Does The "Moroni'S Promise" Conversion Process Produce An Unanticipated Need To Believe In Prophetic Infallibility?

[canard78]

I never have had an time when the Holy Ghost has told me that a Prophet of God was not speaking the truth. Have YOU? Please do not get ridiculous and start quoting some story about Quaker Moonmen, or some obscure reference from the Journal of Discourses which reportedly states something odd or undoctrinal. I am talking about a prophet speaking in your own hearing. In Conference or anywhere else? I have not.

Yes, I was uncomfortable with President Hinkleys support of Bush in 2001 in saying we "stand solidly with the president of our nation," as I was with his support of the war in 2003 and his expression of "personal loyalties" from the conference pulpit which included a warning against those opposing/campaigning against the war*. Many of my LDS family and friends felt the same way. I did not feel any spiritual witness that I should change my position of opposition to it nor that it was right for the prophet to speak in support of it. I felt it epitomises how American-centric church leaders can often be, with a tilt towards the Wasatch front.

I also consider the use and raising of funds during prop 8 campaigns to be inappropriate and a mistake. I do not consider the 14 fundamentals, repeated twice in General Conference in 2010, to be correct doctrine. I consider them to be unhelpful and counter-productive. I dislike the occasional emphasis on conservative dress-styles (white shirt, clean shaven, one set or earrings for girls).

Our church's canon teaches us to expect that the words of prophets will not be perfect due to the their mortal limitations:

Book of Mormon Title Page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..."

D&C 1:34 "...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language...".

These also teach me an important principle: It is more important that scripture and the prophets lead me to doing more good than it is to be proven right all the time. Or, I want scripture that can correct me and my course in life more than I want scripture and prophets that are always perfectly correct.

I still attend and enjoy conference. I am still inspired and uplifted by many of the lessons and principles taught. I do not reject prophets simply because I sometimes disagree with them or feel they speak from personal perspective rather than inspiration.

I do not reject them because otherwise I would have to reject all men including myself. I know I sometimes speak in error, including when I was in priesthood presidency positions and had keys of leadership. I don't hold them to a higher standard than any other priesthood leader. They are men, they sometimes mistakes. So do I. That's part of what makes us human.

ETA: I should also highlight that the examples given above represent less than 0.1% of the talks given at conference in the last 15 years. I accept and embrace the vast majority of what our prophets teach. But I don't think it's possible for them to always speak with '0' margin for error. I also don't think that with a diverse church of 14m members that everything they say will apply to everyone listening.

*I give this as an example to your question. I will not discuss the merits of the Iraq War on this thread, only that I didn't support it and I wish our prophet hadn't.

Edited August 13, 2013 by canard78

[wenglund]

I don't know if this was stated somewhere in the thread, but I view Moroni's promise as the means for obtaining the seed of faith which is then to be planted and which grows by means of Alma 32. Thus, Moroni isn't the end in gaining a testimony, but the beginning. It is the gateway to the path of faith in Christ.

And, because it is the beginning of the path of faith, Moroni 10 does not necessitate infallibility, but rather practical acceptance until things are established or negated by way of the path of Alma 32.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

I don't know if this was stated somewhere in the thread, but I view Moroni's promise as the means for obtaining the seed of faith which is then to be planted and which grows by means of Alma 32. Thus, Moroni isn't the end in gaining a testimony, but the beginning. It is the gateway to the path of faith in Christ.

And, because it is the beginning of the path of faith, Moroni 10 does not necessitate infallibility, but rather practical acceptance until things are established or negated by way of the path of Alma 32.

I hope this helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good to have you back Wade. I hope you had a good summer break.

I also find it interesting that M10 is at the end. In other words the hope is that you've read all the way through and read and started to apply the principles in the book, based on A32 principles. One should have already discovered that the book "points true north" (if we can call it a spiritual north). The witness of the Holy Ghost should confirm something one has already discovered. This in turn, as you say, should lead to a renewed willingness to engage in the principles taught.

[wenglund]

Good to have you back Wade. I hope you had a good summer break.

That is kind of you to say. I haven't really had a break. Instead, I have been posting feverishly on my own blogs HERE and HERE, and just decided yesterday to pay a visit here.

I also find it interesting that M10 is at the end. In other words the hope is that you've read all the way through and read and started to apply the principles in the book, based on A32 principles. One should have already discovered that the book "points true north" (if we can call it a spiritual north). The witness of the Holy Ghost should confirm something one has already discovered. This in turn, as you say, should lead to a renewed willingness to engage in the principles taught.

