How Do You Handle Politics And World Events During Church?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

Several times now I've heard in Sunday School (and somewhat in Priesthood) people spouting out statements that are clearly in the political realm rather than spiritual.  Now, I'm beginning to hear people talk about Muslims being evil and so forth in Sunday School.

 

If there is a legitimate reason to bring it into the discussion, I suppose there is nothing wrong with mentioning these things.  But the fact that such statements are said in a tone of "As we all agree..."  when clearly there will be a sizable minority that disagrees for justifiable reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typically if I disagree with something someone said in church I complain to my wife about it afterwards and.... well, that's about it, really. Unless it's egregious enough to speak to the bishop about...which would be pretty egregious methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a few members at church that have zero issues voicing their opinions when they disagree with "off" statements.

I admire them for not just sitting there. Over the years, I would like to think that when I hear something at church that is inappropriate that I too say something. I don't want to sit silent and let others think I agree with them. 

 

I've been in about a dozen wards during my life. Each ward was sure to have members who ranged from "wow, why are they not translated yet?" down to the "yikes, what a fruitloop" (not very Christlike, I know). Not everyone makes accurate/appropriate statements in church. Speak up when you hear wishwash is my thought. 

 

Picture for a moment sitting in another denomination and them discussing "Mormons are evil" instead. I would hope some of our non-lds friends would step up and call "bull".

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We need to understand that Jesus condemned the Islamic faith as being corrupt.  However, we also need to distinguish between a religion and individuals in that faith.  A person can be a righteous individual and belong to a corrupt faith.  In fact Jesus often complemented the Samaritans - demonstrating that despite their very corrupt religion that their faith was greater than the "Jews" that had access to the covenants, temple and Levitical Priesthood.

 

Though the corruption in the Islamic faith has much to do with terrorism - there is some basis of truth.  Anciently the two great cities representing symbolic evil were Sodom and Gomorrah.  Our Christian society has centered only on the sins of Sodom and have forgotten the sins of Gomorrah.   The terrorists see the sins of both Sodom and Gomorrah as prominent in western culture and think G-d has called them to do something about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We need to understand that Jesus condemned the Islamic faith as being corrupt.

 

19 minutes ago, Vort said:

When?

"… the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.'”

Look fairly straightforward.

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaken, Joseph Smith (and his father, according to the film I saw at Temple Square) were deeply bothered by the arguing between churches/ministers.  When he asked which church he should join, then, is it really appropriate to extend the response to Islam, and other religions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/11/2016 at 3:16 PM, prisonchaplain said:

If I am not mistaken, Joseph Smith (and his father, according to the film I saw at Temple Square) were deeply bothered by the arguing between churches/ministers.  When he asked which church he should join, then, is it really appropriate to extend the response to Islam, and other religions?

I'm not quite sure of the point. If God was revealing to Joseph that His true church was not upon the earth and therefore it was to be restored, then it includes all churches...especially those who do not believe in Christ. As to the "abomination" and "corrupt" thing...is it somehow more offensive to imply that Islam is a corrupt abomination that it is to imply that Methodists, Catholics, or Assembly of Godists are? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more a question of original intent. Joseph Smith was asking which Christian church to join. He's told to join none of them (churches). Other religions are not "churches," so it's not a question of offensiveness, but of accuracy and context.  It would be an easy thing to compare the 5 Pillars of Islam with the Articles of Faith, and say that Islamic teaching and practice do not line of with the restored church, but I'm thinking the other religions were unrelated to Joseph Smith's quest.  He was searching for a denomination, not a religion.  No?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.  Today at Relief Society, we were talking about adversity... and the teacher asked the class what we fear... and the sisters called out the name of a Presidential candidate with the funny hair.  So the teacher wrote his name on the board under What We Fear.

Good thing nobody tried to challenge it... it could have easily gotten ugly...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, anatess said:

 So the teacher wrote his name on the board under What We Fear.

Good thing nobody tried to challenge it... it could have easily gotten ugly...

If I were the teacher, I would probably have laughed, but then I would have said, "Let's not go there."  And I would NOT have written the name on the board, because odds are someone in class likely feels very differently, and Relief Society is not the place for that discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, anatess said:

So.  Today at Relief Society, we were talking about adversity... and the teacher asked the class what we fear... and the sisters called out the name of a Presidential candidate with the funny hair.  So the teacher wrote his name on the board under What We Fear.

Good thing nobody tried to challenge it... it could have easily gotten ugly...

this is exactly the type of thing I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It's more a question of original intent. Joseph Smith was asking which Christian church to join. He's told to join none of them (churches). Other religions are not "churches," so it's not a question of offensiveness, but of accuracy and context.  It would be an easy thing to compare the 5 Pillars of Islam with the Articles of Faith, and say that Islamic teaching and practice do not line of with the restored church, but I'm thinking the other religions were unrelated to Joseph Smith's quest.  He was searching for a denomination, not a religion.  No?

You know the word "church" comes from words meaning "assembly, group", so our somewhat modern usage is an anomaly.

As you know, the phrase "the great and abominable church" does not refer to a church, per se, but to organization(s) that oppose the assembly of God (generic, no reference to the AoG ;)).

So when Christ told Joseph that "… [he] must join none of them [the churches], for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed [him] said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.' He again forbade [him] to join with any of them; …," the "them" has no clear antecedent. "Those churches" could easily be only those in Palmyra, or all those Joseph had been exposed to, or all churches (and other religious groups throughout the world). I believe it applied to all three (in "concentric circles"), and that "those professors" were also manifold (those in Palmyra, the itinerant preachers and all religious societies around the world (at least the hypocrites). (See Huckleberry Finn for a description of a tent meeting with a couple of rogues — Clemens could not have made this work had it nor been based on truth.)

