Elder Ballard spoke against Julie Rowe and Denver Snuffer

[larsenb]

The problem with the word nationalism is that they lump all the good in with the bad. I don't think that most Americans are proud that some in their country are murdering over 1 million unborn children annually. I think most Americans do not want unsecured borders to allow any terrorist into the country even though some in our country dead set on it. Perhaps my mistake is to think that it is the things that we are most proud of of our country. I don't find most Americans believing that they are the superior race but just a few eugenecists and their followers. Most Americans are proud of their free country and the constitution that guarantees it. I think the word, "Nationalist" contains more good than bad. But it has taken on the meaning of bad. Perhaps we need a new word for the good things that Americans are proud of.

My view is that both Elder Ballard's use of 'nationalism', and Elder Anderson's almost word-for-word repeat of what Elder Ballard said regarding 'nationalism', was a poor choice of words that slipped through the non-inspiration filter. All they had to do was qualify the word with something like "a nationalism' that is the service of evil ends", or something like that.

Otherwise, it comes across as an initial effort to demonize a perfectly good word: The definition of which, found at the top of a duckduckgo search at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nationalism&t ... definition, is:

nationalism (năshˈə-nə-lĭzˌəm, năshˈnə-)►

n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
n. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
n. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

None of these definitions or nationalism come across to me as deserving opprobrium or indicate that 'nationalism' should be made into a 4-letter word. It's the same thing as the very unfortunate appropriation of 'conspiracy theory' as meaning 'nutjob', crazy, etc. This type of thing creates confusion and allows people to think in terms of labels, not substantive arguments. The use of such words allows people to 'THINK' they are contributing to rational thought, when they are not.

Additionally, tagging 'Nationalism' as something nasty, to be avoided, could be construed by Trump supporters as being anti-Trump, because Trump has really hammered the need to secure our nation as an independent (from the globalist push) nation. He has said: "Americanism (aka nationalism) vs. Globalism will be our credo. He has also extolled the need for all nations to act in and be allowed to act in their own interest, as long as they aren't unjustly attacking fellow nations and the people that belong to them in some unjust way.

My interpretation of Trump's use of nationalism, is that he is pointing out the the first duty of a country is to protect its citizens, and not sacrifice them on the alter of very dubious globalist agendas.

Unfortunate word usage by Elders Ballard and Anderson. I hope they both reconsider their misuse of this term in the edited published versions of their talks.

[larsenb]

Definition of secret: 1 a :something kept hidden or unexplained :mystery. b :something kept from the knowledge of others or shared only confidentially with a few. c :a method, formula, or process used in an art or operation and divulged only to those of one's own company or craft :trade secret. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secret

So in accordance with this definition, Temple doctrine and teachings are secret. They are kept from the knowledge of those outside the Temple and shared confidentially only with the few that attend the Temple.

Just because Church members are trained to repeat the mantra ‘sacred not secret’ doesn’t change the fact that they are secret.

Confidential then. They are not secret for two reasons.
1. Oathbreakers have shared the sacred information outside of the temple, revealing to their own damnation that which they promised to hold dear.
2. The Church and its members spend millions of dollars every year trying to get more people to learn this sacred (not secret) information.

And if you think about it, more people on the other side of the veil know about the temple ordinances than don't know about them on this side. Not a very well kept secret, is it?

When I was in institute, I had a teacher who emphasized that the temple ceremony was both sacred and secret. I guess that stuck with me. I don't ever recall hearing that the temple was "sacred not secret." But I do recall hearing it was both. I have no problem with it being referred to as secret.

I haven't read all posts on this thread, but the two words (secret and sacred) come from the same root, as Hugh Nibley has pointed out, and which I recall confirming w/my old beat-up Websters dictionary, which posted word roots.

[gardener4life]

I just had this thought that I wanted to bring up. People who don't understand LDS people say we're judging and that we're condemning others. This absolutely isn't true. But they will bring this up saying Elder Ballard, or others, or people in Brigham Young's time, etc, etc, were judging others and condemning other churches or others...or whatever...This applies to Joseph Smith's story, and also all of those others and those having gone before.

