New Book Of Mormon Documentary Trailer

[Anne E. Prufe]

Welcome! Your presence here is much appreciated! Just thinking out loud, but I wonder why knowledgeable and  committed Latter-day Saints seem to find the ideas expressed in these documentaries distasteful. As for me, I just love these concepts because they powerfully demonstrate God is much more involved in human affairs than some may suppose. It's so inspiring to realize the pilgrims and the Founding Fathers understood their quest as a latter-day continuation of the ancient theme of the children of God being led to a new promised land of freedom, and, astonishingly, that's exactly what the Book of Mormon prophesied.  

 

I believe it comes down to the scripture in Moroni

 

For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

 

Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

 

But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God.

 

If you believe the scriptures, you will know that only those who are righteous can bring forth righteous works.  Those who are unrighteous bring forth unrighteous works.  This is a law.  If you do not accept this principle you will believe, for example, that the founding fathers were immoral but still achieved great righteous works.  They believe that wickedness or the removal of God AND good fruits can co-exist.

 

These opposing viewpoints are coming from completely different paradigms.  Those who may be termed "intellectuals" arrive at conclusions from "secular" history.  The founding fathers therefore, to them, were secular or even immoral.  

 

But then you have the Ezra Taft Bensons and the Moronis and the Mormons who say no!  If the founders brought forth a great work, which I know they did, they were righteous.  They weren't immoral.  Their ideas came from the scriptures, from the Bible, from revelation and inspiration.

 

We have the same debate with Joseph Smith.  Some believe that he was "just like the rest of us".  Perhaps he had these gifts, but he wasn't necessarily honest or patient.  However, power comes from purity.  Joseph Smith's character was next to that of Jesus Christ (as Brigham Young, John Taylor, Eliza R. Snow, etc. taught).  I don't want to discuss or start a discussion on that issue here, that is not what this forum is about.  I am just using it as an illustration.  

 

You are right.  The Book of Mormon is a powerful witness that the founders of this nation (the early Colonists, the Revolutionary War patriots and those who created a constitutional republic on this land) were righteous, God-fearing and inspired individuals.  

[Robert F. Smith]

I have no major objection to your holding a hemispheric interpretation of the Book of Mormon -- in which Canada, the USA, the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos de Mexico), and all Latin American countries participate in the Book of Mormon prophecies and promises.  The Gentiles came to all those countries from Europe, and many of them have constitutions modeled on the US Constitution.  Most of them had revolutions to throw off the colonial yoke.  Some of them have had civil wars, and have problems with major criminal syndicates (just as we did) as they work to modernize.  Brazil only gave up slavery in the 1880s and is as big a country as the USA.  The capital of Mexico is called the Distrito Federal, just like our Washington, DC.  Freedom's progress is wonderful, is it not?

 

Of course the Amerinds may have some objections to that storyline, since their land has been stolen from them, and most of them have been systematically exterminated (treaties with them having been violated with impunity).  Sometimes the grandeur is pitiful in its atavism, and mendacity reigns supreme.  Everyone conveniently forgets about the gross mistreatment of the Mormons, and the still visible stain of slavery in this country.

Yet, somehow, the purposes of God roll on. And the ultimate salvation of the vast majority of His children is assured. The Lord allows evil and injustice to exist so that we might be tried in the refiner's fire. Yes, many evils and injustices have been perpetrated  in our fallen world, yet God allows these things to exist for a wise and glorious purpose. The greatest of all this world's injustices was the wicked judgment and unjust punishment carried out upon the Christ; yet, in the economy of God, this greatest of all travesties of justice turned out to be the greatest of all blessings. 

Yes, Teddy, and unmerited suffering is redemptive, but that should be no solace to those who authored that suffering, be they the Nazi's murdering Jews, or Jews murdering Jesus, or us trying to justify our own country's crimes.  Woe to those who commit such crimes, and it should be no comfort to those who are jingoistic Americans falsely believing in the purity and innocence of their polity to reflect on their considerable shortcomings.

 

Without an honest sense of perspective and humility, we are likely to believe the claims of almost any huckster telling us how wonderful we are.  I advise a strong sense of cynicism rather than uncontrolled pride, lest we go the way of the Zoramites and Nephites -- saying that "all is well in Zion" (II Ne 28:21-28).

Edited November 22, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I would say that their being steeped in the classical liberalism of Locke and Smith, mixed in with a little Burkean conservatism had a greater influence.

Quite right, halconero.

