CAPTAIN Moroni

[bro_rone]

I was teaching Gospel Doctrine today and one of the class members asked if Captain Moroni was a prophet. I seem to remember a passage stating that he was, but I don't remember where. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I can't seem to find the answer.

Does anyone have any insight into this? I'll need some sort of evidence. You know those really difficult Gospel Doctrine classes where they get hung up on really minor things? I've got one of those.

Thanks for any help you can give.

[delio32]

I believe that Helaman was the prophet at the time of Captain Moroni and that Moroni was a holy man but not a prophet.

[Connie]

Try Alma 48.

[bro_rone]

Thanks, connerific. I suppose that explains his true position. Delio32, you bring up a point of much debate - the assumption that there is only THE prophet. The truth is that in times past it wasn't uncommon to have many prophets living at the same time. An example is Lehi. He wasn't the only prophet in Jerusalem circa 600 BC. I think that was the cause of a lot of the confusion in class today. Some argued that Helaman was the only prophet, others said both Moroni and Helaman were prophets and yet still, others said there were many prophets besides these two.

Sometimes I long for the days of teaching Gospel Essentials where we stuck to fundamental principles and building testimonies.

[Connie]

Perhaps it depends on how you define prophet? There were multiple prophets in the olden days because there wasn't the tecnology to bring all the people together. Each group had to have a separate prophet. I do believe we have multiple prophets today, though. Don't we sustain the apostles as "prophets, seers, and revelators?" They are all prophets, it's just that only one can hold all the keys at one time, so he is referred to as THE prophet.

The Nephite structure of the gospel was different than what we do now because they were under the law of Moses. As far as holding all the keys that were available, it was probably Helaman who was THE prophet, but i do consider Captain Moroni a prophet also or at the very least prophet "material." He was just an awesome guy!

Perhaps it would be good for you to point out that we sustain the apostles as "prophets" as well, so we do, even today, have multiple prophets.

"Sometimes I long for the days of teaching Gospel Essentials where we stuck to fundamental principles and building testimonies."

I'm with you on this one. This is the only reason i actually like being in primary. Way too much speculation spouted as doctrine. Though i do get some interesting comments even in primary sometimes.

[Moksha]

Possible rendering of Captain Moroni:

Defending the Nephite way of life...

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Just a thought - we DO have multiple prophets today. Remember that we sustain ALL of the Quorum of the 12 as "Prophets, seers, and revelators". But I don't think Moroni was a prophet, the scriptures specifically mention him seaking spiritual guidance from Alma: Alma 43: 23.

I have some thoughts on Captain Moroni, if nobody minds me hijacking a thread....

Alma 48 :

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

Sounds like a pretty awesome guy.

But wait....

Alma 51

7 And it came to pass that this matter of their contention was settled by the avoice of the people. And it came to pass that the voice of the people came in favor of the freemen, and Pahoran retained the judgment-seat, which caused much rejoicing among the brethren of Pahoran and also many of the people of liberty, who also put the king-men to silence, that they durst not oppose but were obliged to maintain the cause of freedom.

14 And it came to pass that when Moroni saw this, and also saw that the Lamanites were coming into the borders of the land, he was exceedingly wroth because of the astubbornness of those people whom he had labored with so much diligence to preserve; yea, he was exceedingly wroth; his soul was filled with anger against them.

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

To explain my interpretation on these matters - the king-men wanted the law changed so they could have a king - they obeyed the law and petitioned the Chief Judge and the people voted on the matter in direct election (similar to our modern democratic way of doing things). They lost, and accepted their defeat peacefully. Then the Lamanites come along and the king-men see an opportunity and choose to refrain from battle. And this is where it gets fuzzy.

The king-men choose to not fight against the Lamanites. Moroni gets mad and submits his own petition (which is passed by popular vote) basically instituting a draft with the death penalty for dodging. The problem I have with this is that this draft ONLY applies to a single ethic (hee hee) minority. The same draft requirement does not apply to the People of Ammon who covenanted never to take up arms again. I imagine it something like if GW Bush instituted a draft for the war in Iraq that only drafted Democrats. How is this right? How is this fair? And how does this preserve the liberty of these (apparently peaceful) dissenters?

Sorry to hijack the thread, but this has been on my mind for a while and I figured I could catch all the Moroni fans here in one place...

Edited August 25, 2008 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[VisionOfLehi]

I know of at least 13 Prophets alive today.

[Maya]

I hope you do not mind, but here is an interesting thread about mormon/moroni... interesting thoughts:

Ask a Mormon - LDS Cyber Missionaries Forum lds1.org • View topic - Was Moroni, son of Mormon, a Soldier?

I tought the thought was interesting...

[Liber]

"The king-men choose to not fight against the Lamanites. Moroni gets mad and submits his own petition (which is passed by popular vote) basically instituting a draft with the death penalty for dodging. The problem I have with this is that this draft ONLY applies to a single ethic (hee hee) minority. The same draft requirement does not apply to the People of Ammon who covenanted never to take up arms again. I imagine it something like if GW Bush instituted a draft for the war in Iraq that only drafted Democrats. How is this right? How is this fair? And how does this preserve the liberty of these (apparently peaceful) dissenters?"