I had this thought that one reason why the apostles are so vocal and have to be so confident is BECAUSE of those who will twist their words to try to get others to deny the faith. They will try to say we're judging, condemning of others to lure away the youth, to persecute, and to create disorder, and make us ashamed. They see our confidence in the message. they see our boldness and mistake it for arrogance. I've seen this. You can be really confident in your message because you feel the truth, but not actually be arrogant. But condemning people will accuse you of pride and arrogance or judging. Abinadi I think was mistaken for looking arrogant because he's so confident and had so much trust in the Lord that he was untouchable in his faith. I believe Abinadi was as powerful and courage as Captain Moroni. But the people of his day rejected him for 'judging them'.

It's interesting to that Abinadi wasn't condemning the people or their churches, but he was IDENTIFYING the fat corruption of leaders of those organizations and governments of his day, who were perverting the people and destroying their chance at eternal life. People mistake that too. The distinction is super important. He had no choice to do this because the government and 'church' of King Noah's false priests held sway over all the people. For him to not do so, he would be unable to reach or save them from eternal torment. The distinction of only identifying right and wrong and pulling the victims away from oppressors sometimes has to be done, but sometimes looks like judging or condemning when its actually only trying to save the innocent from traps that they can't see. But others will say it is judging or condemning.

Is it judging or condemning to pull a drowning child out of water? What if someone pushed them in? If they pushed them in spiritually knowing it was wrong then wouldn't it be OK to do something about it? The message is still about love. But some Korihor arguments are so clever about accusing those doing good of 'judging others' when we aren't. I felt I had to write about this. Sometimes we're trying to defend ourselves so much about clever Korihor arguments that we're apologetic about the gospel when we don't need to be.

This is WHY we've had to be vocal from the beginning, so that people like that don't have a footing. Why do we sometimes read strong wording in the scriptures and in the Joseph Smith story? In Joseph Smiths own words we read, that he says clearly the Lord said the other churches are not of me, and that they draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me...and that they are not the true church.

Why did he say that?

I've felt this very clearly and strongly when he says they are not of me he's talking about the leaders of priestcrafts and those that acted like Zeezrom, Sherem, and Korihor, not the humble people or members in general of those churches. the distinction between leaders and followers is important. We know many of those people are wonderful and trying to also live good lives. The ones that were condemned and told they are not of me were the ones who KNEW better and were 'building up churches for money, not humble followers who were just trying to follow. Like certain mega churches...one of which was in the Houston flooding and this person would NOT let in flood victims until people started noticing. Then he had to backpedal a story to go around it and explain why. This example and the others show that there's a distinction between those attending a church humbly and learning to accept Christianity and those that build up churches for wealth and power to hold sway over others. (Think Captain Moroni he seeks to pull power down. Why? Because he's talking about those who oppressively use their power to control others in hurtful ways. This is the same concept.)

[larsenb]

Is defending the constitution of the United States considered to be nationalism?

Yes

I am constantly being told on here that the US constitution is for everyone, not just Americans.
If that is true, then defending the constitution cannot be nationalism.

Its for countries that want to use it and/or the principles embodied by it. OUR Constitution pertains to just for our country, though attempts are being made to try to extend some of its benefits to non-citizens and even non-residents/non-citizens.

And yes, defending OUR (US Citizens) Constitution is part-and-parcel of our national interest, and therefore, our 'nationalism'.

[larsenb]

Elder Cook: "Anyone who claims superiority under the Father’s plan because of characteristics like race, sex, nationality, language, or economic circumstances,is morally wrong and does not understand the Lord’s true purpose for all of our Father’s children."

I agree with this statement. . . . . .

This statement by Elder Cook didn't raise any red-flags for me. I also agree with it.

Only the usage of 'nationalism' by Ballard and Anderson made me cringe.

[larsenb]

So everyone has had a night to sleep on Elder Ballard's wise counsel.

1. Have the Julie Rowe supporters all repented and forsaken that sad woman?
2. Have the Denver Snuffer followers repented and forsaken that sad man?
3. Have the racists repented?
4. Have the sexists repented?
5. Have the nationalists repented?

By the way, I define the nationalism referred to by Elder Ballard as a philosophy steeped in an elitist attitude which assumes one's own country is better than all the rest and therefore its attempts to dominate others in any way as wickedness and foolish pride. Nationalism is certainly not a love of one's country and its heritage, nor a willingness to defend her.

That is the misappropriation of the word by a very negative meaning. Not in the first list of definitions I looked up. I think the misusage has been amped up by the Left's equating it with White Nationalism or fascism. Unfortunate hijacking, in my view. It's also equated with the left's bad-boy word: 'isolationism'.

