Has the Prophet Given Any Temporal Advice for Today' Situation?

[Thinking]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It might be nit picky...

You should have stopped right there. As a journalist, you should know as well as anybody that many words have multiple meanings.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t think he could have meant it in the sense you suggest. The Ephesians passage pertains to those who have united themselves with the covenant people of God. “Global citizens” as used here does not have that limited meaning. Rather, it is as much as to say all the inhabitants of the earth. It is, at best, a figurative, nontechnical use of the word “citizens.” 

And your Wikipedia passage conveys the false notion that there is some earthly global sovereign to which everyone owes allegiance that supersedes the sovereignty of the nation to which one belongs. This is, of course, globalist nonsense, and I don’t believe it is what the Church leaders intended to convey. 

That is why I referred to the term as a "temporal counterpart". I was responding to the request for an example of temporal counsel, and global citizenry in the way I take president Nelson to be using it, is a temporal counterpart to heavenly citizenry. Like any other term, it can be used to promote both desirable ("true") and undesirable ("false")  concepts.

I see no mention in the article supporting "the false notion that there is some earthly global sovereign to which everyone owes allegiance that supersedes the sovereignty of the nation to which one belongs," though that is certainly one undesirable aim for using the term.

I invite you to read further down in the article, where the concept in its "true" sense (and not its potential political sense for the sake of observing board rules) forms the underpinning of the first sentence in the US 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..."

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The world is not “a particular town or city.” Too much of a stretch in meaning for my liking, even if you do rationalize it that way. 
 

If what is meant is merely “inhabitant of the world,” why not express it as global inhabitants? Unless there is some implied message of being subject to or obeying some world ruler or sovereign, which is the very idea I have objected to. 
 

Besides, those who live in a town or city are more often referred to as its residents. Calling a person a “citizen” of a city seems a loose application of the word. One who is born elsewhere in the country doesn’t undergo procedures to become a naturalized citizen of Los Angeles. There is no such thing. One simply moves there. 

Citizenship implies more than being a resident. There are connotations of stewardship and responsibility attached to the word and that kind of citizenship (sometimes stewardship is used in a gospel context) suggests responsibilities attached to living in the world.

If that responsibility is some kind of leftist plot I would suggest that it might be a good plot.

That being said anyone who tries to prominently describe themselves primarily as a “citizen of the world” is probably an insufferable git. In that context it is a stupid affectation. If placed in a context of responsibility along with nation, community, tribe, family, divine obligations, and whatever else you are beholden to it makes sense if kept in context.

[rodheadlee]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

The political kingdom of God was established by the Prophet Joseph in Nauvoo.  Christ's personal reign may be for the Millennium but the political governing element has already been restored.

Sometimes we still see reminders of this in these parts

Very cool. I want one to fly from my boat.

[Kenngo1969]

• Doesn't the premise of the opening post put The Fifteen (the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators) collectively), and the chief among them (the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, President Russell M. Nelson) in a no-win, darned-if-he-does-[if-they-do], darned-if-he-doesn't-[if-they-don't] situation? 
• What revelation would you have him (or have them) receive for the world in light of current circumstances? 
• What if the revelation alluded to in the foregoing bullet point happens to contravene the directives of health authorities or political leaders in a given jurisdiction?  What if it does so in one jurisdiction but not in another? 
• As it is, don't even some purportedly-faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accuse the Prophet of straying away from what they are sure is proper "render-unto-God" territory and straying into what they are sure is improper "render-unto-Caesar" territory?
• Is the seeming need to have President Nelson receive a revelation for you and for me consistent with the current ethic and effort in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to encourage moving away from institutional revelation and control and toward individual revelation and control?
• Is it possible, in light of the lack of overarching institutional guidance on the matter from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for an individual to receive revelation which might contravene the conventional wisdom espoused in a particular jurisdiction?

