Law of the land

[Cameron1991]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

[Guest]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

As far as it does not directly contradict our doctrine. If there comes a time when doctrine has to be contradicted to be law-abiding, that's the time to leave. Or opt to stay in jail.

[Blackmarch]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

As far as we can do so in rightiousness.

[captmoroniRM]

There are several sections in the Doctrine and Covenants that go in depth as to the Church in relation to Governments and their laws. 134 comes to mind. Paraphrasing some of them, one who obeys the commandments of God should have no need to break the laws of the land. Christ said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and God the things that are God's.

Should the government try and restrict our ability to worship via legislation, we are still required to do all we can. Read the story of Alma the elder, when oppressed by the Lamanites (in Mosiah....can't recall the chapter). They were forbidden to pray, but they kept praying in their hearts and their burdens were lifted. Later, the poor were kicked out of the synagogues and Alma told them to worship wherever they could, whenever they could.

[MrShorty]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

Maybe I'm just more cynical, but it really seems to depend on the law or the importance we attach to the law in question. Observe the way we drive, and it seems we follow the law only as strictly as we think the law is enforced, or only when we think we might get caught.

[Therauh]

I look at it and wonder what happened to it.

Used to be fairly simple....now it depends on who's interpreting it and what they ammend to it or remove from it.

[TheActualLiz]

I was wondering about this as well. I seriously doubt that in extreme circumstances, such as helping slaves escape before the civil war or hiding Jews during the Holocaust, would have been acting against church teachings.

There are many smaller examples that come to mind and Thurough's Treaties on Civil Disobedience (sp?) seems to make a solid argument for non-violent protest while accepting the consequences. He says that when the state imprisons it's citizens unjustly then the only apartment for the just is in prison. If you are told by the police or the courts that you have the option of (insert action you believe to be immoral here) or go to jail, then you are still obeying the law of the land by accepting jail without complaint. Some of the examples of how saints dealt with the laws against existing polygamous marriages right before the church stopped the practice come to mind.

[Traveler]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

Our covenat with the L-rd is to follow the law of the land. If there is a conflict, because of our covenant we can still follow the law of the land and not be held accountable. If we choose not to follow the law of the land because we see a conflict we are accountable if we somehow choose incorrectly.

The short answer is to follow the law of the land and be safe. If we are sure the law of the land is wrong we can take responsibility for our choice to acomplish greater good.

The Traveler

[LDSVALLEY]

So smile when you pay your taxes..................It's the law!

[captmoroniRM]

So smile when you pay your taxes..................It's the law!

Well, render unto Caesar....

[ConquestT4]

Maybe I'm just more cynical, but it really seems to depend on the law or the importance we attach to the law in question. Observe the way we drive, and it seems we follow the law only as strictly as we think the law is enforced, or only when we think we might get caught.

Exactly.

[LDSVALLEY]

Well, render unto Caesar....

The amount of taxes, fees etc I give the Government every year it should be.....

render unto Seizer cause they seize it seems like 90%

[Greatest_I_am]

I was pondering the thought of law of the land. I got me to think how far do we actually follow the law of the land???

You may have noted that many more Christians follow the law of the land than follow religious law. Thank God for that.

Religious law is quite draconian by secular standards and customs.

You will note that we live by secular law as it pertains to gambling, prostitution abortion and drugs.

Just to name a few.

No Christian will walk the talk of his Bible.

Society would not tolerate such abuse of it’s members.

Thank God the religious are not so stupid that they would choose religious laws over secular evolving law.

Regards

DL

[NeuroTypical]

No Christian will walk the talk of his Bible.

Society would not tolerate such abuse of it’s members.

I'm going to have to ask for some clarification there. This particlular Christian tries very hard to walk the talk of all the stuff Christ and His apostles had to say in the Bible. Love thy neighbor and make with the charity and all that...