But I can see we're getting into black-and-white territory, again . . . .

[larsenb]

Just trying to determine if I am guilty of nationalism. How is nationalism a bad thing?

A nazi being proud of his county. = nationalism

A American being proud of his country = nationalism
How many babies does America kill every year with abortions?

How many innocent people are killed in wars we are fighting every year???

It's the pride that's the problem. Blinds people to reality.

Well, Ezra, you then are anti American, an America hater. So it makes sense that you would welcome socialsim/communism. Just remember, it will destroy the church and all religion.

I think you are also totally blind in not being able to see a difference in Nazi Germany and the United States.

Agency, or free will means that, if the country allows the exercise of it, that people will make poor choices, and get pregnant, and have abortions.

Communist China solved the problem of having more than one child, but do you know how? Why not look into it?

From what you have posted here I can only say you have no concept whatsoever of history or political systems.
dc

. . . . I don't hate America. I don't like the curruption in our government. I don't like the unjust wars. I don't like the horrible things that happen due to our government. Which in part happens due to the blinding effect of nationalism. . . . . .

No Ezra. What you are describing is a result of 'a blind and misused nationalism'. Even qualifying the word this way would have been better than what was said.

[Mark]

The problem with the word nationalism is that they lump all the good in with the bad. I don't think that most Americans are proud that some in their country are murdering over 1 million unborn children annually. I think most Americans do not want unsecured borders to allow any terrorist into the country even though some in our country dead set on it. Perhaps my mistake is to think that it is the things that we are most proud of of our country. I don't find most Americans believing that they are the superior race but just a few eugenecists and their followers. Most Americans are proud of their free country and the constitution that guarantees it. I think the word, "Nationalist" contains more good than bad. But it has taken on the meaning of bad. Perhaps we need a new word for the good things that Americans are proud of.

My view is that both Elder Ballard's use of 'nationalism', and Elder Anderson's almost word-for-word repeat of what Elder Ballard said regarding 'nationalism', was a poor choice of words that slipped through the non-inspiration filter. All they had to do was qualify the word with something like "a nationalism' that is the service of evil ends", or something like that.

Otherwise, it comes across as an initial effort to demonize a perfectly good word: The definition of which, founkd at the top of a duckduckgo search at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nationalism&t ... definition, is:

nationalism (năshˈə-nə-lĭzˌəm, năshˈnə-)►

n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
n. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
n. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

None of these definitions or nationalism come across to me as deserving opprobrium or indicate that 'nationalism' should be made into a 4-letter word. It's the same thing as the very unfortunate appropriation of 'conspiracy theory' as meaning 'nutjob', crazy, etc. This type of thing creates confusion and allows people to think in terms of labels, not substantive arguments. The use of such words allows people to 'THINK' they are contributing to rational thought, when they are not.

Additionally, tagging 'Nationalism' as something nasty, to be avoided, could be construed by Trump supporters as being anti-Trump, because Trump has really hammered the need to secure our nation as an independent (from the globalist push) nation. He has said: "Americanism (aka nationalism) vs. Globalism will be our credo. He has also extolled the need for all nations to act in and be allowed to act in their own interest, as long as they aren't unjustly attacking fellow nations and the people that belong to them in some unjust way.

My interpretation of Trump's use of nationalism, is that he is pointing out the the first duty of a country is to protect its citizens, and not sacrifice them on the alter of very dubious globalist agendas.

Unfortunate word usage by Elders Ballard and Anderson. I hope they both reconsider their misuse of this term in the edited published versions of their talks.

You make a good point brother but perhaps you need to take the quote in the context with which it was given. The quote from Elder Ballard was: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism and nationalism,” . Now Elder Ballard was contexting the need for eliminating all prejudice and embracing ALL of Gods children with compassion. One of the definitions of Nationalism in Merriam Webster shows this:

Definition of nationalism

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

Now based on the church and its leaderships call to prepare ones heart for Zion where all will need to be united of one heart it seems to me like Elder Ballard is calling for that unification among the Saints with no exclusionary rameumptom prejudices to exist among them. I think that is his context.

