far as i know of does not beleive in abortion per say!

As i do not either, And i dont know nor ever have known anybody whom beleives that abortion

is a "good" thing.

:P

Link to comment

Would the American Revolution have succeded without French help? I think not. Besides sending us supplies and troops, they went to war with Britain which diverted military pressure away from our shores.

The scriptures actually imply that helping others in this way is right and that we are commanded to do so.

It does not say to go to war to implement our secular beliefs, Iraq notwithstanding. Where in the scriptures does it say that the people of the U.S. needs to go to war to implement our religious beliefs?

As to the American Revolution France only assisted us because they had an ongoing war with the British and wished to gain some payback as well as to entertain special considerations from the American colonies. France didn't go to war against the British until the early 1800's so there could be no diversion.

Link to comment
As a member who grew up outside the U.S., I have never felt comfortable with the emphasis placed on honoring country and patriotism. It always struck me as a provincial position. It is fine to talk about how wonderful it is to be patriotic and love your country when you live in a Democratically elected country where the leaders have the best interests of the country at heart.

However this is not the case in most of the world, and I would argue that we are close to losing that in the United States.

I would argue that because of the statemnet of yours that I highlighted, we are in danger of losing Western Europe to socialist dictatorship which is what social democracy leads too. I have found the European propensity to believe their leaders without much argument to be modern evidence that Europe is still a feudal society where orders from the castle are always obeyed.

My kids were in Germany not too long ago and found that the schools teach only the government line (borrowed directly from the UN) and free-thinking is frowned upon at the least and typically punished, sometimes with a forced visit from the psychiatrist.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the people of the U.S. needs to go to war to implement our religious beliefs?

I said 'implied', I did not say direct. "Unto whom much is given, much is required." To name one of many. The aforementioned D&C 134 as well. Who are our friends? Who are our neighbors?

In addition, the gospel cannot be spread to countries that are not free. This in and of itself justifies elective war against such countries. With a just and legal war in Iraq, this is was a secondary concern as the primary ones were found to be true.

Link to comment

on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

If we can actively fight to change these laws or protest against evil in government, then why would you argue that Christians should not actively proselytize in countries where Christianity is forbidden? do the needs and hopes of the flesh ever outweigh the needs of the soul?

Doesn't it say somewhere in the constitution that if the government becomes corrupt we should change it as a people? I think the principle is applicable to all people everywhere.

Link to comment

on the thread about the church in China LDS have stated that sustaining and honoring the laws of the land trump the necessity of preaching to the lost.

How do the LDS feel about the American Revolution? Should early patriots have disdained war for a more patient solution?

The Doctrine and Covenants says that we should uphold those laws which are constitutional:

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.

12 For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith.

13 And whoso layeth down his life in my cause, for my nameâ??s sake, shall find it again, even life eternal.

14 Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.

15 For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me.

16 Therefore, renounce war and proclaim peace, and seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children;

17 And again, the hearts of the Jews unto the prophets, and the prophets unto the Jews; lest I come and smite the whole earth with a curse, and all flesh be consumed before me.

There is no question, if you read the Declaration of Independence, that England had abrogated its legal duties to protect and defend the colonies, protect human rights, and respect basic property rights. Instead, England had turned on its own people and they were forced to take up arms in self defense.

How do the LDS feel about the civil rights movement of the 60's? should African Americans have remained silent and patient in the hopes of equality finally arriving?

My personal feeling is that acts of civil disobedience are not justified as long as you are receiving the protection of the state. I think that it is fairly evident that a lot of Americans were not being protected by the law, as they should have been. Neither were their rights of freedom to worship, to assemble, or to petition the government for grievances being honored.

Would it have been worth going to war over? I am glad it did not come to that. We are not out to cause evil by provoking masters to abuse their slaves. That is a far cry from approving of the situation.

How do the LDS feel about abortion rights? Should these laws be "honored" and "sustained"

I think we should honor and sustain these laws as long as they are constitutional. That is, if the Supreme Court decides that people should be allowed to have abortions, then we are not going to picket abortion clinics or conduct acts of civil disobedience. However, if someone is restricting our freedom of religion by forcing LDS doctors to perform abortions or by making us pay for them, a great many Latter-day Saints would be offended enough to try to change things. We will obey the law until all legal avenues of appeal and redress have been exhausted. After that, we may submit anyway, if it is necessary to preserve the Church. But no member has the right to begin acts of civil disobedience or to take up arms against the country as long as our freedom to worship as we please is preserved.

