Conversion of jews

[zil]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

it still strikes me as quite obvious that God's commands are the only that we are required to obey.

You're absolutely right. And per the D&C (and the New Testament, perhaps other volumes of scripture too, feel free to see the topical guide), one of His commands is to obey the laws of the land.

Of course, if you're a Mormon in Utah, you're probably totally convinced that this doesn't apply to traffic laws.

[Vort]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The question is not whether this is true or not, but rather whether God would ever command something that was against the law. Certainly polygamy springs to mind.

Yet the Church's firm stance was the plural marriage was neither explicitly nor implicitly forbidden by the US constitution. After the Supreme Court (wrongly) ruled that polygamy was indeed implicitly forbidden, the Church abandoned the practice.

[Guest]

Polygamy was actually made illegal specifically to put Mormons in Jail.  Others were practicing adultery in a manner that would have violated the law.  But they weren't hunted down and thrown into jail.

So, it is quite obvious that laws can be made specifically to prohibit certain activities that we are commanded to do (Daniel and Darius; People of Limhi).  But what really scares me is that we're in a socio-political climate that will REQUIRE us to DO something that violates God's law.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

You're absolutely right. And per the D&C (and the New Testament, perhaps other volumes of scripture too, feel free to see the topical guide), one of His commands is to obey the laws of the land.

Of course, if you're a Mormon in Utah, you're probably totally convinced that this doesn't apply to traffic laws.

It's also a command of His to not kill. And yet, sometimes He commands us to kill.

If we bother to think about this more broadly it should seem rather obvious. There is a time and a place where the law of the land comes into question as valid or not. We believe, for example, that the American revolution was inspired. It was certainly illegal by the British standard. What about when Limhi's people attacked the Lamanites for freedom, or ran off leaving their captivity? Legal according to the Lamanites? What about Nephi taking his family and running off away from his brother's who claimed the right to rule? Legal by Laman and Lemuel's standards? Etc., etc.

There is a clear and obvious time to break the law because it is the right choice by God in spite of it being the wrong choice by those who claim to be in power. This should be obvious. Generally, we believe in loyalty to one's land and country. But what happens when the government fails and the US breaks into tribes like they did in the Book of Mormon? What if my family tribe is a bunch of murdering thieves, and they claim the right to rule over me because I am of their family...but I reject that and join another tribe...but my family's "law" does not allow family members to join another tribe?

[zil]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But what really scares me is that we're in a socio-political climate that will REQUIRE us to DO something that violates God's law.

Actually, if you're willing to accept the consequences (which in some cases might be quite severe, but you still have a choice), they don't require you to violate God's law, not yet.  (They may one day, but not yet.)

[zil]

TFP: Personally, it sounds to me like you're dancing around the issue.  You aren't Nephi, you didn't live then.  What another culture, another people (with or without the Gospel among them), another time, etc., etc. did is not especially relevant for me and you right now.  And there is no earthly way to reconcile all these different times and cultures into one 2-sentence rule.  Right now, I am 100% certain that God expects me to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  I have no need to break the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do; I do need to obey the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do.  I will not take it on myself to decide when that has changed, as there's a prophet who I'm sure will know better than I will if / when that time comes.  Until such time, I know what God expects of me, here where I live, now, in this time I live in.

[zil]

redundification removed

Edited February 19, 2016 by zil
remove redundification

[The Folk Prophet]

Well...I wrote this answer up once already...and when I hit submit reply it disappeared saying "this field is required". Garrr!! All my beautiful thoughts lost. I'll try again, but I can't promise I'll be as eloquent.

2 hours ago, zil said:

TFP: Personally, it sounds to me like you're dancing around the issue.  

Dancing around what issue? What is it you think the issue is?

2 hours ago, zil said:

You aren't Nephi, you didn't live then.  What another culture, another people (with or without the Gospel among them), another time, etc., etc. did is not especially relevant for me and you right now. 

I was under the impression that Book of Mormon was written for our day.

2 hours ago, zil said:

Right now, I am 100% certain that God expects me to be "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."  I have no need to break the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do; I do need to obey the law of the land in order to do as God would have me do.

