Close Topic Options

Heber J Grant

Being Loyal Citizens

At first I thought we would run through the lesson quickly and that I would have to find something more to talk about, but the Elders Quorum gobbled this up with passion. Something interesting to note is the many declarations in D&C 134 that makes it clear that there should always be a separation of State and Religion. Ezra Taft Benson was a big advocate of this and fought vigorously against Communism and denounced Socialism as being a similar Evil. Governments were created by God for the benefit of man, so it is something good until the wrong man is elected.

The chapter brought some important points that many members take for granted:
1. We should all vote
2. We should fight for our country when asked
3. We can only be good Latter-Day Saints when we obey the law of the land
4. We always have a choice

Grant Heber

This is interesting. We have had discussions in other threads that seem to indicate some believe that German LDS members should have resisted during WWII, but this would seem to indicate otherwise.

Heber J Grant Studies Doctrine Mormon

JB,

I believe that it is the state and church which should not dominate or interfere with one another, not religion and politics -

This was an interesting lesson, and one that brought up a lot of differing views. It is true that some statements (such as the 12th Article of Faith) seem to lend credence to the view that we obey the law whatever. However, other teachings qualify such an extreme view.

One such qualification can be found in the lesson (from D&C 134:5) when it says (my emphasis):

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected."

Beyond any doubt, neither the US or the UK protect these said rights (mentioned in verse 2). So is it then a matter of how far they are protected?

I brought up the fact that Daniel broke the "law", as did Nephi of course when he slew Laban. The Founding Fathers of the USA also rebelled against their Government (then the British Crown) - and the Lord seems to have been fulyl behind the War of Independence!

Of course, these men (the Colonialists) had taxes put upon them and then were threatened with having their arms taking from them (which initiated the actual combat). Yet, today as both Americans and Britons, we have had (or are having) our means of defence taken from us and have far more violations of our property rights from government than did our forebears.

So, we can see that the attitude of LDS today does not seem to be consistent. There are, as I see it, two possible reasons for this: (1) we have failed to do our duty and are not understanding what the Church is really saying or (2) the Lord would not have us be as active as in times past and we must fulfil more of the Ammonite (pacifist) rather than the Moroni (activist) approach.

In some ways there may be some truth to the second, and yet if one reads all the words of the prophets it is hard to come to the conclusion that we have not been encouraged and taught to do just as Moroni did. Indeed, the Book of Mormon indicates that we should defend ourselves *unless* told otherwise (by the Lord) - not *not* defend ourselves *unless* told to!

Alas, there were many inaccuracies taught in my lesson. One was that we should not do anything politically unless the Prophet/Church says so. Wrong. Benson spoke a great deal about that and called it a lie of Satan.

I also learned that the English constitutional form of government was a democracy, which is interesting because last time I looked it was a Constitutional Monarchy founded upon the Rule of Law.

I could go on about many other things but I'll spare you

To summarise, I think attitudinally the views of many LDS are right, but those views get mixed up with conclusions and beliefs.

An example: we should respect our political leaders and not criticise them (we might say the same of the devil). A good attitude but this is interpreted to mean we can trust them!

Well, (constructive) criticism and distrust of leaders is essential to liberty - why the heck did the Lord set up a Constitution with checks and balances and separation of powers, etc.? Because his instruments, those Framers, knew men seek to exploit power and must be kept in check when given political authority over other men.

David was respectful to Saul, and justly so but still took the right action and did the right thing. Attitude and action are not the same thing.

Dubhdara.