Sorry.  Can't help but ask these questions, and probably others that haven't occurred to me yet.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Citizenship implies more than being a resident. There are connotations of stewardship and responsibility attached to the word and that kind of citizenship (sometimes stewardship is used in a gospel context) suggests responsibilities attached to living in the world.

If that responsibility is some kind of leftist plot I would suggest that it might be a good plot.

That being said anyone who tries to prominently describe themselves primarily as a “citizen of the world” is probably an insufferable git. In that context it is a stupid affectation. If placed in a context of responsibility along with nation, community, tribe, family, divine obligations, and whatever else you are beholden to it makes sense if kept in context.

I agree that “citizen of the world” is affected, even smarmy, rhetoric with no concrete or literal meaning; I see it as synonymous with “global citizen.” There are better ways to convey the ideas expressed in your first paragraph (your suggestion of terms like stewardship and responsibility are good). I have suggested “good (or responsible) members of the global community” as an apt replacement. It gets the idea across without conveying, intentionally or not, the connotation that there is some nebulous (and non-existent) entity of international scope that has claim upon our allegiance transcending our individual nationalities. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

I'm not a rebel or a maverick.  I'm a pretty by-the-book, law-and-order type guy.  I'm not even much of a civil libertarian. To a great extent, I value the communitarian ethic that imposes upon me a duty to look after those within my orbit as well as looking after myself.  I do have to wonder, though, where governors and mayors are getting the authority many of them are claiming to issue stay-at-home orders (emphasis mine).  Is it from the police power which the United States Constitution cedes to the States?  If so, how much of a stretch is that, if it is one?  Does the image of a disembodied voice from a drone issuing orders to the populace in a particular jurisdiction seem rather Orwellian to anyone else?

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

• Doesn't the premise of the opening post put The Fifteen (the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators) collectively), and the chief among them (the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, President Russell M. Nelson) in a no-win, darned-if-he-does-[if-they-do], darned-if-he-doesn't-[if-they-don't] situation? 
• What revelation would you have him (or have them) receive for the world in light of current circumstances? 
• What if the revelation alluded to in the foregoing bullet point happens to contravene the directives of health authorities or political leaders in a given jurisdiction?  What if it does so in one jurisdiction but not in another? 
• As it is, don't even some purportedly-faithful members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accuse the Prophet of straying away from what they are sure is proper "render-unto-God" territory and straying into what they are sure is improper "render-unto-Caesar" territory?
• Is the seeming need to have President Nelson receive a revelation for you and for me consistent with the current ethic and effort in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to encourage moving away from institutional revelation and control and toward individual revelation and control?
• Is it possible, in light of the lack of overarching institutional guidance on the matter from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for an individual to receive revelation which might contravene the conventional wisdom espoused in a particular jurisdiction?

Sorry.  Can't help but ask these questions, and probably others that haven't occurred to me yet.

The role of God’s prophet is in large measure to give assurance to God’s people based on the application of truths and revelation that are already had among them. Also, to give leadership in adapting eternal principles and inspired procedures to changing — at times temporary — circumstances and conditions in society. I believe the prophets, seers and revelators have fulfilled that role well of late. 
 

Last night I ran across a recent Church News article based on an interview with Elder Quentin L. Cook, who made the point that instruction and innovation from the President Nelson has interlocked to prepare us for the current challenges that beset us. I’ll try to find it and link to it. 
 

Edited to add: Here is the link. Elder Cook called it “an interlocking pattern of strength”:

https://www.thechurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2020-04-29/coronavirus-elder-cook-revelation-home-centered-church-ministering-182549

 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

21 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not a rebel or a maverick.  I'm a pretty by-the-book, law-and-order type guy.  I'm not even much of a civil libertarian. To a great extent, I value the communitarian ethic that imposes upon me a duty to look after those within my orbit as well as looking after myself.  I do have to wonder, though, where governors and mayors are getting the authority many of them are claiming to issue stay-at-home orders (emphasis mine).  Is it from the police power which the United States Constitution cedes to the States?  If so, how much of a stretch is that, if it is one?  Does the image of a disembodied voice from a drone issuing orders to the populace in a particular jurisdiction seem rather Orwellian to anyone else?