I don't entirely disagree with this. It is beyond the point though.

The question, point, or issue, (whatever you call it) is not whether we have need of breaking the law at this time. It's whether it ever is.

What about Daniel? Shadrach Meshach and Abednego? What about when Ammon, who had sworn fealty to the king, then threatened the life of the king of that king? What about when Alma ignored King Noah, his king (or Abinadi for that matter)?

But let's use your simple speeding example. Are you telling me that you do not believe that the Spirit would ever tell someone that they needed to speed -- NOW! Or that when your child is sick and the Spirit prompts you to run the red lights and get to the hospital now that you'd say, "Nope. The law. Can't break it."

Just because you have no need to break the law doesn't mean that it is a principle of eternal truth that we are required to always obey the law of the land. It is not. And I, for one, believe we may be edging closer and closer to needing to choose a side upon which we will stand regardless of who's perception of "legal" happens to stand contrary to ours. Therefore I worry about any concept that does not place fealty to God above any fealty to man, government or land.

Edited February 19, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

TFP:  I'll put it another way: I don't know whether all those people had a scripture as explicit as D&C 58:21.  I don't know what the laws of the land were for those people.  I don't know whether the command to be subject to rulers extends to conquering rulers or not.  Without that knowledge, I'm not prepared to say (or agree that) they violated the laws of the land (rightly or wrongly) nor that they violated the laws of God - I just plain don't know, and whether they did is between them and God (I can only assume that what they did was right).  Yes, I can learn from the scriptures about them, but I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to learn from Nephi's story when it is / is not OK to behead someone, nor from Ammon's story when to threaten the life of the president.  You're talking about prophets (or near equivalents) and their associates - that's not me; you're talking about situations I'm never going to come close to being in.

I thought the point was whether we ought to obey the law of the land, and it seems perfectly clear to me that the Lord has said he expects us to.  And since he did so in something as explicit as D&C 58:21 and that Article of Faith, I think He's not likely to change that expectation without the change being communicated just as explicitly (which won't come through me, but through a prophet, if it ever comes at all).  It also seems to me that you're trying to say, without explicitly saying it, that we don't have to obey the law of the land ("right now" implied, or maybe "don't necessarily have to").  Maybe that's not what you're trying to say (sometimes my interpretation of your words turns out, eventually, to be the exact opposite of what you mean, and it takes a dozen re-wordings for us to figure that out; other times, I understand perfectly what you're trying to say; I have no idea which this is, yet).

[The Folk Prophet]

29 minutes ago, zil said:

but I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to learn from Nephi's story when it is / is not OK to behead someone

Yes you absolutely are.

29 minutes ago, zil said:

You're talking about prophets (or near equivalents) and their associates - that's not me;

Yes it is. You have every right to revelation.

29 minutes ago, zil said:

you're talking about situations I'm never going to come close to being in.

How do you know?

29 minutes ago, zil said:

I thought the point was whether we ought to obey the law of the land,  

No...the comment that I replied to did not use the word "ought" or anything like unto it. If it did, I wouldn't have replied. I agree. We ought to obey the laws of the land. In fact, if we do not without explicit revelation* to do otherwise, we are disobeying God. But God can, and does, command otherwise sometimes.

29 minutes ago, zil said:

and it seems perfectly clear to me that the Lord has said he expects us to.  

And He also expects us not to kill...until He commands otherwise.

29 minutes ago, zil said:

I think He's not likely to change that expectation without the change being communicated just as explicitly (which won't come through me, but through a prophet, if it ever comes at all).

Why must it come through the prophet? Do you not have stewardship over yourself?

29 minutes ago, zil said:

 It also seems to me that you're trying to say, without explicitly saying it, that we don't have to obey the law of the land ("right now" implied, or maybe "don't necessarily have to"). 

You cannot throw out the core of my point and legitimately understand or communicate with me on the matter. The core is that what God tells us is right, and if he tells us to disobey the law of the land then we should do so. To translate my idea as we can just willy-nilly ignore the laws of the land is an irresponsible interpretation of my comments.