Further, we Saints are encouraged to "liken all scriptures unto [ourselves]", so JS-History 1:19~20, whatever Jesus meant Joseph to understand, our interpretations are, with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, individualized for the reader, and they may be different for each.

In addition, we note that Islam or Buddhism may produce good people. That does not make them the true religion of God. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men."

Finally, let's assume that Mohamed did receive his revelations from God (which I do not accept, the Ensign article notwithstanding), It seems unlikely that modern practitioners are following the revelation as God intended: they're apostates, and would thus fall under the category of "they deny the power thereof".

Lehi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

It's more a question of original intent. Joseph Smith was asking which Christian church to join. He's told to join none of them (churches). Other religions are not "churches," so it's not a question of offensiveness, but of accuracy and context.  It would be an easy thing to compare the 5 Pillars of Islam with the Articles of Faith, and say that Islamic teaching and practice do not line of with the restored church, but I'm thinking the other religions were unrelated to Joseph Smith's quest.  He was searching for a denomination, not a religion.  No?

But the intent of fourteen-year-old Joseph wasn't the end-all of the Lord's answer to Him. The Lord had bigger plans. Joseph's quest was, indeed, to find the right denomination to join. But the answer he got, essentially, was that his quest was to be something different altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To bring this course back to the OP...

So, because of that one statement to Joseph in an isolated incident, it's ok for my Sunday School teacher to consistently call Muslims the Great and Abominable Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

it's ok for my Sunday School teacher to consistently call Muslims the Great and Abominable Church?

No it is not. Sounds like you teacher needs to stick to the manual a little more. It is one thing for a random member to pipe up with accusations, it is another for the instructor to "consistently" do it. Next time they say that, ask them to quote the Church Leadership as saying Muslims are the GAC.

From: Teaching, No Greater Call : The Teacher's Divine Commission

" Our business as teachers is to teach His doctrine and none other. There is no other course we can follow if we are to save souls. We have no saving power of our own. We cannot create a law or a doctrine that will redeem or resurrect or save another person. The Lord only can do these things, and we are appointed to teach what He reveals on these and all gospel doctrines. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, because of that one statement to Joseph in an isolated incident, it's ok for my Sunday School teacher to consistently call Muslims the Great and Abominable Church?

Is that really what's happening though? Or is it being stated that Islam and such are part of the Great and Abominable Church?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

No need to go on quoting.  Just want to say "Thank you" for the responses to my inquires on this string.  One common discussion within the greater Christian world (and probably in most religions) is how to interpret/apply scripture for today.  Those of us in the literal/conservative/Evangelical world tend to emphasize the need to find out what the God-inspired author meant to say to his original audience, and then glean what we can that's applicable to us.  More liberal traditions find less value in "original intent," and are quite nimble at jumping to modern application. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Is that really what's happening though? Or is it being stated that Islam and such are part of the Great and Abominable Church?

I'll admit I'm paraphrasing.  But it sure sounds like what he's saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That is what I hope we're trying to avoid (the jumping to modern application).  I am all for original intent.

Then, do you agree with me that Joseph Smith was likely hearing a response to his narrow question of which Christian denomination to join, or do you agree that what he received broadly applied to all religious movements--even those "yet to come?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Then, do you agree with me that Joseph Smith was likely hearing a response to his narrow question of which Christian denomination to join, or do you agree that what he received broadly applied to all religious movements--even those "yet to come?"

 

Actually there is a lot going on in what is being implied and asked through your question.  I believe this is very much a parallel to the concept of one G-d.  Part of the implication of one G-d is the idea of singularity of purpose and consistency of divine law.  This all plays to the idea of G-d being the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  That there is only one G-d (Suzerain) and one kingdom that results from that one G-d or Suzerain.  A church or religion is in essence that express creation of that G-d and his heaven as an established model for mankind to understand and correctly worship the Suzerain G-d that governs us. 

 

Realizing the possibility that G-d is the Suzerain of his divine kingdom we are left with few rhetorical options.  If there is more than one divinely appointed religious kingdom then how can it be argued that G-d is consistent and a respecter of persons - when obviously he is not by what he establishes as a kingdom.  If he establishes one kingdom exclusive for various segments then he and his work are by the very proof of variation not consistent.   And the only actual logical and rhetorical conclusion to such variations is that there really is not one G-d Suzerain that governs all things.

 

The answer to your question - is that if G-d has established his kingdom according to his will and his law then there is no possibility that a consistent G-d would even consider another kingdom established for any other purpose, covenant or law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Then, do you agree with me that Joseph Smith was likely hearing a response to his narrow question of which Christian denomination to join, or do you agree that what he received broadly applied to all religious movements--even those "yet to come?"

I think that is a difficult question to answer based on that one passage alone.  It would seem that given the circumstances, Joseph was most certainly referring to the different denominations that were available to him at the time.  It could have been a broader question.  But a simple farmboy probably asked a simple question about his simple life in a simple part of upstate New York.  For such a question, the response was probably in kind.

But wait!  There's more.

We also have the earlier edition of McKonkie's work Mormon Doctrine sating that the Catholics specifically were the GAC.  He had enough dissenting voices against that among the apostles that he recanted in his second edition.  No, it was not begrudging.  They simply made good arguments, and he thought better of it.

Then there are many statements from modern prophets indicating our mutual aid.

http://scottwoodward.org/god_dealings_useofgoodmenoutsidechurch.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share