Ethics and Values in Orem

In my never-ending quest to avoid bankruptcy (financial and spiritual), I am teaching a class for which I have no previous training. It is an ethics class in which I am to take a philosophical approach. Having never even taken Philosophy 101, I am somewhat surprised at the ease with which I have begun swallowing all the big words whole. Why is this worth discussing on a Mormon issues blog? Well, remember how we are a world church? Recently, I gave the students an assignment in which they had to make a choice between going to war to defend their country against an impending invasion or staying home and taking care of their ailing mother (Sartre's ethical dilemma). The students could choose to answer as a Utilitarian or as a Deontologist (in other words, they could pretend to be Mill or Kant). Both philosophies explicitly demand that you consider everyone in the world when considering a problem. All my students but 2 (so, 22 students) failed to do this. As far as they were concerned, universal application of their actions ended at the nation's borders. So, they, in almost all cases, felt that these ethical systems would encourage them to go to war. After all, it is a matter of duty. Should I have been surprised? No. The professor who gave me the idea told me that this is exactly what would happen. This is a "Republican" state in a war-time election year. Any attempt to think that our boys may be wasting their lives out there is not to be tolerated. But here is the thing, we are supposed to be a world church with a world view. I have, as a representative of said church, flown to distant countries in order to bring people from all cultures into this church. The majority of the people I am teaching have served LDS missions or will serve them. So, why did I make the same mistake as all of my students when I first considered the ethical dilemma? How much, as an American, can I get away from my own ethno-centrism, even in a Gospel context? As a member of a worldwide church, why am I inordinately proud that we finally have a European on the Twelve in my lifetime? It wasn't meant to be a symbolic gesture, but I found myself counting the days until Elders Helvecio Martins or Yoshihiko Kikuchi were called to the Twelve. Why do I care about this if I believe in the worldwide church? Because, in spite of my vast worldwide experience (remember, I travelled to Missouri over the summer), I still have my doubts. Why does the Big Guy care so much about this bit of land that he inserted a fairly detailed discussion of its colonization into a Standard Work and prophecied about at least a couple of political events within it (civil war, constitutional thread hanging)? I remember that, while I was in Russia, people told me it was great that Christ visited America, but what did that have to do with them? I guess that I sometimes wonder the same thing. For the record, I am not questioning the relevance of the Church, gospel, etc. to all people, but rather I am asking how can we really consider ourselves to be a "world" church, when we seem more interested in the politics of one country than in others? Shouldn't the Brethren be addressing the social issues on the other sides of the Atlantic or the Pacific with equal interest as they are those of the Northern Western Hemisphere? I am NOT saying this as a criticism (I support the Brethren, they can write about whatever they want, far be it from me to give them counsel). Instead, I wonder how we deal with this aspect of worldwide gospel life? Speaking as an American member, all too often my universe ends at the border. I often have to remind myself that there really are people over there living lives that don't relate to mine at all and that I have just as much responsibility to them as I do the people who live within my circle of influence (whether I listen to Kant, Mill, or (I'm pretty sure) Christ). I realize that this, by its nature, may not be the best blog on which to admit to having these issues. Most of those who read think of people in far -off countries more than I do, which is precisely the reason I bring it up. What might cause the inordinate gospel interest in the United States of America in scripture and revelation? Is it too obvious to say that it is because we are based here? I've never done this before and don't know the etiquette. Is it wrong to end a post with a question?