You’re not a maverick, just a lover of liberty and human rights. 
 

Extraordinary measures are sometimes necessary for public health and safety, but there should always be a check on government to prevent abuse of power. That’s why we have a system of checks and balances and the Bill of Rights. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Rajah Manchou]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

some nebulous (and non-existent) entity of international scope that has claim upon our allegiance transcending our individual nationalities. 

As someone who doesn't like government very much, I find it far more appealing to be a citizen of a nebulous (and non-existent) entity of international scope.

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/2/2020 at 8:32 AM, thatjimguy said:

I know he has issued words about fasting and faith. I am wondering if anything has been said regarding temporal wisdom though. Specifically, should we stay at home or not?

 

A person does not have to stay home to protect themselves.  Walk in the park, ride your bike, go for a drive.  Many things are perfectly safe to do as long as you keep some distance from other people

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

As someone who doesn't like government very much, I find it far more appealing to be a citizen of a nebulous (and non-existent) entity of international scope.

So you are an anarchist, then?

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that “citizen of the world” is affected, even smarmy, rhetoric with no concrete or literal meaning; I see it as synonymous with “global citizen.” There are better ways to convey the ideas expressed in your first paragraph (your suggestion of terms like stewardship and responsibility are good). I have suggested “good (or responsible) members of the global community” as an apt replacement. It gets the idea across without conveying, intentionally or not, the connotation that there is some nebulous (and non-existent) entity of international scope that has claim upon our allegiance transcending our individual nationalities. 

So you admit you are a traitor to the UN? I bet you do not even say the UN pledge of allegiance every morning.....

We pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Nations of the World
and to the confusion for which it stands, resolutions under review, 
with security council vetos for a few.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you are an anarchist, then?

I was going to say sovereign citizen but that fits too.

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not a rebel or a maverick.  I'm a pretty by-the-book, law-and-order type guy.  I'm not even much of a civil libertarian. To a great extent, I value the communitarian ethic that imposes upon me a duty to look after those within my orbit as well as looking after myself.  I do have to wonder, though, where governors and mayors are getting the authority many of them are claiming to issue stay-at-home orders (emphasis mine).  Is it from the police power which the United States Constitution cedes to the States?  If so, how much of a stretch is that, if it is one?  Does the image of a disembodied voice from a drone issuing orders to the populace in a particular jurisdiction seem rather Orwellian to anyone else?

Every state has laws authorizing quarantine and isolation through the state's health authority. I would say it falls under the 10th Amendment. The federal government has similar powers delegated to the CDC under law which spells out what it can be enforced for and COVID-19 falls under it.

On the state level it would probably fall under 10th amendment. The usual federal justification is the Commerce clause of the Constitution, specifically to keep a disease or whatever from crossing state lines and/or from entering or spreading in the country.

[Scott Lloyd]

Never mind. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Every state has laws authorizing quarantine and isolation through the state's health authority. I would say it falls under the 10th Amendment. The federal government has similar powers delegated to the CDC under law which spells out what it can be enforced for and COVID-19 falls under it.

On the state level it would probably fall under 10th amendment. The usual federal justification is the Commerce clause of the Constitution, specifically to keep a disease or whatever from crossing state lines and/or from entering or spreading in the country.

Okay.  You seem to be the expert here, so I'll defer to you.  Is a mayor's or a governor's power circumscribed in any way?  Is it subject to any other branch of government?  I'm talking about authority to order people who are not known to be ill to stay home, not about authority to restrict the movement of people who are known to be ill.  I get the latter.  OK.  Well and good.  But where does the authority to issue orders restricting the movement of people who are not known to be ill come from?  And are officials bound to use the least restrictive means possible to accomplish the objective of safeguarding the populace against disease, or is this an "anything goes" situation?

