Daniel2 Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.1. What does it mean to "believe in being subject to" the varying forms of governments, listed above?2. What does it mean "to obey" the law?3. What does it mean "to honor" the law?4. What does it mean "to sustain" the law?
JLHPROF Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 1. What does it mean to "believe in being subject to" the varying forms of governments, listed above?2. What does it mean "to obey" the law?3. What does it mean "to honor" the law?4. What does it mean "to sustain" the law? D&C 98 4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.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; Nowhere does the Lord command us to follow an unrighteous law or a law that conflicts with one of his commandments.
Daniel2 Posted September 28, 2014 Author Posted September 28, 2014 JLH,I appreciate the response.I'm hoping for a more direct, specific break down of what each of those words mean, according to Mormon teaching.Nowhere does the Lord command us to follow an unrighteous law or a law that conflicts with one of his commandments.Can you give an example of what you mean? Have there been immoral laws that the church has specifically advocated not following?
VideoGameJunkie Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 (edited) I think what it's saying is that even people who live in Iraq and North Korea have to obey their leaders laws of the land. A separation of church and state. Edited September 28, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie
The Nehor Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 I think what it's saying is that even people who live in Iraq and North Korea have to obey their leaders laws of the land. A separation of church and state. Nope. "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." Note that this is all one phrase. We believe in being subject to blah blah and then "in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." It is not two separate statements. In other words we believe in following them as long as they are obeying the law. What law? Does that mean that unjust laws are to be followed because they are laws? Taken to an extreme are we bound to turn out Jewish neighbors over to the Gestapo because "that is the law"? I don't think so. I think the law implies moral and just law. I had no moral qualms when I helped a friend avoid deportation or when I took quasi-legal steps to prevent a corporation from immorally exploiting me even though they could have argued that it was legal and possibly won a court case if it ever came to that. In no way is the Article of Faith suggesting that secular law is a moral path to follow or that you are sinless as long as you do not break man's law. Brigham Young had harsh things to say about exploiting the widow even if you have every legal right to. The same with exploiting the poor or the ignorant. 2
Jeanne Posted September 28, 2014 Posted September 28, 2014 JLH,I appreciate the response.I'm hoping for a more direct, specific break down of what each of those words mean, according to Mormon teaching.Can you give an example of what you mean? Have there been immoral laws that the church has specifically advocated not following?Well...destroying a printing press was really not sustaining and obeying the law of the land.
Calm Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 http://en.fairmormon.org/City_of_Nauvoo/Nauvoo_Expositor "The destruction of the Expositor issue was legal; it was not legal to have destroyed the type, but this was a civil matter, not a criminal one, and one for which Joseph was willing to pay a fine if imposed." 1
Kenngo1969 Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Well...destroying a printing press was really not sustaining and obeying the law of the land. You may not like the process that the Prophet, as Mayor of Nauvoo, went through that resulted in the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press. Fine. You may disagree with that process. Fine. Some are of the opinion that the destruction of copies of the Expositor was legal, while the destruction of the press was not. Fine. (The City Council declared the press a nuisance, and the law in force at the time permitted them to take the action that they did ... or at least, it's not as black-and-white and cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it out to be.)
cinepro Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 You may not like the process that the Prophet, as Mayor of Nauvoo, went through that resulted in the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press. Fine. You may disagree with that process. Fine. Some are of the opinion that the destruction of copies of the Expositor was legal, while the destruction of the press was not. Fine. (The City Council declared the press a nuisance, and the law in force at the time permitted them to take the action that they did ... or at least, it's not as black-and-white and cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it out to be.) Or, to paraphrase a great leader who was an expert on the subject: When the Mayor of Nauvoo does it, that means that it is not illegal.
The Nehor Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Well...destroying a printing press was really not sustaining and obeying the law of the land. Considering the printers were involved with those out to MURDER the mayor of the city and drive the Saints out of the city they founded I really am not going to shed a tear over that silly printing press that, with the importance some people seem to attach to it, appears to have been made of gold and festooned with diamonds. I think Joseph Smith did the right thing. Joseph may have violated the technical law of the land (though he certainly did not know that as the legal experts he consulted said it was fine) but he did the moral and right thing. He was trying to protect the people of his city from mobbers. He tried and failed. I do not buy the facile theory that everything would have been fine and those who wanted Joseph dead would have been nice if we had just let them keep printing their paper. The mob drove the saints out. They won. They looted and acquired more then they lost. Why are so many people fixated on this instead of the real crime? 2
mfbukowski Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Can you give an example of what you mean? Have there been immoral laws that the church has specifically advocated not following?Such definitions don't exist- use your own common sense. Some argue that we don't even have "doctrine" just orthodox practice- orthopraxis So you are barking up the wrong tree.
The Nehor Posted September 29, 2014 Posted September 29, 2014 Can you give an example of what you mean? Have there been immoral laws that the church has specifically advocated not following? They rarely specifically advocate breaking laws but many of the saints throughout history have and in many cases have been instructed to. They rarely framed it as a kind of civil disobedience. It was just doing what had to be done.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 30, 2014 Posted September 30, 2014 Or, to paraphrase a great leader who was an expert on the subject: When the Mayor of Nauvoo does it, that means that it is not illegal.I'm not even going to dignify that with a substantive response.
Recommended Posts