29 minutes ago, zil said:

Maybe that's not what you're trying to say (sometimes my interpretation of your words turns out, eventually, to be the exact opposite of what you mean, and it takes a dozen re-wordings for us to figure that out; other times, I understand perfectly what you're trying to say; I have no idea which this is, yet).

I don't know how you could possibly misinterpret my point without ignoring part of it, as you seem to be doing.

 

*Edit: Actually, upon further thought, I don't think it always requires explicit revelation. The day the law of the land makes it illegal to pray, I'm breaking the law.

Edited February 19, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You cannot throw out the core of my point and legitimately understand or communicate with me on the matter. The core is that what God tells us is right, and if he tells us to disobey the law of the land then we should do so. To translate my idea as we can just willy-nilly ignore the laws of the land is an irresponsible interpretation of my comments.

I don't know how you could possibly misinterpret my point without ignoring part of it, as you seem to be doing.

This was why I added the bit about how sometimes I think you're saying the opposite of what you're actually saying - I'm not ignoring anything; I'm just not understanding your words the way you intend me to understand them.  It's not deliberate on my part.  I can misinterpret your point because I don't know you, I'm not in your head, I'm a different person with different understandings, I use different phrases than you or say things in a different way, etc. etc. - people sometimes misunderstand each other and it takes time and effort for them to understand each other.  That doesn't mean either is being willfully vague, obtuse, or anything else - it just means they don't understand each other yet.

I agree with you that if God ever tells us to disobey the law of the land, then we do as God says.  And if that was what you were trying to say all along, then we agree completely.

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, zil said:

This was why I added the bit about how sometimes I think you're saying the opposite of what you're actually saying - I'm not ignoring anything; I'm just not understanding your words the way you intend me to understand them.  It's not deliberate on my part.  I can misinterpret your point because I don't know you, I'm not in your head, I'm a different person with different understandings, I use different phrases than you or say things in a different way, etc. etc. - people sometimes misunderstand each other and it takes time and effort for them to understand each other.  That doesn't mean either is being willfully vague, obtuse, or anything else - it just means they don't understand each other yet.

I agree with you that if God ever tells us to disobey the law of the land, then we do as God says.  And if that was what you were trying to say all along, then we agree completely.

With all due respect zil, in my first response and consistently throughout I expressed, very plainly the idea, "unless God commands it". When you then interpret it that I'm saying "that we don't have to obey the laws of the land" then I have to presume that you have ignored, intentionally or not, half of my message. I'm not meaning to call you willfully vague, obtuse or anything else. By saying you were ignoring it I can see that it came across that way, but all I meant was that you were leaving that part out of your interpretation of my point.

Edited February 19, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

TFP: All I can say that my "leaving that part out" was not deliberate on my part.  Whether I forgot or honestly misunderstood what you were saying, it was in spite of what either of us intended.  IMO, there's no fault or accusation here, just a misunderstanding that I think we've resolved.  I'm sorry if it caused frustration.

PS: the "vague, obtuse, or anything else" statement was meant to be a generic statement about misunderstandings. I didn't think you were calling me any of those things.

[Just_A_Guy]

Bigamy was illegal in Illinois from at least 1833 onwards.  Joseph Smith's Nauvoo polygamy was certainly illegal under state law.

Honestly, I don't know why this is such a big deal.  Wherever we live, we follow the laws of the land unless or until doing so requires us to do something really, really bad or to abstain from something we see as a moral imperative.  That's not a uniquely Mormon position to take.

Edited February 19, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

11 hours ago, zil said:

Actually, if you're willing to accept the consequences (which in some cases might be quite severe, but you still have a choice), they don't require you to violate God's law, not yet.  (They may one day, but not yet.)

You essentially made my point without realizing it.  There is only ONE thing any of us HAS to do: die.  Anything else is a choice about acts and consequences.  The point of my last post (if you require such legalese) is that governments are issuing harsher and harsher punishments for refusing to do something against God's laws.