Edited May 4, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[mrmarklin]

On 5/2/2020 at 7:32 AM, thatjimguy said:

I know he has issued words about fasting and faith. I am wondering if anything has been said regarding temporal wisdom though. Specifically, should we stay at home or not?

 

A troll question?  Are you serious?

 

The church has long standing advice about food storage, staying out of debt, and having a financial reserve. 
All of the above is emergency advice that would help now if one follows the Prophet. 
You realize all church meetings are cancelled until further notice, right?

Edited May 4, 2020 by mrmarklin

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  You seem to be the expert here, so I'll defer to you.  Is a mayor's or a governor's power circumscribed in any way?  Is it subject to any other branch of government?  I'm talking about authority to order people who are not known to be ill to stay home, not about authority to restrict the movement of people who are known to be ill.  I get the latter.  OK.  Well and good.  But where does the authority to issue orders restricting the movement of people who are not known to be ill come from?  And are officials bound to use the least restrictive means possible to accomplish the objective of safeguarding the populace against disease, or is this an "anything goes" situation?

Going back to the concept of the system of checks and balances built into the Constitution, I suppose the courts might be a recourse. 
 

That might be too cumbersome to be satisfactory, but the machinery of government often is. Through local activism several years ago, we effected nearly a clean sweep of the members of our school board, but it was too late to prevent them from putting into place an odious plan for redoing school boundaries. 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Okay.  You seem to be the expert here, so I'll defer to you.  Is a mayor's or a governor's power circumscribed in any way?  Is it subject to any other branch of government?  I'm talking about authority to order people who are not known to be ill to stay home, not about authority to restrict the movement of people who are known to be ill.  I get the latter.  OK.  Well and good.  But where does the authority to issue orders restricting the movement of people who are not known to be ill come from?  And are officials bound to use the least restrictive means possible to accomplish the objective of safeguarding the populace against disease, or is this an "anything goes" situation?

I know the CDC has a medical appeal process for those involuntarily quarantined. I believe the CDC can quarantine for 72 hours with no due process. After that if the CDC wishes it to continue you can appeal for a medical review. This is a hearing presided over by a disinterested medical professional to determine if the quarantine is necessary. You can also file with in court and if the 72 hour hold was found to be unwarranted you could sue civilly for redress.

On the state level I have no idea and I am guessing there are at least 50 different processes and procedures.

It is worth noting the CDC has not abused this power through history. The last time the US used involuntary quarantine for medical reasons (outside of localized quarantines that usually involved only dozens of people) was back in the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918.

It is understandable why they did. That bug had a mortality rate of over 10% and bad medical information and some serious missteps spread it almost everywhere. It was also strange. Like this current bug it mostly spared children but oddly the elderly survived at higher rates. One theory is that there was a similar weaker cousin to that bug that got out about half a century beforehand so many elderly had greater ability to fight it off. A lucky inadvertent vaccination.

Edit: I should also add that another check is federalism. If a state is abusing its power the federal government can step in. Harder to do against the federal government but if the CDC were to abuse its power the President can stop them at will and Congress can legislatively shut them down. The courts could intervene too of course. 

Edited May 4, 2020 by The Nehor

[rpn]

Yes, he's said to follow advice of local goverrnment officials, and medical people.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I know the CDC has a medical appeal process for those involuntarily quarantined. I believe the CDC can quarantine for 72 hours with no due process. After that if the CDC wishes it to continue you can appeal for a medical review. This is a hearing presided over by a disinterested medical professional to determine if the quarantine is necessary. You can also file with in court and if the 72 hour hold was found to be unwarranted you could sue civilly for redress.

On the state level I have no idea and I am guessing there are at least 50 different processes and procedures.