Interesting point.

However, what you are suggesting may be more correct in theory than in practice. From my experience, investigators have read very little of the Book of Mormon, and even less in-depth, prior to applying the M10 test. If so, then their M10 prayers are based on a rudimentary or general sense of "True North," which is then confirmed by the Holy Ghost. And, by acting on that rudimentary faith, and heading in the general direction (via continued reading of the Book of Mormon and through living the principles contained therein), their faith is further confirmed and strengthened and their sense of "True North" made more clear, as per A32.

To me, it is similar to pedagogical processes, where the parent ostensibly confirms that the stove is hot and will burn and hurt if the child touches it, and later this principle is brought home with great force and confirmed further when, by sad experience, the child touches the hot stove.

I suppose that it is plausible for the process to work in reverse as you suggest, where one's A32 experience is confirmed by M10. This may well be what happens when a person's calling and election is made sure--though I can't speak to this with any personal knowledge or authority. If so, then the process may actually be one eternal round of M10 to A32 to M10...

Who knows? Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 13, 2013 by wenglund

[canard78]

That is kind of you to say. I haven't really had a break. Instead, I have been posting feverishly on my own blogs HERE and HERE, and just decided yesterday to pay a visit here.

Thanks for the links, always interesting to get another perspective.

Interesting point.

However, what you suggesting may be more correct in theory than in practice. From my experience, investigators have read very little of the Book of Mormon, and even less in-depth, prior to applying the M10 test. If so, then their M10 prayers are based on a rudimentary or general sense of "True North," which is then confirmed by the Holy Ghost. And, by acting on that rudimentary faith, and heading in the general direction (via continued reading of the Book of Mormon and through living the principles contained therein), their faith is further confirmed and strengthened and their sense of "true North" made more clear, as per A32.

To me, it is similar to pedagogical processes, where the parent ostensibly confirms that the stove is hot and will burn and hurt if the child touches it, and later this principle is brought home with great force and confirmed further when, by sad experience, the child touches the hot stove.

I suppose that it is plausible for the process to work in reverse as you suggest, where one's A32 experience is confirmed by M10. This may well be what happens when a person's calling and election is made sure--though I can't speak to this with any personal knowledge or authority. If so, then the process may actually be one eternal round of M10 to A32 to M10...

Who knows? Something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good point about investigators. I guess in the end Alma and Mormon's egos can take it. I'm sure they don't whose tool is used first. Either sequence with lead to more faith.

But I do now have a mental image of a friendly rivalry in the spirit world involving a tally chart. Something like the Gimli/Legolas competition that runs through the LOTR.

[wenglund]

Good point about investigators. I guess in the end Alma and Mormon's egos can take it. I'm sure they don't whose tool is used first. Either sequence with lead to more faith.

Agreed.

But I do now have a mental image of a friendly rivalry in the spirit world involving a tally chart. Something like the Gimli/Legolas competition that runs through the LOTR.

LOL...though perhaps the inclination for score-keeping may be but a projection on someone else's part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[canard78]

Agreed.

LOL...though perhaps the inclination for score-keeping may be but a projection on someone else's part.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Touché

[Lightbearer]

Yes, I was uncomfortable with President Hinkleys support of Bush in 2001 in saying we "stand solidly with the president of our nation," as I was with his support of the war in 2003 and his expression of "personal loyalties" from the conference pulpit which included a warning against those opposing/campaigning against the war*. Many of my LDS family and friends felt the same way. I did not feel any spiritual witness that I should change my position of opposition to it nor that it was right for the prophet to speak in support of it. I felt it epitomises how American-centric church leaders can often be, with a tilt towards the Wasatch front.

I also consider the use and raising of funds during prop 8 campaigns to be inappropriate and a mistake. I do not consider the 14 fundamentals, repeated twice in General Conference in 2010, to be correct doctrine. I consider them to be unhelpful and counter-productive. I dislike the occasional emphasis on conservative dress-styles (white shirt, clean shaven, one set or earrings for girls).

Our church's canon teaches us to expect that the words of prophets will not be perfect due to the their mortal limitations:

Book of Mormon Title Page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..."

D&C 1:34 "...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language...".