[larsenb]

The problem with the word nationalism is that they lump all the good in with the bad. I don't think that most Americans are proud that some in their country are murdering over 1 million unborn children annually. I think most Americans do not want unsecured borders to allow any terrorist into the country even though some in our country dead set on it. Perhaps my mistake is to think that it is the things that we are most proud of of our country. I don't find most Americans believing that they are the superior race but just a few eugenecists and their followers. Most Americans are proud of their free country and the constitution that guarantees it. I think the word, "Nationalist" contains more good than bad. But it has taken on the meaning of bad. Perhaps we need a new word for the good things that Americans are proud of.

My view is that both Elder Ballard's use of 'nationalism', and Elder Anderson's almost word-for-word repeat of what Elder Ballard said regarding 'nationalism', was a poor choice of words that slipped through the non-inspiration filter. All they had to do was qualify the word with something like "a nationalism' that is the service of evil ends", or something like that.

Otherwise, it comes across as an initial effort to demonize a perfectly good word: The definition of which, founkd at the top of a duckduckgo search at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nationalism&t ... definition, is:

nationalism (năshˈə-nə-lĭzˌəm, năshˈnə-)►

n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
n. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
n. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

None of these definitions or nationalism come across to me as deserving opprobrium or indicate that 'nationalism' should be made into a 4-letter word. It's the same thing as the very unfortunate appropriation of 'conspiracy theory' as meaning 'nutjob', crazy, etc. This type of thing creates confusion and allows people to think in terms of labels, not substantive arguments. The use of such words allows people to 'THINK' they are contributing to rational thought, when they are not.

Additionally, tagging 'Nationalism' as something nasty, to be avoided, could be construed by Trump supporters as being anti-Trump, because Trump has really hammered the need to secure our nation as an independent (from the globalist push) nation. He has said: "Americanism (aka nationalism) vs. Globalism will be our credo. He has also extolled the need for all nations to act in and be allowed to act in their own interest, as long as they aren't unjustly attacking fellow nations and the people that belong to them in some unjust way.

My interpretation of Trump's use of nationalism, is that he is pointing out the the first duty of a country is to protect its citizens, and not sacrifice them on the alter of very dubious globalist agendas.

Unfortunate word usage by Elders Ballard and Anderson. I hope they both reconsider their misuse of this term in the edited published versions of their talks.

You make a good point brother but perhaps you need to take the quote in the context with which it was given. The quote from Elder Ballard was: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism and nationalism,” . Now Elder Ballard was contexting the need for eliminating all prejudice and embracing ALL of Gods children with compassion. One of the definitions of Nationalism in Merriam Webster shows this:

Definition of nationalism

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

Now based on the church and its leaderships call to prepare ones heart for Zion where all will need to be united of one heart it seems to me like Elder Ballard is calling for that unification among the Saints with no exclusionary rameumptom prejudices to exist among them. I think that is his context.

I saw the context, that's exactly why I cringed at their unqualified usage of 'nationalism'; and notice Elder Anderson used essentially the same phrase. Why did I cringe? Because for me national focus or proper nationalism, including thwarting globalist hegemony and coercion, including adherence to Constitutional principles, is of paramount importance in our day and age.

And Trump, to his credit, has identified this overarching need.

And yes, Mark, I'm aware of the negative definitions of nationalism. I see that you selected 1c, instead of 1a and 1b

But still, unfortunate usage. Again, I hope they qualify this usage in the printed reports.

[Rose Garden]

Definition of secret: 1 a :something kept hidden or unexplained :mystery. b :something kept from the knowledge of others or shared only confidentially with a few. c :a method, formula, or process used in an art or operation and divulged only to those of one's own company or craft :trade secret. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secret

So in accordance with this definition, Temple doctrine and teachings are secret. They are kept from the knowledge of those outside the Temple and shared confidentially only with the few that attend the Temple.

Just because Church members are trained to repeat the mantra ‘sacred not secret’ doesn’t change the fact that they are secret.

Confidential then. They are not secret for two reasons.
1. Oathbreakers have shared the sacred information outside of the temple, revealing to their own damnation that which they promised to hold dear.
2. The Church and its members spend millions of dollars every year trying to get more people to learn this sacred (not secret) information.

And if you think about it, more people on the other side of the veil know about the temple ordinances than don't know about them on this side. Not a very well kept secret, is it?

When I was in institute, I had a teacher who emphasized that the temple ceremony was both sacred and secret. I guess that stuck with me. I don't ever recall hearing that the temple was "sacred not secret." But I do recall hearing it was both. I have no problem with it being referred to as secret.