It is worth noting the CDC has not abused this power through history. The last time the US used involuntary quarantine for medical reasons (outside of localized quarantines that usually involved only dozens of people) was back in the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918.

It is understandable why they did. That bug had a mortality rate of over 10% and bad medical information and some serious missteps spread it almost everywhere. It was also strange. Like this current bug it mostly spared children but oddly the elderly survived at higher rates. One theory is that there was a similar weaker cousin to that bug that got out about half a century beforehand so many elderly had greater ability to fight it off. A lucky inadvertent vaccination.

Edit: I should also add that another check is federalism. If a state is abusing its power the federal government can step in. Harder to do against the federal government but if the CDC were to abuse its power the President can stop them at will and Congress can legislatively shut them down. The courts could intervene too of course. 

That's all fine.  For all I know, it's well and good, but it doesn't answer any of my questions. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

That's all fine.  For all I know, it's well and good, but it doesn't answer any of my questions. 

Yeah, sorry, went off on a tangent and forgot to come back.

In generalities I would say it falls under providing for the common defense. And no, the restrictions are not particularly well spelled out.

There are court challenges pending right now. Some seem frivolous and motivated by partisan goals to me but I saw one I read about that seemed to have some merit.

At the federal level there basically is no such power to enforce a stay at home order. The federal government can advise but, contrary to some administrations they basically cannot quarantine the whole nation. On the state level it is more settled. In the late 1700s there were a lot of yellow fever outbreaks and quarantine orders were enforced by states, sometimes against whole other states. The sad part is that the disease was primarily transmitted by mosquitos so the quarantines probably did not help much at all. There was a surprise court case where Texas tried to quarantine everyone and everything coming in to Louisiana and the Supreme Court acknowledged that the state had the right to protect its citizens. The ruling did strike down parts of the quarantine judged unsound such as quarantinIng cargos for excessive periods when there was nothing to suggest that would help. Texas was suspected of trying to win out economically by cutting off Louisiana imports for a time and that the quarantine was specifically made excessive to achieve that end. The federal government got involved because it fell under interstate commerce and they were quarantining the mail. Don’t mess with the post office! States can get away with a lot more.

We can also look at use of similar powers used for non-medical purposes. The WWII Japanese internment camps were ruled mostly constitutional except that vaguely inhabitants who were proven loyal had to be released. Not sure how the court thought that would work. Guantanamo is still around and has housed US citizens. Not defending those that were there but it is a chilling precedent. Curfews have generally been found to be enforceable unless they specifically conflict with a first amendment practice. Generally these are targeted at youth which most everyone except youth seem to find acceptable.

Our faith had its own run in with a governor deciding that for the good of all some people needed to be forced out of a specific state. Then again both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young declared martial law themselves in extreme circumstances. The abuses of power in US history due to many martial law declarations that were used to bust unions or target minorities do not endorse the practice but there were some uses where it seemed necessary.

I personally hate how everything in this crisis seems to have become a political statement. It is a health crisis. I think polling, political opinion, and how people feel about is is all irrelevant and decisions relevant to the crisis should be made by wise experts and not influenced by the fear, denial, or hysteria of mobs. Then I realize that rule of the wise has been suggested long before, remember reading Plato, and realize that the experts are as fallen as everyone else and almost no one is truly fit to lead and there is no system of government yet devised that keeps the few noble, selfless, and honest in charge.

Yeah, I rambled again but hopefully it is more relevant rambling.

Edited May 5, 2020 by The Nehor

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I personally hate how everything in this crisis seems to have become a political statement.

From my vantage point, this is the defining feature of how Americans seem to be responding. It is so weird to me. Here, we're merely dealing with a health crisis.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

From my vantage point, this is the defining feature of how Americans seem to be responding. It is so weird to me. Here, we're merely dealing with a health crisis.

Wearing a mask is a political statement to the point it can offend or even incite. It is weird. I have a friend who is legitimately nervous about wearing a mask due to how many in his area choose to perceive it.