These also teach me an important principle: It is more important that scripture and the prophets lead me to doing more good than it is to be proven right all the time. Or, I want scripture that can correct me and my course in life more than I want scripture and prophets that are always perfectly correct.

I still attend and enjoy conference. I am still inspired and uplifted by many of the lessons and principles taught. I do not reject prophets simply because I sometimes disagree with them or feel they speak from personal perspective rather than inspiration.

I do not reject them because otherwise I would have to reject all men including myself. I know I sometimes speak in error, including when I was in priesthood presidency positions and had keys of leadership. I don't hold them to a higher standard than any other priesthood leader. They are men, they sometimes mistakes. So do I. That's part of what makes us human.

ETA: I should also highlight that the examples given above represent less than 0.1% of the talks given at conference in the last 15 years. I accept and embrace the vast majority of what our prophets teach. But I don't think it's possible for them to always speak with '0' margin for error. I also don't think that with a diverse church of 14m members that everything they say will apply to everyone listening.

*I give this as an example to your question. I will not discuss the merits of the Iraq War on this thread, only that I didn't support it and I wish our prophet hadn't.

Are you not certain that your political predjudice was not the cause of your discomfort? Actually I was very comfortable with the Prophet's standing with the President in his attempt to fight the terrorist scum that is still trying to destroy our liberty. And as for opposing Same Sex Marriage that is part and parcel of being a true prophet... he and we could no more endorse SSM as a Church than we could have endorsed Lucifer's plan in the premortal existence. It is wrong and an abomination and it in not wrong for the Church to be involved in political matters (American or otherwise) if it has a moral basis. So it seems as long as the prophet agrees with your political agenda then he is speaking the truth but as soon as you find yourself on the opposite side then he is only speaking as a man? This reminds me of the following:

"Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil. But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet. Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him. O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?"

(Book of Mormon | Helaman 13:26-29)

No need to argue your agenda with me... we will never see eye to eye.

[mfbukowski]

Good to have you back Wade. I hope you had a good summer break.

I also find it interesting that M10 is at the end. In other words the hope is that you've read all the way through and read and started to apply the principles in the book, based on A32 principles. One should have already discovered that the book "points true north" (if we can call it a spiritual north). The witness of the Holy Ghost should confirm something one has already discovered. This in turn, as you say, should lead to a renewed willingness to engage in the principles taught.

Love it- jargon? not us!

(M10+ A32)xCTR= TN=LDS

Gotta be a siggy or something there!

Edited August 14, 2013 by mfbukowski

[canard78]

Love it- jargon? not us!

M10+ A32= TN+CTR

Gotta be a siggy or something there!

I know - very lazy. In my defense I was on my phone and we'd already said Moroni 10 and Alma 32 in a previous post... so we were at least abbreviating having done the long form first

It's a nice formula though.

[mfbukowski]

I know - very lazy. In my defense I was on my phone and we'd already said Moroni 10 and Alma 32 in a previous post... so we were at least abbreviating having done the long form first

It's a nice formula though.

I revised it a tad

[canard78]

Are you not certain that your political predjudice was not the cause of your discomfort? Actually I was very comfortable with the Prophet's standing with the President in his attempt to fight the terrorist scum that is still trying to destroy our liberty. And as for opposing Same Sex Marriage that is part and parcel of being a true prophet... he and we could no more endorse SSM as a Church than we could have endorsed Lucifer's plan in the premortal existence. It is wrong and an abomination and it in not wrong for the Church to be involved in political matters (American or otherwise) if it has a moral basis. So it seems as long as the prophet agrees with your political agenda then he is speaking the truth but as soon as you find yourself on the opposite side then he is only speaking as a man? This reminds me of the following:

No need to argue your agenda with me... we will never see eye to eye.

I'm not trying to argue my agenda at all and I'm certainly not going to get into a debate about the war on terror/ the invasion of Iraq/gay marriage (again!) on this thread (though I notice you couldn't resist a few comments on why I was wrong before saying you didn't want to "argue my agenda").

You asked whether I'd heard anything which I did not consider inspired. I gave you a list. I don't consider those things to be inspired or of God. Especially when a prophet talks about "personal loyalties." At the very least, I did not consider the words and directives to be applicable and relevant to me. I don't think that every word spoken applies to every person listening.