[Robert F. Smith]

The righteousness of this nation's people has ebbed and flowed over the years, just as did the righteousness of the Nephites. But I'd say the United States was more righteous than it is today when out of wedlock births were still considered scandalous and before out of wedlock births reached 41% over all; 

------------------------------------------   

Premarital pregnancies in the American colonies and in the early USA under its Constitution were quite high, around 50% of all births.  You conveniently ignore reality when it suits you.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................  

. I was born in 1949, so the subject of family life in 1950's America is something I know about through intimate firsthand experience. I was there and remember the cold, dark and foreboding feeling I had when I and my classmates were told we would no longer be reciting the Lord's Prayer and the 23rd Psalm at the beginning of the school day;

------------------------------------------------------------------   

It might help if you were to read Dallin H. Oaks, "Antidotes for the School Prayer Cases," Improvement Era 66 (December 1963): 1050ff.

or Robert Riggs comments at http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_45.pdf .

 

Since you clearly do not understand the U.S. Constitution, I recommend that you read and study it formally in a university setting.

[teddyaware]

Yes, Teddy, and unmerited suffering is redemptive, but that should be no solace to those who authored that suffering, be they the Nazi's murdering Jews, or Jews murdering Jesus, or us trying to justify our own country's crimes.  Woe to those who commit such crimes, and it should be no comfort to those who are jingoistic Americans falsely believing in the purity and innocence of their polity to reflect on their considerable shortcomings.

 

Without an honest sense of perspective and humility, we are likely to believe the claims of almost any huckster telling us how wonderful we are.  I advise a strong sense of cynicism rather than uncontrolled pride, lest we go the way of the Zoramites and Nephites -- saying that "all is well in Zion" (II Ne 28:21-28).

Gee wiz Robert! Where in the world in my writing do appear to have given the Third Reich or other brutal totalitarian regimes a pass for their heinous crimes against humanity? And are you insinuating I'm somehow numbered among the "jingoistic Americans" who think America is just so pure and innocent, when all the while I'm the one who's been saying the U.S. appears to be ripening in iniquity?

In addition, I can't help it if the Lord Himself declared by revelation to His prophet that He is the One who established the Constitution of the United States; and I can't help it if He also said that any system of earthly government that is more or less than the U.S. Constitution "cometh of evil."

And am I supposed to be embarrassed the scriptures teach America is a land "choice above all other lands?" This is what the prophets have taught -- so am I supposed to reject their teachings in the name of political correctness? But remember, the only thing that will enable the United States to remain a land of promise is the humility and righteousness of it's God fearing people. And if the people of this nation turn away from God, as too many appear to be doing, this country will no longer be the promised land but will be a land of cursing instead. Where much is given much is required.

And did I indicate anywhere in my writing I believe all is well in Zion? Haven't I been saying quite the opposite?

But you know what? I'll bet if we could converse with each other face to face, we'd likely find we have many more areas of agreement than might be expect us to find by examining our dialogue on this thread.

[teddyaware]

Premarital pregnancies in the American colonies and in the early USA under its Constitution were quite high, around 50% of all births.  You conveniently ignore reality when it suits you.

I believe you may have pulled this one out of thin air. I just did a Google search and the figure I came up with is less than 10%. And most of those couples were married by the time child was born. But be that as it may, as I said in one of my most recent posts, my focus here when speaking of the US ripening in iniquity has been on comparing present day US with the nation I remember as a youth in the in the 1950's.

[Tiki]

It might help if you were to read Dallin H. Oaks, "Antidotes for the School Prayer Cases," Improvement Era 66 (December 1963): 1050ff.

or Robert Riggs comments at http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_45.pdf .

 

Since you clearly do not understand the U.S. Constitution, I recommend that you read and study it formally in a university setting.

"Don't understand the US Constitution." Jefferson himself attended church meetings in the US Capitol and Supreme Court buildings.

Never heard of the Free Exercise clause?

[Tiki]

It might help if you were to read Dallin H. Oaks, "Antidotes for the School Prayer Cases," Improvement Era 66 (December 1963): 1050ff.

or Robert Riggs comments at http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V18N03_45.pdf .

 

Since you clearly do not understand the U.S. Constitution, I recommend that you read and study it formally in a university setting.

All university settings are created equal, of course. /s

[Anne E. Prufe]

Since you clearly do not understand the U.S. Constitution, I recommend that you read and study it formally in a university setting.