If we can actively fight to change these laws or protest against evil in government, then why would you argue that Christians should not actively proselytize in countries where Christianity is forbidden? do the needs and hopes of the flesh ever outweigh the needs of the soul?

We take a longer view. We already know that the vast majority of people will not have an opportunity to hear the gospel in this life. Why reduce their opportunities still further by provoking their masters to kill them? But we believe that the spirit continues on after death, where no earthly master holds sway and none can threaten to kill you for listening to the missionaries of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Their work can be completed posthumously.

We understand the position of some churches that if you die without Christ that you will burn in Hell forever, whether you ever heard of Jesus Christ or not. We do not worship such an unjust God. Everyone will be taught the gospel. Everyone who ever lived or who ever will live on the earth will hear our message and be able to freely accept or reject it. So we think there is little point in going out and opposing governments and stirring up war and revolution simply to spread our message. Everyone is going to hear our message eventually, whether they were a peasant farmer in China or his communist party boss, or an Inuit who lived 500 years ago.

Link to comment

I for one have no problem when people disobey laws that are freedom prohibiting.

cjcambell wrote;

However, if someone is restricting our freedom of religion by forcing LDS doctors to perform abortions or by making us pay for them, a great many Latter-day Saints would be offended enough to try to change things. We will obey the law until all legal avenues of appeal and redress have been exhausted. After that, we may submit anyway, if it is necessary to preserve the Church.

I agreed with most of his post but this part (in bold) I would rather fight a government than submit to being forced to commit abortions. And personally I would never think the church would have a need to be preserved, especially not in this way.

Link to comment

Cj:

I agree with you that England had dropped the ball ONLY though if you hold to the idea that government should protect the rights of its citizens. In China they don't recognize that philosophy. So what then?

Would an LDS have helped on the Underground railroad down South when slavery was legal?

I find it interesting that you term the God I love and serve as "unjust" due simply to the fact He doesn't fit your mindset of fairness

I hear LDS often speak of "preserving the church" as a euphemism for caving to things they don't have the backbone to fight for. You rail that my God is "unjust"; at least He's not a wuss.

Link to comment

Cj:

I agree with you that England had dropped the ball ONLY though if you hold to the idea that government should protect the rights of its citizens. In China they don't recognize that philosophy. So what then?

Would an LDS have helped on the Underground railroad down South when slavery was legal?

In fact, historically many of the Saints did help people on the Underground Railroad.

I find it interesting that you term the God I love and serve as "unjust" due simply to the fact He doesn't fit your mindset of fairness

If you believe in a God that arbitrarily sends people to Hell simply because of the circumstances of their birth, then I say your concept of God is unjust. Frankly, I think when you teach such a god, you face the judgment of God. He does not like people mocking Him.

I hear LDS often speak of "preserving the church" as a euphemism for caving to things they don't have the backbone to fight for. You rail that my God is "unjust"; at least He's not a wuss.

So, your god is one that would have you starting wars and bathing in blood as you try to replace one repressive regime with another. Fine, but please do not pretend that this god is the God of the Bible. Most of the churches of today have had their era of spreading the gospel with fire and with the sword, leaving whole areas of Europe depopulated. We are not about to follow that example.

It is hypocritical to chastise us for not provoking masters to murder their slaves when you know very well that you would be the first in line to criticize us for blindly following a false prophet if we started using violence to spread the word of the Lord.

Link to comment

Cj:

we can save this for another thread but no EV I know believes eternal separation comes about due to "circumstances of..birth" but due to sin separating us from a Holy God

Nor have any true believers ever held the position that we should start wars and bath people in blood or even replace regimes. We are commanded to preach the Gospel throughout the world and Christ promises us that we shouldn't worry when we are brought before government leaders, the Spirit will be with us. Will there be consequences? of course, the world hates the truth, and will always hate preachers of the truth, no matter what country they are in.

I don't know where I have ever "chastised" you for "not provoking masters to murder their slaves" (is that backwards?) But scripture is clear we are to "preach the truth, in season and out of season" not when it is most comfortable...

I just wonder what Joseph Smith would think of todays LDS church, and their new attitude of trying to ingratiate those who oppose the message of God.

Link to comment

Cj:

we can save this for another thread but no EV I know believes eternal separation comes about due to "circumstances of..birth" but due to sin separating us from a Holy God

Nor have any true believers ever held the position that we should start wars and bath people in blood or even replace regimes. We are commanded to preach the Gospel throughout the world and Christ promises us that we shouldn't worry when we are brought before government leaders, the Spirit will be with us. Will there be consequences? of course, the world hates the truth, and will always hate preachers of the truth, no matter what country they are in.