I haven't read all posts on this thread, but the two words (secret and sacred) come from the same root, as Hugh Nibley has pointed out, and which I recall confirming w/my old beat-up Websters dictionary, which posted word roots.

Yup. I remember your post. Not sure how some people can consider a ceremony where you make a solemn promise not to reveal certain things as not secret, but to each their own, I guess.

[Mark]

The problem with the word nationalism is that they lump all the good in with the bad. I don't think that most Americans are proud that some in their country are murdering over 1 million unborn children annually. I think most Americans do not want unsecured borders to allow any terrorist into the country even though some in our country dead set on it. Perhaps my mistake is to think that it is the things that we are most proud of of our country. I don't find most Americans believing that they are the superior race but just a few eugenecists and their followers. Most Americans are proud of their free country and the constitution that guarantees it. I think the word, "Nationalist" contains more good than bad. But it has taken on the meaning of bad. Perhaps we need a new word for the good things that Americans are proud of.

My view is that both Elder Ballard's use of 'nationalism', and Elder Anderson's almost word-for-word repeat of what Elder Ballard said regarding 'nationalism', was a poor choice of words that slipped through the non-inspiration filter. All they had to do was qualify the word with something like "a nationalism' that is the service of evil ends", or something like that.

Otherwise, it comes across as an initial effort to demonize a perfectly good word: The definition of which, founkd at the top of a duckduckgo search at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nationalism&t ... definition, is:

nationalism (năshˈə-nə-lĭzˌəm, năshˈnə-)►

n. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
n. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
n. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.

None of these definitions or nationalism come across to me as deserving opprobrium or indicate that 'nationalism' should be made into a 4-letter word. It's the same thing as the very unfortunate appropriation of 'conspiracy theory' as meaning 'nutjob', crazy, etc. This type of thing creates confusion and allows people to think in terms of labels, not substantive arguments. The use of such words allows people to 'THINK' they are contributing to rational thought, when they are not.

Additionally, tagging 'Nationalism' as something nasty, to be avoided, could be construed by Trump supporters as being anti-Trump, because Trump has really hammered the need to secure our nation as an independent (from the globalist push) nation. He has said: "Americanism (aka nationalism) vs. Globalism will be our credo. He has also extolled the need for all nations to act in and be allowed to act in their own interest, as long as they aren't unjustly attacking fellow nations and the people that belong to them in some unjust way.

My interpretation of Trump's use of nationalism, is that he is pointing out the the first duty of a country is to protect its citizens, and not sacrifice them on the alter of very dubious globalist agendas.

Unfortunate word usage by Elders Ballard and Anderson. I hope they both reconsider their misuse of this term in the edited published versions of their talks.

You make a good point brother but perhaps you need to take the quote in the context with which it was given. The quote from Elder Ballard was: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism and nationalism,” . Now Elder Ballard was contexting the need for eliminating all prejudice and embracing ALL of Gods children with compassion. One of the definitions of Nationalism in Merriam Webster shows this:

Definition of nationalism

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

Now based on the church and its leaderships call to prepare ones heart for Zion where all will need to be united of one heart it seems to me like Elder Ballard is calling for that unification among the Saints with no exclusionary rameumptom prejudices to exist among them. I think that is his context.

I saw the context, that's exactly why I cringed at their unqualified usage of 'nationalism'; and notice Elder Anderson used essentially the same phrase. Why did I cringe? Because for me national focus or proper nationalism, including thwarting globalist hegemony and coercion, including adherence to Constitutional principles, is of paramount importance in our day and age.

And Trump, to his credit, has identified this overarching need.

And yes, Mark, I'm aware of the negative definitions of nationalism. I see that you selected 1c, instead of 1a and 1b

But still, unfortunate usage. Again, I hope they qualify this usage in the printed reports.

A kind polite and sincere letter to Elder Ballards office requesting some clarification would be appropriate. The Brethren are very kind and loving men. My experience with a few of them have done nothing but strengthen that opinion. You may be surprised at what you receive back.

[GeeR]

I'm hoping and believing that Elder Ballard and Elder Cook are just a bit ignorant of the magnitude and methods of the secret combination in our day. I just felt they had both sipped to much controlled media vomit. Elder Cook gave me a bad taste after his Sandy Hook talk some years ago. But this was a first for Elder Ballard. Unless you gain more light and knowledge you really are subject to your enemies schemes.

