Close Topic Options

Meat of the Gospel - Page 2

Roz:

We talked about Peter in church today, and I asked the instructor if Peter was anti-democracy. If we follow Peters teachings - are we unchristians if we challenge leaders in authoritarian government? Peter seems to be teaching that we must follow authorities whether they be good governments or bad ones. The classic example is the Nazy government. There were loyal church members who served the Nazy government faithfully. Were they good members? Bad? Another good example is the case involving the judge in Alabama and the 10-commandments statue. Is he a christian hero because of his steadfast against the erosing of christian values in America? or is he an over zealous, self-promoting fanatics, who doesn't fully understand the teaching of Peter? Does the gospel allow rebellions? demonstrations? revolutions? change to the status quo?

Pen

Gospel the Meat

imanua...interesting stuff...maybe you should add a new thread about it.

I always had an issue with this....and the same question, were they good members?

What an interesting thread this would be! Please add it on the board! if you don't, I will but I don't wanna steal your idea

Meat of the Gospel Studies Doctrine Mormon

Well, one of our Articles of Faith says we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The law is different in each country and it doesn't say, we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law so long as it is a good law. That same article says we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates. So based upon this, I would have to say they were good members. Now, if they had an option to vote and voted to elect evil people, then I believe they are accountable for that, which is why I think we should be careful about to whom we give our vote when we have a chance. It shouldn't be based upon just one or two things this person might do for me that I like, but what do they (and their party when applicable) represent in total.

Once a government is in place, good members are expected to obey the laws established and work with in the laws to change what isn't good.

Based upon what I have already said, I think this judge should have removed the statue after he was ordered to do so and then proceed legally with his challenge to that order. What was gained by his disobeying the order. If everyone ignores the laws and commands that they don't agree with, we will have a very bad situation on our hands.

Just all my opinion of course.

Edited: tenaheff on 24th Nov, 2003 - 8:27pm

Page 2 Gospel the Meat

Well, the Church has taken, from time to time, the opposite road.

Based upon this idea, it seems to me that if there is an Antichrist such as many people postulate, then we will be required to take the mark of the beast, as it will be law.

I believe that it is vital to attempt to change bad law through the processes available. When there is no process available to change the law, it is incumbant upon us to resist it, and disobey it. Thus, if I had lived in Nazi Germany, it would have been my moral obligation to have assisted Jews to hide and flee the country. It would also have been my obligation to flee the country if at all possible.

If the law of the land insists that I accept immoral laws that demand abortion, force me to accept a specific religion, or any other similar action, then I am justified in actively fighting against that law. Otherwise, based on the above interpretation (which, by the way is very common), the Founding Fathers of the US were the vilest of sinners, and, if they had been members of the Church, would have been subject to excommunication.

NightHawk

Gospel the Meat

Nighthawlk, excellent points. I agree with you 100%. We were talking about this in the thread about homosexuality, just because the law says now they can get married it doesn't mean that a member must abide to it or 'promote' it. There are countries where abortion, drugs and other evils are consider legal, therefore it doesn't mean a member should follow these rules. As Nighthawlk point out, in my opinion if I was living in the Nazy Germany I would do the best I can to save as much Jews as possible, that's what our Church stands for helping the needy and less fortunate. How a member of the Church at that time could be consider good if he participate in the killing ane execution of thousands of innocent people! He had the choice of do it or not, even when his life may be in jeopardy, why to follow a law that is evil?. I don't think is right and I personally think that those who got involved in such a terrible thing as the Holocaust can be just easily justified that because the law says so, they have to. The law says a lot of things, some of them really evil as we see every day, now it doesn't mean we have to follow it or encourage it in any way. We should abide by the laws of the land, as long as do not interfer with our own standards.

Meat of the Gospel

The problem I have with this statement is that according to an earlier post in this thread, the Church members in Germany were told by our Church leaders to stay in their country and try not to make waves. So, in that case, I believe their moral obligation was to follow the counsel given them by their Church leaders and not to attempt to flee.

I agree with this statement, but I don't think the majority of German citizens were directly involved with this. Most of them were simply foot soldiers fighting for their country. I think in that case we have been instructed to obey our political leaders.

I would expect my prophet to instruct me not to obey this law. Then I will feel I am justified to break the law. It is interesting, because I have given this one a lot of thought in the past. Since we say we believe in obeying the law, and all of the other stuff in that A of F, I am concerned about whether or not the prophet and our Church leaders will, in fact, act quickly to instruct us not to take this sign of the beast. I don't think the sign is going to be as obvious as some have suggested either, so I don't think it is necessarily a matter we will easily decide on our own. I guess I just have to have faith in my prophet and in the gospel and knowledge that the prophet will not be allowed to lead me astray.

Meat the Gospel - Page 2

This is true. The local leaders did tell their people to stay, to cooperate, and to not make waves. However, there were some young people who went against this, and were excommunicated by their local leaders. One of them was killed by the Nazis. All three later were exonerated by the General Authorities, to the point that the one young man had his membership reinstated posthumously.

I will go back to my assertion that it is OUR responsibility to make these decisions. We are NOT to wait for the Brethren or the Prophet to tell us when to take a political stand or to take action. We are to be independant in such matters. As far as I know, the brethren who practiced civil disobedience in the late 1800's were allowed to choose whether or not they would flee and hide or face the courts. The only thing was that they were to avoid violent confrontation. They may have been advised on the course of action to take, but not commanded.

I will return to history. Would Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin have been in violation the Lord's law? How about the civil rights protestors of the 1960's?

There is a time and place to violate the law of the land.

Meat the Gospel Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 2

The brethen who hid over polygamy though, did so with the blessing of church general authorities. While I agree with you in theory that there is a time for civil obedience, our Church Articles of Faith don't seem to indicate this is true. So how does one reconcile the conflict? These Articles of Faith came from Joseph himself.