 

This conversation seems to have a familiar ring.  I seem to recall the priests and monks in the days of William Tyndale when they asserted that the common person was incapable of understanding the words of the Bible without a learned guide.  The ignorant laiety were required to study with the priests and the teachers and those who worshipped at the altars of learning.

 

So Bob, it appears that what you are saying is, "A person really can't understand the Constitution unless they have letters behind their name; unless they are in a formal university setting."  With professors who feed upon each other and disregard primary sources.  I guess it reminds me a bit of what Nephi said.  I am sure you recall the passage: 

 

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."

 

I wonder if Mormon had some of our latter-day professors in mind when he spoke these words:  

 

"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?"

 

I'm sure you also recall that President Joseph F. Smith warned that one of the three dangers that would threaten the Church from within would be false educational ideas.  

 

Along these lines, I was just wondering how you value President Ezra Taft Benson's warnings exposing five latter-day anti-Christs by name: Charles Darwin, John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and John Keynes?  I know that in general those instructing at the universities feel quite differently from the prophets of God.

[Robert F. Smith]

Gee wiz Robert! Where in the world in my writing do appear to have given the Third Reich or other brutal totalitarian regimes a pass for their heinous crimes against humanity? And are you insinuating I'm somehow numbered among the "jingoistic Americans" who think America is just so pure and innocent, when all the while I'm the one who's been saying the U.S. appears to be ripening in iniquity?

In addition, I can't help it if the Lord Himself declared by revelation to His prophet that He is the One who established the Constitution of the United States; and I can't help it if He also said that any system of earthly government that is more or less than the U.S. Constitution "cometh of evil."

And am I supposed to be embarrassed the scriptures teach America is a land "choice above all other lands?" This is what the prophets have taught -- so am I supposed to reject their teachings in the name of political correctness? But remember, the only thing that will enable the United States to remain a land of promise is the humility and righteousness of it's God fearing people. And if the people of this nation turn away from God, as too many appear to be doing, this country will no longer be the promised land but will be a land of cursing instead. Where much is given much is required.

And did I indicate anywhere in my writing I believe all is well in Zion? Haven't I been saying quite the opposite?

But you know what? I'll bet if we could converse with each other face to face, we'd likely find we have many more areas of agreement than might be expect us to find by examining our dialogue on this thread.

You might try reading what I wrote in light of, not necessarily contrary to, what you wrote.  In other words, lose the paranoia and persecution complex, and accept it that people can comment on something in order to broaden the perspective.  In my opinion, you have some good points which need to be modified to lessen the false notion that America was somehow better in the past.  America has always had major shortcomings.  I don't like it that, under the color of law, both federal and state authorities have persecuted my people.  You ought to take that to heart as well, Teddy.

 

You might also want to dampen your tendency to raise the level of the Constitution to canonical Scripture.  God has inspired a great many people on this Earth since time immemorial, but that does not make everything done scriptural.  What we ought to be happy about is the fact that the U. S. Constitution is one among a number of constitutions (many of them copying us) which contain excellent provisions for freedoms of various sorts, thus allowing the Gospel to be freely spread.  I love the U.S. Constitution and have studied it intensively at the university level, never getting a grade of less than A.  Moreover, I have been required to apply it in daily, practical ways.

[volgadon]

This conversation seems to have a familiar ring.  I seem to recall the priests and monks in the days of William Tyndale when they asserted that the common person was incapable of understanding the words of the Bible without a learned guide.  The ignorant laiety were required to study with the priests and the teachers and those who worshipped at the altars of learning.

 

 

Ironically, Tyndale was a learned scholar.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Glad I stayed out of this thread. See you guys on another thread.

[teddyaware]

You might try reading what I wrote in light of, not necessarily contrary to, what you wrote.  In other words, lose the paranoia and persecution complex, and accept it that people can comment on something in order to broaden the perspective.  In my opinion, you have some good points which need to be modified to lessen the false notion that America was somehow better in the past.  America has always had major shortcomings.  I don't like it that, under the color of law, both federal and state authorities have persecuted my people.  You ought to take that to heart as well, Teddy.

 

You might also want to dampen your tendency to raise the level of the Constitution to canonical Scripture.  God has inspired a great many people on this Earth since time immemorial, but that does not make everything done scriptural.  What we ought to be happy about is the fact that the U. S. Constitution is one among a number of constitutions (many of them copying us) which contain excellent provisions for freedoms of various sorts, thus allowing the Gospel to be freely spread.  I love the U.S. Constitution and have studied it intensively at the university level, never getting a grade of less than A.  Moreover, I have been required to apply it in daily, practical ways.