That said I agree that sexism and racism is morally wrong and nationalism can be morally wrong but not always as the scriptures make clear. But I just felt Elder Ballard joined the chorus of the anti-america globalist agenda. I also was a bit turned away by his over-confidence in the virtue of the health care megabucks industry. Now that is a money making scheme worth mentioning in GC.

I bet President Benson would have had a word or two to say this conference. Now that was an apostle who understood the book of Mormon warnings.

I would not be surprised if Elder Ballard or Elder Cook talked about global warming, vaccination or gun control next conference. I hope I'm wrong though.

Hog, I hope your wrong too but unfortunately I think your right. After their talks I went searching for some insight on nationalism in my conservative library and I found a half page about it in Ezra Taft Benson's An Enemy Hath Done This and Benson's view on the word definitely contradicts the negative view Ballard and Cook gave, check it out. I might add that I don't appreciate trying to enjoy conference and then have to suffer through the brief editorial these two gave on "political correctness." But it is in the context with the press release the public relations dept. of the church sent out recently (prompted by the incident that happened in Virginia concerning the running down the antifa crowd which was most likely a false flag operation) that Ballard and Cook took their lead from. When this happened the national media went wild in conflating "white supremism" with "nationalism." The Elders of Israel who are mandated to save the U.S. Constitution are nationalist and the "white supremacists" at the protest march in Virginia were defined in the media as Neo-Nazi's, skin-heads and the KKK. So the church public affairs dept. was confederate with the national media in this conflation and their press release said "white supremism is a sin." Ballard and Cook are hoping the members of the church will now consider nationalism (Elders of the church saving the Constitution) the same as "white supremism" inferring "sin" and "evil." Their intent or inference as I take it is that they are targeting any Ezra Taft Benson and Cleon Skousen types as being out of step with the brethren or worse--anarchists? Are there two Judas’ among us? Are we getting to the point where we have to side with the majority of the twelve?

[Ezra]

A nazi being proud of his county. = nationalism

A American being proud of his country = nationalism
How many babies does America kill every year with abortions?

How many innocent people are killed in wars we are fighting every year???

It's the pride that's the problem. Blinds people to reality.

Well, Ezra, you then are anti American, an America hater. So it makes sense that you would welcome socialsim/communism. Just remember, it will destroy the church and all religion.

I think you are also totally blind in not being able to see a difference in Nazi Germany and the United States.

Agency, or free will means that, if the country allows the exercise of it, that people will make poor choices, and get pregnant, and have abortions.

Communist China solved the problem of having more than one child, but do you know how? Why not look into it?

From what you have posted here I can only say you have no concept whatsoever of history or political systems.
dc

. . . . I don't hate America. I don't like the curruption in our government. I don't like the unjust wars. I don't like the horrible things that happen due to our government. Which in part happens due to the blinding effect of nationalism. . . . . .

No Ezra. What you are describing is a result of 'a blind and misused nationalism'. Even qualifying the word this way would have been better than what was said.

I don't think I'm understanding what your trying to say please expound.

[TrueIntent]

It felt like Elder Ballard was out with a weedwacker clearing out a ton of various corrupt plants. He went after racism, sexism, multilevels, essential oils, the pay for faith healing people, false prophets, those claiming that you need secret knowledge for salvation. It was much needed.

"Keep the Doctrine of Christ pure and do not go to those who have not been set apart"

I hope that we can all be humble and not say "oh he wasn't talking about me", but rather see how we need to repent and return to the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ.

No secret knowledge for salvation? What about the temple?

Touche!!!!!

[PressingForward]

No need to engage this Ezra guy on Nationalism, he’s anti American to the core. He once made the statement that all soldiers were evil. He just doesn’t get it. The current Prophet and first presidency all served in the military. I’ll take that as an example to live by.

[Z2100]

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF NATIONALISM:

- Good nationalism: Playing an active role in the government and wanting to make a difference in your country

- Bad nationalism: Thinking your better than other countries/bad/prejudiced behavoir to other countries, cultures, races, etc.

[Ezra]

No need to engage this Ezra guy on Nationalism, he’s anti American to the core. He once made the statement that all soldiers were evil. He just doesn’t get it. The current Prophet and first presidency all served in the military. I’ll take that as an example to live by.

I said that unjust wars were evil. I also said that if the war is evil those involved are not innocent. They will be held accountable for their involvement in a evil war.