Yes, I've prayed about those things. And yes, you're right, there may be some cultural bias affecting the questions I seek inspiration/guidance for. But then there also is for the prophets. They will also have a limited list of questions they are willing to ask, defined and sometimes confined by the social and environmental paradigms and perspectives they have acquired throughout their life. I don't believe in 'Puppet Prophets.' They brings themselves to the calling and as such their revelation is, in part, framed by that too. Which means some of it won't apply to everyone.

You also said: "it i(s) not wrong for the Church to be involved in political matters (American or otherwise)."

Could you list, from General Conference talks:

- the number of other politcal leaders Presidents Hinkley or Monson have given their recent endorsement and support to in the face of conflict?

- the recent wars by other countries they have called for people to put their lives on the line for?

- the public support they give the African leaders in the face of dissent and civil unrest?

- what was said to the British Prime Minister during the IRA/Northern Ireland conflict?

- the condemnation they make of ETA today?

- the opposition from President Monson to the military aggression from China against Philippines/Japan and India in the last 12 months? All of those 3 have many LDS members in them.

What public campaigning was done by Prophet against the legalisation of Gay marriage in UK recently? What words were spoken by him against the legalisation of prostituation and smoking pot in many European countries?

The answer to all of the above is: "nothing."

Why does USA (and especially the Western States) get special attention when they represent a minority of global membership? Is he the prophet for the whole world or just the Wasatch front? As a non-American Mormon I've got used to the fact that sometimes the questions the prophet seeks guidance for are NIMBY* concerns.

(*NIMBY: Not in my back yard)

[Questing Beast]

Love it- jargon? not us!

(M10+ A32)xCTR= TN=LDS

Gotta be a siggy or something there!

"TN"?...

[canard78]

"TN"?...

From one of my posts a few back I think:

One should have already discovered that the book "points true north"

[mfbukowski]

"TN"?...

True North

Canard mentioned it in the post where he came up with M10 and A32

[mfbukowski]

oops

Rule #1- read before you open your mouth.

No, that's not a "hashtag".

[mfbukowski]

Why does USA (and especially the Western States) get special attention when they represent a minority of global membership?

Simply because we are TOTALLY cool, dude.

Why do you think Arnold S came to California in the first place? Of course then you have those guys back east in Utah- you know how they are.

Nothing parochial about us- no sirree!

[canard78]

Simply because we are TOTALLY cool, dude.

Why do you think Arnold S came to California in the first place? Of course then you have those guys back east in Utah- you know how they are.

Nothing parochial about us- no sirree!

I had to look "Arnold S" up. The Governator I presume?

[mfbukowski]

I had to look "Arnold S" up. The Governator I presume?

Of course.

Just further evidence that you are not from the center of the universe, you furriner, you.

[Lightbearer]

Why does USA (and especially the Western States) get special attention when they represent a minority of global membership? Is he the prophet for the whole world or just the Wasatch front? As a non-American Mormon I've got used to the fact that sometimes the questions the prophet seeks guidance for are NIMBY* concerns.

Why does the USA get special attention? I think it rather simple, the prophet (at least for now) is a citizen of the USA and perhaps he would feel like a "yankee gringo" or an "ugly american" if he were to speak publicly on issues in other nations directly. Also no matter how arrogant it may sound, the U.S. is the world's leading democracy... when there is a world conflict the U.S, usually is not a bystander. The fact that the Book of Mormon calls this a choice land above all others may be another reason for special consideration. It also leaves on the U.S. a great responsibility, if we are not righteous and serve the God of the land we will be swept off... So in many ways it is a great privledge but it also can be a curse, it is a great responsiblity to stand as an Ensign to the nations and that Ensign (of the Church meaning Church headquarters) stands on the land of Zion where the New Jerusalem will be built. That fact makes the Church be in a position in the U.S. to weild greater influence than in other nations. An interesting point is that the Lord has endorsed the Constitution of the U.S. in the following:

"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. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. 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." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 98:5-10)

This form of government is just for all nations and so we all can unite in the love of liberty and truth. To me this is not just a "personal loyalty" these are loyalties that belong to the Saints of all nations.

[Calm]

when there is a world conflict the U.S, usually is not a bystander.

When there is a world conflict, what leading country is? That is kind of the definition of 'world conflict' after all.

And it is not as if the US jumped into the most notable world conflicts eager to do its part...more like the people didn't want to get involved until personally offended.

The fact that the Book of Mormon calls this a choice land above all others may be another reason for special consideration.