First of all, I can see how this could possibly be seen as a sticky matter, but there are a few details that you seem to be confused on:

First, the king men are not an ethnic minority, but a political minority. Kind of like the American Nazi Party rather than African Americans, Hispanics or any other genuine ethnic group. In the USA, political affiliation does not effect whether you can be drafted.

Secondly, The core ideas of the Nation/State that we have now did not exist in pre-colonial meso-america. Were the Ammonites refugies? Or where they consisidered a teritory or reservation? As the Book of Mormon is not a treatise on political philosophy, I am not sure. I do know that the Nephites took in the Ammonites specifically because the Ammonites would not fight for themselves. Their pacifisim was a precondition of their entry into Nephite lands.

Finally, the Kingmen, who seemed to be so antiwar when it came to fighting Laminites, seemed not to have the same problem when it came to their own country and people. The instant the draft is put into place, the Kingmen have a large battle agenst Moroni. And, latter down the road, the Kingmen capture the city of Zarahemla and try to hand it over to the Laminites. If you didn't know, treason is punishible by death in the USA too! It is the only crime specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.

[Hemidakota]

I was teaching Gospel Doctrine today and one of the class members asked if Captain Moroni was a prophet. I seem to remember a passage stating that he was, but I don't remember where. If I'm wrong I'll admit it, but I can't seem to find the answer.

Does anyone have any insight into this? I'll need some sort of evidence. You know those really difficult Gospel Doctrine classes where they get hung up on really minor things? I've got one of those.

Thanks for any help you can give.

The answer is no. Helaman was the prophet of the church. Though, this doesn't lessen the value of his role from both civic and religious order of that day. Indeed, I wish we had many in the military today that holds the same character of this great man.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

"The king-men choose to not fight against the Lamanites. Moroni gets mad and submits his own petition (which is passed by popular vote) basically instituting a draft with the death penalty for dodging. The problem I have with this is that this draft ONLY applies to a single ethic (hee hee) minority. The same draft requirement does not apply to the People of Ammon who covenanted never to take up arms again. I imagine it something like if GW Bush instituted a draft for the war in Iraq that only drafted Democrats. How is this right? How is this fair? And how does this preserve the liberty of these (apparently peaceful) dissenters?"

First of all, I can see how this could possibly be seen as a sticky matter, but there are a few details that you seem to be confused on:

First, the king men are not an ethnic minority, but a political minority. Kind of like the American Nazi Party rather than African Americans, Hispanics or any other genuine ethnic group. In the USA, political affiliation does not effect whether you can be drafted.

Secondly, The core ideas of the Nation/State that we have now did not exist in pre-colonial meso-america. Were the Ammonites refugies? Or where they consisidered a teritory or reservation? As the Book of Mormon is not a treatise on political philosophy, I am not sure. I do know that the Nephites took in the Ammonites specifically because the Ammonites would not fight for themselves. Their pacifisim was a precondition of their entry into Nephite lands.

Finally, the Kingmen, who seemed to be so antiwar when it came to fighting Laminites, seemed not to have the same problem when it came to their own country and people. The instant the draft is put into place, the Kingmen have a large battle agenst Moroni. And, latter down the road, the Kingmen capture the city of Zarahemla and try to hand it over to the Laminites. If you didn't know, treason is punishible by death in the USA too! It is the only crime specifically mentioned in the US Constitution.

First off all, I used the word ethic, not ethNic. It was meant as a play on words but I think the intented meaning is clear.

And you're absolutely right, there simply isn't enough information given to us to make a proper judgement, but the information that is given simply doesn't look good to me. At the time that Moroni's draft was instituted, the king-men were behaving peacably. They had not rebelled at that point and had not done anything contrary to law. Only when their deaths were mandated by law, did they choose to defy the law.

I see them looking at the situation as so: "I don't want to fight, but I'm being forced to do so. I can fight the Lamanites (who I like) and die, or I can fight the Nephites (who are forcing this upon me) and die." If I were a conscientious objector and my government told me that I had a choice between Iraq and lethal injection, I'd probably take Iraq, but I can certainly sympathize and even empathize with someone who would take the injection.

And yes, I know about the death penalty for treason. But I don't think the king-men committed treason until Moroni came after them with a big ol' petition and a sword. I'm not saying that their reasons are just, I certainly think that they were not. But I think that they had the right to have those reasons and act on them in any way they saw fit.

[georgia2]

I agree with the last post.

The King-men didn't want to fight as a sign of rebellion against their own leaders. It wasn't because they had a problem with shedding blood, it was because Moroni was against having a king.

Moroni was angry because of all the work and effort that all of the rest of the army put in to defend everyone in their country INCLUDING THE KING-MEN!

They wanted the benefits without doing the work.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

They wanted the benefits without doing the work.

Actually they didn't want the benefits - the benefit was liberty, and they wanted a ruler. Perhaps you could relate them to the Tories of revolutionary America. The colonies generally wanted liberty from England, and the Tories wanted English rule.

Then again, being a Tory, regardless of your behavior, was considered treason and punishable by death. The Lynch Mob - the ultimate demonstration of direct democracy