God is the one who defined that not me. Read your scriptures.

I'm a constitutionalist who study's scriptures. If that makes me anti American then what does that make people who don't follow the constitution?????

[larsenb]

Well, Ezra, you then are anti American, an America hater. So it makes sense that you would welcome socialsim/communism. Just remember, it will destroy the church and all religion.

I think you are also totally blind in not being able to see a difference in Nazi Germany and the United States.

Agency, or free will means that, if the country allows the exercise of it, that people will make poor choices, and get pregnant, and have abortions.

Communist China solved the problem of having more than one child, but do you know how? Why not look into it?

From what you have posted here I can only say you have no concept whatsoever of history or political systems.
dc

. . . . I don't hate America. I don't like the curruption in our government. I don't like the unjust wars. I don't like the horrible things that happen due to our government. Which in part happens due to the blinding effect of nationalism. . . . . .

No Ezra. What you are describing is a result of 'a blind and misused nationalism'. Even qualifying the word this way would have been better than what was said.

I don't think I'm understanding what your trying to say please expound.

These things happen for various reasons, some from the corruption of government due to 'the hidden hand' and factions that are influenced by them. But only the blind misuse of 'nationalism' would contribute to them. The definition of nationalism I and 1 or 2 others have provided does not include using love of one's country to harm other people not belonging to our country, or directly harming other countries. That's all.

[Ezra]

THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF NATIONALISM:

- Good nationalism: Playing an active role in the government and wanting to make a difference in your country

- Bad nationalism: Thinking your better than other countries/bad/prejudiced behavoir to other countries, cultures, races, etc.

I agree but also disagree. I believe that the good version is not the actual definition. Just one that has been confused as a meaning.

You can be playing and active role in government and making a difference "as you see it" but do no good at all with your good intentions.

Like how many socialistic programs have been created in this county. Like welfare, Medicaid food stamps and so on.

Think of all the democrats who are actively playing a role in government and wanting to make a difference in this country. Yet their actions have caused us loss in freedoms chained to more taxation and more socialism. They see themselves as good and their actions as good. Are they good nationalists?

I say no because that's not how nationalism is defined. Your second definition is the closest definition.

The first is a misuse of the word.

[larsenb]

My view is that both Elder Ballard's use of 'nationalism', and Elder Anderson's almost word-for-word repeat of what Elder Ballard said regarding 'nationalism', was a poor choice of words that slipped through the non-inspiration filter. All they had to do was qualify the word with something like "a nationalism' that is the service of evil ends", or something like that.

Otherwise, it comes across as an initial effort to demonize a perfectly good word: The definition of which, founkd at the top of a duckduckgo search at: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=nationalism&t ... definition, is:



None of these definitions or nationalism come across to me as deserving opprobrium or indicate that 'nationalism' should be made into a 4-letter word. It's the same thing as the very unfortunate appropriation of 'conspiracy theory' as meaning 'nutjob', crazy, etc. This type of thing creates confusion and allows people to think in terms of labels, not substantive arguments. The use of such words allows people to 'THINK' they are contributing to rational thought, when they are not.

Additionally, tagging 'Nationalism' as something nasty, to be avoided, could be construed by Trump supporters as being anti-Trump, because Trump has really hammered the need to secure our nation as an independent (from the globalist push) nation. He has said: "Americanism (aka nationalism) vs. Globalism will be our credo. He has also extolled the need for all nations to act in and be allowed to act in their own interest, as long as they aren't unjustly attacking fellow nations and the people that belong to them in some unjust way.

My interpretation of Trump's use of nationalism, is that he is pointing out the the first duty of a country is to protect its citizens, and not sacrifice them on the alter of very dubious globalist agendas.

Unfortunate word usage by Elders Ballard and Anderson. I hope they both reconsider their misuse of this term in the edited published versions of their talks.

You make a good point brother but perhaps you need to take the quote in the context with which it was given. The quote from Elder Ballard was: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism and nationalism,” . Now Elder Ballard was contexting the need for eliminating all prejudice and embracing ALL of Gods children with compassion. One of the definitions of Nationalism in Merriam Webster shows this:

Definition of nationalism

1 :loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness (see consciousness 1c) exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups Intense nationalism was one of the causes of the war.

