- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
The prophet may be involved in civic matters.
Frankly, I think this is where the list starts to get weaker and weaker, as if “The Nine Fundamentals” just didn’t sound right – so he came up with 5 more to make it more alliterative. (The “Fourteen Fundamentals” sounds more Maxwellian, doesn’t it?)
In a real way, #10 is just a restatement (or specific application) of #9. It’s not a separate “fundamental” at all.However, for the sake of discussion . . . With restrictions on HOW involved a prophet may be in a culture like ours, sure – but this is where the most ambiguity and likelihood of non-revelatory opinion is, imo. CIvic matters are cultural, primarily – even in cases that some would see as clearly theological. I also think this is controversial directly to the extent that a culture is non-theocratic. In a theocracy, almost omni-present involvement of religious leaders is a given; in a democracy, even minimal involvement is more touchy. Prophets live in all kinds of society, and I am OK with varying degrees of involvement in civic matters based on the structure of the society in which the prophet lives.
My personal “ideal” would be prophetic statements (meaning simply statements by the apostles and prophets) ABOUT civic matters without ANY “organized” involvement at the Church level. Make a statement and leave levels of involvement up to the members individually.
I don’t have a problem with a prophet being involved in civic matters. However, he will have to tread lightly on using his divine authority inappropriately in such situations, as he’s now working with people who have not made a commitment to follow him as a prophet. So, when acting as a civic leader, the 14 fundamentals don’t apply as far as the people he is leading are concerned. Also, I think the Church and the prophet have to be careful the closer they get to temporal matters. Because of the claims to divine commission and absolute truth the Church makes, the tradeoffs in business (honesty vs profitability, task-orientation vs relationship-orientation, results vs people-development) can hurt followers testimonies. We see that phenomenon here at StayLDS when we have people who work for the Church see that in many respects, it behaves like a business. This hurts their testimonies when they, at one time, believed the Church was divine in nature which should be above corporate antics.
So, a prophet involved in civic affairs may well have a negative impact on people who are committed to the Church, and then see him act in ways they think are necessarily wordly given the temporal nature of government.
Case in point, I wasn’t aware until the PBS.org series on the Mormons that JS ordered the destruction of the Navoo Expositor printing press. That would have caused me to wonder if I was living at the time. How could a prophet justify vandalism? What about freedom of speech? These are not issues for me now, and I’m not even sure of the accuracy of the history, but I throw this out as an example of how it’s much easier for a prophet to be an “above-the-world prophet” the further he stay away from situations that force him to confront the inevitable tradeoffs between humanity and business.
Difficult, difficult. The truth is I’d like the prophet to be involved in some civic matters but not others. Some great evil is committed by politicians, and a prophet should work against that. However, most of this stuff is probably about gay bashing!
In thinking about the most recent political events that the church has really gotten involved in, I come up with 3: 1)Prohibition
2)the defeat of the civil rights amendment (I don’t know much about this other than the church didn’t like it)
3) Anti-gay marriage
I’m just not sure that my world is a better place because the church decided to jump in the ring here.
Old-Timer wrote:My personal “ideal” would be prophetic statements (meaning simply statements by the apostles and prophets) ABOUT civic matters without ANY “organized” involvement at the Church level. Make a statement and leave levels of involvement up to the members individually.
I’m sure that many members have done many good things in the political arena by following the dictates of their conscience, but I agree that the church itself should stick to pronouncements and lead the organizing to others.The problem becomes when the congregation of the church takes the prophet’s political opinion as god’s will. Roy wrote:
2)the defeat of the civil rights amendment (I don’t know much about this other than the church didn’t like it)
equal rights amendment (ERA)?
The commentary makes it sound like theocracy is the ideal form of government: Quote:When a people are righteous they want the best to lead them in government. Alma was the head of the Church and of the government in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith was mayor of Nauvoo, and Brigham Young was governor of Utah. Isaiah was deeply involved in giving counsel on political matters and of his words the Lord Himself said, “Great are the words of Isaiah” (3 Nephi 23:1). Those who would remove prophets from politics would take God out of government.