I don't know where I have ever "chastised" you for "not provoking masters to murder their slaves" (is that backwards?) But scripture is clear we are to "preach the truth, in season and out of season" not when it is most comfortable...

I just wonder what Joseph Smith would think of todays LDS church, and their new attitude of trying to ingratiate those who oppose the message of God.

I don't think we are trying to ingratiate those who oppose the message of God, nor are we apologizing to evil. I believe Joseph Smith is still very much involved in the Church, by the way, and that he sees what we are doing now.

Link to comment

but our calling from God is not to stand by but to be the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world"

If your church will simply settle for "we don't apologize for evil" what kind of church is that? It just sounds so jello-ish to me.

So if Joseph Smith is watching how does he feel about the church abandoning DC 132 just to save some land and buildings? Where else will the church cave in the future if government persecution grows?

Link to comment
So if Joseph Smith is watching how does he feel about the church abandoning DC 132 just to save some land and buildings? Where else will the church cave in the future if government persecution grows?

Since D&C 132 has not been abandoned in any way, I don't think JS would feel any different.

Link to comment

ahh..you say potato...

would yuo be willing to state that the "it is enough" was proclaimed due to the fear that the enemies of the church would annihilate the church if open polygamy was practiced?

Jesus never once told the disciples that life would be a piece of cake; just the opposite, He prophesied over and over that the world would hate them as it had hated him.

It seems that when Smith started, no matter what I may feel about his teachings, he was bold and fiery as was Young...Now its "hey blomberg gave a nice message about us at his church" and "it is enough, we must protect the church"

Link to comment

but our calling from God is not to stand by but to be the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world"

If your church will simply settle for "we don't apologize for evil" what kind of church is that? It just sounds so jello-ish to me.

So if Joseph Smith is watching how does he feel about the church abandoning DC 132 just to save some land and buildings? Where else will the church cave in the future if government persecution grows?

We don't apologize to evil. This appears to be a thread where you are willing to change what we say and no matter what we say it is wrong.

The Church has not abandoned D&C 132. We teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to all who are willing and able to listen.

Talk about gelatinous -- you claim to support the gospel of peace, but do not care how violent your methods for spreading it are. We do not believe that the end justifies the means.

Link to comment

cjcampbell:

I have not once ever espoused violent methods for spreading the gospel...ever. I believe though that the commandments of God supercede those of men. I see no evidence either in Scripture or history that there will ever be a day that truth will be in the majority until Christ returns. That the world will never, while in darkness, want to hear the truth. That there will always be persecution for true believers and we should recognize that and be prepared for it.

and believe it or not I am not trying to be condescending nor insulting. One of the things about the LDS church that I find fascinating is its preoccupation with what everyone thinks about it. I have never heard an EV or RCC state that they should try to be more acceptable to the LDS church.

If Smith's vision was true this was God's stunning condemnation of what then existed. He wanted no more of it and had to intervene in a might way. Both Smith and Young seemed to truly believe the implications of a restoration and that their message would be both true and highly unpopular.

What has happened since then?

Since you mention "ends doesn't justify the means". I will then watch this presidential race with interest...

gelatinously yours,

paul

Link to comment

cjcampbell:

I have not once ever espoused violent methods for spreading the gospel...ever. I believe though that the commandments of God supercede those of men. I see no evidence either in Scripture or history that there will ever be a day that truth will be in the majority until Christ returns. That the world will never, while in darkness, want to hear the truth. That there will always be persecution for true believers and we should recognize that and be prepared for it.

and believe it or not I am not trying to be condescending nor insulting. One of the things about the LDS church that I find fascinating is its preoccupation with what everyone thinks about it. I have never heard an EV or RCC state that they should try to be more acceptable to the LDS church.

If Smith's vision was true this was God's stunning condemnation of what then existed. He wanted no more of it and had to intervene in a might way. Both Smith and Young seemed to truly believe the implications of a restoration and that their message would be both true and highly unpopular.

What has happened since then?

Since you mention "ends doesn't justify the means". I will then watch this presidential race with interest...

gelatinously yours,

paul

I generally avoid expressing political opinions. Not everybody supports Mitt Romney or Harry Reid just because they are members of the Church. I hate all the Jell-O flinging in politics. :P

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...