Now based on the church and its leaderships call to prepare ones heart for Zion where all will need to be united of one heart it seems to me like Elder Ballard is calling for that unification among the Saints with no exclusionary rameumptom prejudices to exist among them. I think that is his context.

I saw the context, that's exactly why I cringed at their unqualified usage of 'nationalism'; and notice Elder Anderson used essentially the same phrase. Why did I cringe? Because for me national focus or proper nationalism, including thwarting globalist hegemony and coercion, including adherence to Constitutional principles, is of paramount importance in our day and age.

And Trump, to his credit, has identified this overarching need.

And yes, Mark, I'm aware of the negative definitions of nationalism. I see that you selected 1c, instead of 1a and 1b

But still, unfortunate usage. Again, I hope they qualify this usage in the printed reports.

A kind polite and sincere letter to Elder Ballards office requesting some clarification would be appropriate. The Brethren are very kind and loving men. My experience with a few of them have done nothing but strengthen that opinion. You may be surprised at what you receive back.

Thanks, Mark. I may do that.

Any idea of the full address to use to make sure it gets to the right place?

[Fiannan]

- Bad nationalism: Thinking your better than other countries/bad/prejudiced behavoir to other countries, cultures, races, etc.

So if I think western society and values are superior, oh I don't know...let's say marching thousands of people up a pyramid and sacrificing them to the sun god then I am a bad nationalist?

[larsenb]

Confidential then. They are not secret for two reasons.
1. Oathbreakers have shared the sacred information outside of the temple, revealing to their own damnation that which they promised to hold dear.
2. The Church and its members spend millions of dollars every year trying to get more people to learn this sacred (not secret) information.

And if you think about it, more people on the other side of the veil know about the temple ordinances than don't know about them on this side. Not a very well kept secret, is it?

When I was in institute, I had a teacher who emphasized that the temple ceremony was both sacred and secret. I guess that stuck with me. I don't ever recall hearing that the temple was "sacred not secret." But I do recall hearing it was both. I have no problem with it being referred to as secret.

I haven't read all posts on this thread, but the two words (secret and sacred) come from the same root, as Hugh Nibley has pointed out, and which I recall confirming w/my old beat-up Websters dictionary, which posted word roots.

Yup. I remember your post. Not sure how some people can consider a ceremony where you make a solemn promise not to reveal certain things as not secret, but to each their own, I guess.

I agree. They should be held close to your chest (in secret) BECAUSE they are sacred.

[larsenb]

- Bad nationalism: Thinking your better than other countries/bad/prejudiced behavoir to other countries, cultures, races, etc.

So if I think western society and values are superior, oh I don't know...let's say marching thousands of people up a pyramid and sacrificing them to the sun god then I am a bad nationalist?

Definitely a bad nationalist. But I wouldn't conflate the Aztecs and Mayans, however, as "western society".

My un-PC view is, thank heaven for Columbus and Cortez, et al., and the direct and indirect roles they played in bringing down the bloody sacrificing Aztec empire, and more indirectly, the sacrificing Mayan culture.

Cortez succeeded in overthrowing the Aztecs with so few numbers, in part, because of allying himself with tribal groups who hated the Aztecan predations against them.

I'm not as enthusiastic about Pizzaro, though the Inca were also involved in human sacrificing, but I think confined the activity to times of perceived need, and they were performed on high mountains w/the victims properly drugged, as I recall.

[skmo]

I think Elder Ballard's comment were very helpful.
I do wish that sometimes the Brethren would be a little more explicit though.
It would have been great to hear him say something like "Denver Snuffer is a false teacher, don't take any notice of him. Julie Rowe is a false prophet, don't let her deceive you. John Dehlin, Rock Waterman et al are apostates, ignore them" etc.
Sometimes it just needs to be spelled out for people.

But this was a good start. And as the title of the thread points out, it was a merciful dispatch.

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

[Serragon]

I think Elder Ballard's comment were very helpful.
I do wish that sometimes the Brethren would be a little more explicit though.
It would have been great to hear him say something like "Denver Snuffer is a false teacher, don't take any notice of him. Julie Rowe is a false prophet, don't let her deceive you. John Dehlin, Rock Waterman et al are apostates, ignore them" etc.
Sometimes it just needs to be spelled out for people.

But this was a good start. And as the title of the thread points out, it was a merciful dispatch.

For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Skmo -- I greatly respect your ideas and opinions, but this is a misapplication of this scripture.