Robert: For my enlightenment and possible edification, I ask the following question in a spirit of genuine sincerity and honest inquiry: Would you please highlight any specific portions of posts of mine on this thread wherein I displayed either paranoia or a persecution complex? I'm always interested in self-improvement, so your input, if valid, could turn out to be valuable.

By the way, I asked you a couple of questions in a previous post on this thread and would appreciate your input so that I might more surely ascertain the worldview from which you're coming. Here they are:

1 Do you believe it's possible for nations to go through a process of ripening in iniquity?

2 If you do believe nations can actually ripen in iniquity, what would be the main contrasting differences which would characterize nations that have ripened in iniquity when compared to those that have not?

[Robert F. Smith]

Premarital pregnancies in the American colonies and in the early USA under its Constitution were quite high, around 50% of all births.  You conveniently ignore reality when it suits you.

I believe you may have pulled this one out of thin air. I just did a Google search and the figure I came up with is less than 10%. And most of those couples were married by the time child was born. But be that as it may, as I said in one of my most recent posts, my focus here when speaking of the US ripening in iniquity has been on comparing present day US with the nation I remember as a youth in the in the 1950's.

It's more like you pulled that one out of your magic hat, teddy, as it is common knowledge that my figure is more like the truth.

 

For example, anthropologist Roy Iutzi-Mitchell said, Dec 5, 1994, that, based on Laurel Thatcher Ulrich (a Mormon scholar), A Midwife's Tale: The Life of Martha Ballard Based on Her Diary 1785-1812 (1990), “about 40% of women's first-born children were born significantly before nine months of marital bliss. The gist of the article, I believe, was that Americans 200 years ago— although they may have talked against it—commonly practiced pre-marital sex. However, once the girl/woman became pregnant,  it was assumed that they would wed. It is interesting to me, as an anthropologist, as an illustrative example of the distinction between what is called "ideal" and "real" culture, as well as for the amazingly revisionist history that likely takes place in all societies. If 40% of first-births were to women who were pregnant for some time at their marriage, then it is clear that far more than half of colonial era Americans engaged in premarital intercourse.”  Emphasis mine.   http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~bbunce77/colonial_US_premarital_sex.html .

Edited November 26, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

"Don't understand the US Constitution." Jefferson himself attended church meetings in the US Capitol and Supreme Court buildings.

Never heard of the Free Exercise clause?

All university settings are created equal, of course. /s 

You and others might be surprised to know that then Professor Oaks wrote an article in the official organ of the Melchizedek Priesthood which accepted and agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court school prayer decisions.  It might be sobering for some to realize that the govt has no business writing and enforcing school prayers.  Why?  Because the children involved are a captive audience and the teachers are govt employees.  Children have never been prohibited from praying on their own time, but teachers and administrators may have no hand in it.  Free exercise of religion, yes.  Establishment of religion, no.

[Robert F. Smith]

 

This conversation seems to have a familiar ring.  I seem to recall the priests and monks in the days of William Tyndale when they asserted that the common person was incapable of understanding the words of the Bible without a learned guide.  The ignorant laiety were required to study with the priests and the teachers and those who worshipped at the altars of learning.

 

So Bob, it appears that what you are saying is, "A person really can't understand the Constitution unless they have letters behind their name; unless they are in a formal university setting."  With professors who feed upon each other and disregard primary sources.  I guess it reminds me a bit of what Nephi said.  I am sure you recall the passage: 

 

"O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish."

 

I wonder if Mormon had some of our latter-day professors in mind when he spoke these words:  

 

"O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God?"

 

I'm sure you also recall that President Joseph F. Smith warned that one of the three dangers that would threaten the Church from within would be false educational ideas.  

 

Along these lines, I was just wondering how you value President Ezra Taft Benson's warnings exposing five latter-day anti-Christs by name: Charles Darwin, John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx and John Keynes?  I know that in general those instructing at the universities feel quite differently from the prophets of God.

 

When I majored in political science at BYU, Anne, I found that my professors had tremendous respect for the Prophet (David O. McKay), and they themselves were godly men.

 

On a lighter note, since you mention Marx and Keynes, you might like the “Fight of the Century,” at

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc .

[teddyaware]

When I majored in political science at BYU, Anne, I found that my professors had tremendous respect for the Prophet (David O. McKay), and they themselves were godly men.