Right, that has nothing to do with Canada, Mexico or any other country down to Tierra del Fuego....just the US of A. (insert flag waving here)...I am sorry...no, I am not, I really dislike this type of "aren't we special". We are special, but lets not inflate ourselves by trampling on others, especially through misuse of scripture.

Why can't we just promote caring about others in the world because it is the right thing to do and good people everywhere do it? Why does it have to be because the US has a special role to fill in the destiny of the world?

Edited August 15, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Why does the USA get special attention? I think it rather simple, the prophet (at least for now) is a citizen of the USA and perhaps he would feel like a "yankee gringo" or an "ugly american" if he were to speak publicly on issues in other nations directly. Also no matter how arrogant it may sound, the U.S. is the world's leading democracy... when there is a world conflict the U.S, usually is not a bystander. The fact that the Book of Mormon calls this a choice land above all others may be another reason for special consideration. It also leaves on the U.S. a great responsibility, if we are not righteous and serve the God of the land we will be swept off... So in many ways it is a great privledge but it also can be a curse, it is a great responsiblity to stand as an Ensign to the nations and that Ensign (of the Church meaning Church headquarters) stands on the land of Zion where the New Jerusalem will be built. That fact makes the Church be in a position in the U.S. to weild greater influence than in other nations. An interesting point is that the Lord has endorsed the Constitution of the U.S. in the following:

This form of government is just for all nations and so we all can unite in the love of liberty and truth. To me this is not just a "personal loyalty" these are loyalties that belong to the Saints of all nations.

So are you saying he's an American first and a prophet second? He speaks to the whole world, for the God of all of the human race, but first filters it through an American perspective? Can you hear how that sounds?

That's actually probably the reality of the situation. I absolutely do think that policy and instruction is filtered through the leader's personal paradigms and perspectives. American cultural and political values are no-where near perfect (and I'm not claiming any other country's is) and I wish they didn't have such a strong influence on the leaders. But I'm aware mine do on me, so that's the way it goes.

You probably won't listen to me. Perhaps you will to one of the leaders of the church:

By crossing boundaries, continents, and countries, we are establishing contact with different cultures, religions, and traditions. Naturally some challenges arise. In many countries, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is viewed as an American church. Church leaders strongly emphasize that it is a universal church for all people everywhere, with a responsibility to share the gospel with all of God’s children. There is an increased awareness of cultural differences as well as a willingness to work within those differences.

This is not an American church. The Church is beyond the nation-state because no state is an official representative of God. So why is it to our advantage to make a distinction between the gospel we possess and our own political, economic, and cultural preferences? To become a worldwide Church in various cultures and nations, the doctrinal truths of the restored gospel will be the guiding star, not our political background, not even some of the present Church programs. It is the Spirit that counts.

A diverse Latter-day Saint people cannot have brotherhood if one of its segments insists on being always right, all the time, on everything. The gospel is transcendent truth—man-made political and social institutions are not. In social, cultural, and political areas, we cannot expect that widely divergent people should adhere to the same specific perspectives. It is certain that some aspects of culture, ideology, and political practices are more compatible with gospel principles than others, and from that point they are temporally preferable, but only the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ constitute eternal truth.

President Uchtdorf

http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/global-mormonism-21st-century/20-church-cross-cultural-world

Edited August 15, 2013 by canard78

[Lightbearer]

When there is a world conflict, what leading country is? That is kind of the definition of 'world conflict' after all.

And it is not as if the US jumped into the most notable world conflicts eager to do its part...more like the people didn't want to get involved until personally offended.

Right, that has nothing to do with Canada, Mexico or any other country down to Tierra del Fuego....just the US of A. (insert flag waving here)...I am sorry...no, I am not, I really dislike this type of "aren't we special". We are special, but lets not inflate ourselves by trampling on others, especially through misuse of scripture.

Why can't we just promote caring about others in the world because it is the right thing to do and good people everywhere do it? Why does it have to be because the US has a special role to fill in the destiny of the world?