If LDS prophets use their position of authority to influence political decisions, what happens to anyone that doesn’t believe their religious convictions really have much of anything to do with God? I just don’t think it is very fair or reasonable for some religious groups to try to impose their idea of righteousness on others in most cases even if they have the political power to do so, approval of the majority, etc. Too much involvement in politics is likely to backfire and make the Church look oppressive and result in more anti-Mormon sentiment. That’s why I think the involvement in Proposition 8 was a big mistake that will end up hurting the Church a lot more than they realize over the long run.
I suppose it means that a prophet is welcome to order a printing press destroyed, to run for president, to fund opposition to Prop. 8, etc. Maybe it’s a protest to the idea that the church has to toe the line (tow the line) in order to keep tax exempt status. I grew up believing that the LDS church is waiting for a theocracy to run the world, and that the church, or the Elders of Isreal will save the country, and that “the “constitution will hang by a thread?” Isn’t that the idea that Skoussen concludes with, The Making of America? Roy is correct, the LDS church has been wrong on just too many civil arguements to really put your trust in the leaders to not “lead us astray.” ERA, prohibition, gay marriage are all great examples.
Maybe if the church wants to get involved in the civil matters, they should start talking about
MORALITY. And I’m not talking about sex (which is what most LDS equate morality is). How about we start talking about the Iraq war, global warming, pollution, poverty in America, and elsewhere, polar caps melting, the clean water act, Corporate America and the diminishing middle class, renewal energy vs fossil fuels, human trafficking, HUNTING for sport, NAFTA and CAFTA, blah blah blah… I don’t know how you all feel about the immigration issue, but I am glad the church stopped an Arizona style law here in Utah. See http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/03/20/bishop-burtons-public-stand-on-immigration/ mormonheretic wrote:I don’t know how you all feel about the immigration issue, but I am glad the church stopped an Arizona style law here in Utah. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/03/20/bishop-burtons-public-stand-on-immigration/ Credit where credit is due.
:clap: By the way, I’ve never told you before that I love your avatar. I do.
:thumbup: Brown wrote:The problem becomes when the congregation of the church takes the prophet’s political opinion as god’s will.
Perhaps even more difficult when the prophet himself does. I’m thinking of historical examples on this one, statements that in retrospect are so obviously wrong, but at the time were taken as inspired because the then prophet was adamant about them.
I think Ray’s right that 10+ on the 14 Fundamentals were fodder. Look at the weak wording of this one:
mayget involved in civic matters. Well, duh, as a citizen of a country, we all do that when we vote. I do think it’s implying that it’s up to his discretion, and that he shouldn’t be criticized for it. It doesn’t say that we have to vote as a bloc or contribute to causes he advocates despite our own convictions. The scriptures seem to support this fundamental, however, I tend to lean towards modern governments that take serious the separation of church and state. I’m glad the prophet and the church doesn’t do this too often, but I’m squeemish when they do. hawkgrrrl wrote:I think Ray’s right that 10+ on the 14 Fundamentals were fodder. Look at the weak wording of this one:
I agree this is the case on Fs 9-13. Perhaps we should just skip ahead to number 14.
14 is not fodder – but a terribly false and dangerous (and dare I say cult-like) statement to be quoting to folks over the pulpit. Since we have GC next week, I would vote to skip 11-13, and just try to hit this one this week.
cwald wrote:14 is not fodder – but a terribly false and dangerous (and dare I say cult-like) statement to be quoting to folks over the pulpit. Since we have GC next week, I would vote to skip 11-13, and just try to hit this one this week.
I’m OK with taking them out of turn, since Conference is coming up…but I was looking forward to discussingNumber 11: The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.Maybe we come back to that, or post simultaneous threads about 11 and 14 to prepare for conference??
Its your thread(s) Ray, whatever you want to do…just my 2 cents.
- The topic ‘The 14 Fundamentals: Number 10’ is closed to new replies.