 

On a lighter note, since you mention Marx and Keynes, you might like the “Fight of the Century,” at

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc .

It would be interesting to know how many of these professors, who respected President McKay, respected his pot-stirring, pull-no-punches anticommunist crusade and his encouraging of J. Reuben Clark and Ezra Taft Benson to speak out against socialism and communism in General Conference? I ask this question without sarcasm but with a genuine curiosity based on an awareness that many of the more formally educated members of the Church I've known thought President Benson was an alarmist kook.

Perhaps these professors respected President McKay in most respects, but made an exception with regard to his zealous anticommunism? Am I right on this? I'm also curious to know what your attitude was at the time toward the outspoken, unapologetic anticommunism of President McKay? And if you did have a negative attitude toward said anticommunism, was that negativity at all influenced by some of your professors? Your forthrightness in answering these questions would be much very appreciated, as it would really help me to understand your mindset as we dialogue.

Edited November 27, 2013 by teddyaware

[Tiki]

You and others might be surprised to know that then Professor Oaks wrote an article in the official organ of the Melchizedek Priesthood which accepted and agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court school prayer decisions. It might be sobering for some to realize that the govt has no business writing and enforcing school prayers. Why? Because the children involved are a captive audience and the teachers are govt employees. Children have never been prohibited from praying on their own time, but teachers and administrators may have no hand in it. Free exercise of religion, yes. Establishment of religion, no.

Your problem, Smith, is misinterpreting Elder Oaks statements.

Read them again:

RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE 1990

"In my view, our current condition is rooted in the 1962 United States Supreme Court decision that the New York State Board of Regents could not require public school children to recite a prayer authored by the Regents. The essence of that decision was expressed in this sentence from the Court’s opinion:

“It is neither sacrilegious nor anti-religious to say that each separate government in this country should stay out of the business of writing or sanctioning official prayers and leave the purely religious function to the people themselves, and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.”

Elsewhere in its opinion the Court explained: “Government in this country, be it state or federal, is without power to prescribe by law any particular form of prayer which is to be used as an official prayer in carrying on any program of governmentally sponsored religious activity.”

When the school prayer cases were decided, I interpreted them to forbid state-authored and state-required prayers. As such, the cases, I thought, were correctly decided. What I did not foresee, but what was sensed by persons whose vision was far greater than my own, was that these decisions—defensible and probably even essential as rulings on the facts before the Court—would set in motion a chain of legal and public and educational actions that would bring us to our current circumstance, in which we must reaffirm and even contend for religious liberty.

In short, many understand the law today as being hostile rather than neutral toward religion—as forbidding all public prayers rather than simply prohibiting state-authored and state-required prayers in public schools. Instead of just preventing instances of state-sponsored religion in the public schools, the school prayer cases have unleashed forces that have sometimes been used to prevent the free exercise of religion.

At the time the first school prayer cases were decided, President David O. McKay saw the direction of those decisions with prophetic vision. In December 1962, he said: “By making that [New York Regents’ prayer] unconstitutional, the Supreme Court of the United States severs the connecting cord between the public schools of the United States and the source of divine intelligence, the Creator himself.”

Then, he offered this farsighted caution: “By law, the public schools of the United States must be non-denominational. They can have no part in securing acceptance of any one of the numerous systems of belief regarding God and the relation of mankind thereto. Now let us remember and emphasize that restriction applies to the atheist as well as to the believer in God.” 4

Six months later, just after the Supreme Court’s decision forbidding Bible-reading in the schools, 5 President McKay said:

“Recent rulings of the Supreme Court would have all reference to a Creator eliminated from our public schools and public offices.

“It is a sad day when the Supreme Court of the United States would discourage all reference in our schools to the influence of the phrase ’divine providence’ as used by our founders of the Declaration of Independence.

“Evidently the Supreme Court misinterprets the true meaning of the First Amendment, and are now leading a Christian nation down the road to atheism.” 6

It is clear from President McKay’s references that he was concerned about the direction and long-range effect of these decisions. History shows that his concern was well founded."

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/07/religion-in-public-life

The problem with RFSmith, is he doesn't know the difference between a Govt sponsored/written and mandated school prayer versus the Govt protecting the right of students to school prayer. RFSmith thinks it's the same. This is what Elder Oaks was getting at and what RFSmith misquoted.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Tiki

[brightpath]

The promised land is the Americas from Alaska on down to Argentina. The BofM states that one mighty nation will arise which is the USA where the gospel(BofM) will be restored.