That's the problem with being an American, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we jump on the war bandwagon too soon we are braned as imperialist nationalists or self appointed world policemen! If too late then it is only because of our selfish purposes! Blood for oil! Well I am sick and tired of the America bashing... the point is the U.S. has already played a special role in the destiny of the world... the gold plates were buried in American soil. It was in a sacred grove in the Northeastern U.S. that the First Vision of this dispensation occurred. It was in America that the Church was restored. Joseph Smith was an American in fact he ran for office of the President of the U.S. It was a migration into western America to where the Church established it's headquarters and we celebrate every pioneer day! I am not inflating anything and not trampling on others or misusing scripture and I resent the implication that I am. Does it mean because I love my country in spite of the idiot we currently have in the White House that I am being an uncaring LDS who hates all other nations? NO it is not, I served my Mission in Canada and I love the people and their culture as well. In fact to this day I can still sing the words to "O Canada!" I am also not saying that "we" are special, but the type of government that our forefathers faught and died to defend, the liberty that is at this very moment hanging buy a thread is special and it took the founding of this government to give mankind enough freedom so the seed of the restoration could grow and flourish so that those of all nations could enjoy the blessings of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes I do love the United States of America and I also love all the other nations of the earth, they are our brothers and sisters. But I will be damned if I will sit here and let people try to paint me or this nation with a tar brush because of it.

Oh and yes I also realize that the Lord has warned us, especially in this land, where no king was to be raised up to the gentiles that if we did not serve the God of the land who is Jesus Christ we would be swept off. If the Canadians, Mexicans, and others who are on this North and South American continet want to have this same blessing and warning they are welcome to it. Also our cousins in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Mid-East, Austrailia and anywhere else in the world may also accept these blessings and warnings. I will probly get banned from this thread for this post, but I apologize in advance if this "offends" anyone. Oh and while I am at it, I agree with President Uchtdorf especially the last part of the quote you gave:

"...It is certain that some aspects of culture, ideology, and political practices are more compatible with gospel principles than others, and from that point they are temporally preferable, but only the principles of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ constitute eternal truth."

Of course the Church is for all nations, and as he here states some aspects are more compatible with gospel principles than others...

As for the poular American culture in the 21st century, at least that which is promoted in the media, I consider much of it abominable in the eyes of God. So while I may be "waving the flag" of the U.S. I am not idolizing the sickening stench of wickness that is embraced by the worldly in this as well as other nations. I embrace the good in all cultures and can respect all nations but don't require me to burn the U.S. flag in the process. I do applaud the traditional American values, our heritage of liberty... were there problems in our history? YES! Slavery was wrong, driving the Saints from the U.S. was wrong, Issuing an extermination order that was not lifted until the 1970's was wrong, and many things were wrong. But we also have a rich culture that includes freedom, honor, friendship, industry, charity, justice, and wisdom.

 Hope this did not get too political for the board, if so I am sorry, but I suppose that the purpose of this board is to share feelings opinions and beliefs and this is a part of my beliefs. Oh and those who accuse me of misusing scripture I ask if they can think of a nation other than the U.S. that is being refered to in the following:

"And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land. And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters. And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten. And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain. And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them. And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them. And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle. And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations." (Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 13:12-19)

 

Is this not America? Does this not refer to the discovery by Columbus and the revolutionary war? I mean the way the U.S. treated the Lamanites? It is what it is, that is why it is hard for me to separate my political from my religious beliefs. That does not mean I agree with every thing this nation does, but when it's cause is just I stand behind it and the war of terror was just when President Hinckley agreed with the President in 2001. I remember 9-11 I will never ever forget it. The feelings I had seeing this horrible manifestation of hatred against the United States made me even more passionate about my country. I wonder if the America bashers in the Church would want the following hymns taken out of our hymnbooks?

America the Beautiful

"1. Oh, beautiful for spacious skies,

For amber waves of grain,

For purple mountain majesties

Above the fruited plain!

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea.

2. Oh, beautiful for pilgrim feet,

Whose stern, impassioned stress

A thoroughfare of freedom beat

Across the wilderness!

America! America!

God mend thine ev'ry flaw,

Confirm thy soul in self-control,

Thy liberty in law.

3. Oh, beautiful for heroes proved

In liberating strife,

Who more than self their country loved,

And mercy more than life!

America! America!

May God thy gold refine,

Till all success be nobleness,

And ev'ry gain divine.

4. Oh, beautiful for patriot dream

That sees beyond the years

Thine alabaster cities gleam,

Undimmed by human tears!

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee,

And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea."

 

Or more especially this one:

 

The Star-Spangled Banner

 

"1. Oh say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,

What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming,

Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,

O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,

Gave proof thru the night that our flag was still there.