LM

Edited October 25, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Therauh]

Not true DL....Cause if it weren't for God and his laws I might have attempted to claim being the Greatest_I_am long ago and we'd have a problem cause.......

unless I perceive wrongly and you mean you are the greatest

Then peace and kiblet to ya =)

Edited October 26, 2010 by Therauh

[Greatest_I_am]

I'm going to have to ask for some clarification there. This particlular Christian tries very hard to walk the talk of all the stuff Christ and His apostles had to say in the Bible. Love thy neighbor and make with the charity and all that...

LM

The bottom line is who has the best law.

What we need determine is whether hell would be a moral construct or not.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.

God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these

simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?

This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

Is hell moral construct or not?

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.

Regards

DL

[Greatest_I_am]

Not true DL....Cause if it weren't for God and his laws I might have attempted to claim being the Greatest_I_am long ago and we'd have a problem cause.......

unless I perceive wrongly and you mean you are the greatest

Then peace and kiblet to ya =)

Deuteronomy 32:4

He is the Rock, his work is perfect:

Are you not one of God's works?

Are you imperfect or evolving perfection and the best you can be?

YouTube - Candide - 03 Best of all possible worlds

Regards

DL

Edited October 26, 2010 by Greatest_I_am

[Blackmarch]

The bottom line is who has the best law.

What we need determine is whether hell would be a moral construct or not.

Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.

Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.

God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.

The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.

To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these

simple question for yourself.

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

if that is the extent of the law for such sinnning then yes.

2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?

Guess one could argue what good or moral is on another thread..

That would only be just if there was only one law with only one absolute consequnce. otherwise no:

A being with any love for mankind would not solely institute such a law by itself and with nothing else to provide any sort of fairness or ability to reduce such a punishment.

This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.

Genocide is a wrong term to use for that- God did not single out any one group or thing when he caused the flood.

Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.

While punishment can be used for that, I would argue that is not the case for punishment. Rather, punishment is merely consequence of broken law, and conversely, reward is the consequnce of law that is kept.. at least if pure justice is involved.

3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?

I would say that there is nothing good about hell. However that would be just. If they were to break the laws as such that would put them in hell, and they choose not to change then it is just for them to stay there.

4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?

I'm assuming you are refering to a person's spirit? Possibly but one problem here- As far as I can find, there is nothing about the possibility that a spirit can be removed from existance (and conversely i can't find anything that suggests a spirit can be brough into existance from nonexistance).

But supposing that it is possible to remove a spirit from existance, then for it to be more merciful than an eternity in hell, the process would have to be of less intensity than an eternal hell.

Is hell moral construct or not?

Yes and no. Ultimately the Laws God gives us are based on God's morals, which he has for whatever reasons, so one could probably argue that everything is built around a moral construct among other reasons for their creation. But its also no it is not as it is a condition and/or place.

Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.

Regards

DL

[Greatest_I_am]

“Genocide is a wrong term to use for that- God did not single out any one group or thing when he caused the flood.”

That is right. He genocided everything but his 8.

Genocide is the right word unless you would like to offer a better one.

“

1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?

if that is the extent of the law for such sinning then yes.”

So all laws, fair or not, is the law, then it is automatically just.

LOL.

Regards

DL

Edited October 26, 2010 by Gwen
inappropriate

[Just_A_Guy]

Please avoid using vulgarities on this forum.

[Just_A_Guy]

GIA, not to patronize you, but to borrow a line from Pirates of the Caribbean:

"You know nothing of [the Mormon concept of] hell".

Your questions thus far, demonstrate that much clearly.

Mormonism does not present God as consigning souls to eternal torture; or punishing all sinners (regardless of degree) equally, or torturing sinners merely for the sake of torture. (Some will be eternally cast out from His presence, yes; but that's not your typical Protestant fire-and-brimstone scenario.) And it's debatable, in Mormon doctrine, whether God could really terminate the soul's existence; since the kernal of the soul (per Mormon doctrine) is something called "intelligence" and we don't know what role God plays in the creation of that intelligence.

Edited October 26, 2010 by Just_A_Guy