Oh say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

2. On the shore, dimly seen thru the mists of the deep,

Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,

What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,

As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,

In full glory reflected now shines on the stream;

'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh, long may it wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

3. Oh, thus be it ever, when free men shall stand

Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!

Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land

Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation!

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,

And this be our motto: "In God is our trust!"

And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

 

These are both in the hymnbook, should they be deleted in deference to those who may be offended by them? God forbid! We may not be an "American Church" but it cannot be argued that America does not have a critical place in our history as a Church and was instrumental in helping open the way for the establishment of the restoration.

 

No politics. ~Mods

[helaman38]

However, this seems to presuppose that the actions of Joseph smith after translating the Book of Mormon are all as "true" as the Book of Mormon itself.

 

Well, Book of Mormon Witness David Whitmer was forced to deal with the human side of Joseph and how a small church that began in the home of his family grew to reflect Catholicism with a priesthood, an infallible prophet/pope, church bureaucracy, a paid clergy, etc. In the end he admitted that errors crept in the minute they set the teachings of the Book of Mormon aside.

 

When Joseph finished dictating the English of the Book of Mormon, he gave up his seer stone and told David and the others his work was done and now his only calling was to preach on it.

 

Oliver Cowdery actually was the one who felt called to start a church, but mind you, like how church was during Book of Mormon times after Jesus came without high priests. (See Articles of the Church of Christ by Oliver Cowdery for the details)

 

When you read the prophecies about the work Joseph would do, it was singular, to bring forth the record and then to convince the world of it. At no time was he called/commanded to start a church.

 

Therefore, if the Book of Mormon was not tied to any church, then those obtaining a witness of its truth were meant to apply its teachings back at their own denomination churches and finish the reforming that The Reformers began back in Europe. In fact, Joseph changed an early revelation that said he was called to perform a "reformation." Why would he remove the word "reformation" from the revelation? Whitmer was present for most of the revelations and it greatly troubled him that Joseph would turn around and change them to say what he wanted them to say.

 

In the end David said he was only called to testify of the Book of Mormon and Bible and not of Joseph or his later revelations and this is why he left Joseph and his church. The Mormon Church does not follow a single new covenant doctrine in the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Yes, I was uncomfortable with President Hinkleys support of Bush in 2001 in saying we "stand solidly with the president of our nation," as I was with his support of the war in 2003 and his expression of "personal loyalties" from the conference pulpit which included a warning against those opposing/campaigning against the war*. Many of my LDS family and friends felt the same way. I did not feel any spiritual witness that I should change my position of opposition to it nor that it was right for the prophet to speak in support of it. I felt it epitomises how American-centric church leaders can often be, with a tilt towards the Wasatch front.

I also consider the use and raising of funds during prop 8 campaigns to be inappropriate and a mistake. I do not consider the 14 fundamentals, repeated twice in General Conference in 2010, to be correct doctrine. I consider them to be unhelpful and counter-productive. I dislike the occasional emphasis on conservative dress-styles (white shirt, clean shaven, one set or earrings for girls).

Our church's canon teaches us to expect that the words of prophets will not be perfect due to the their mortal limitations:

Book of Mormon Title Page: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men..."

D&C 1:34 "...these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language...".

These also teach me an important principle: It is more important that scripture and the prophets lead me to doing more good than it is to be proven right all the time. Or, I want scripture that can correct me and my course in life more than I want scripture and prophets that are always perfectly correct.

I still attend and enjoy conference. I am still inspired and uplifted by many of the lessons and principles taught. I do not reject prophets simply because I sometimes disagree with them or feel they speak from personal perspective rather than inspiration.

I do not reject them because otherwise I would have to reject all men including myself. I know I sometimes speak in error, including when I was in priesthood presidency positions and had keys of leadership. I don't hold them to a higher standard than any other priesthood leader. They are men, they sometimes mistakes. So do I. That's part of what makes us human.

ETA: I should also highlight that the examples given above represent less than 0.1% of the talks given at conference in the last 15 years. I accept and embrace the vast majority of what our prophets teach. But I don't think it's possible for them to always speak with '0' margin for error. I also don't think that with a diverse church of 14m members that everything they say will apply to everyone listening.

*I give this as an example to your question. I will not discuss the merits of the Iraq War on this thread, only that I didn't support it and I wish our prophet hadn't.

I agree wholeheartedly with your response to Lightbearer here.  As Brigham Young said:

 

  “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Edited August 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith