Embarrassed by church members

[AGStacker]

"Unfortunately RP has more supporters who want to be free to sin without any recourse than those who recognize the heavy requirements of having the Constitution."

Shadow, this statement above is so cowardly! You are accusing RP supporters, and good members of the Church, of wanting to sin without recourse. Do not question my intelligence regarding sin. I, and other RP Mormon supporters, are not idiots! We know that we are accountable to God for our sins. I have never smoked pot, drank beer, had cigs, solicited a prostitute and the like. You are saying that I want RP as pres so I can do those things?! So I can violate my baptismal and temple covenants?!

I know many Ron Paul supporters and have been instrumental in helping 100s of people understand what is going on in our government. Do not accuse RP supporters, especially awakened Mormons, of supporting him for the purpose of sinning!

I can smoke cigarettes legally but do I?!
I can support abortions legally but do I?!
I can get drunk if I want legally but do I?!
I could dishonestly declare bankruptcy if I wanted but do I?!
I could go to Vegas and use the services of a prostitute legally but do I?!

Your argument that RP supporters want him so they can justify sin is disgustingly cowardly and childish.

[InfoWarrior82]

Unfortunately RP has more supporters who want to be free to sin without any recourse than those who recognize the heavy requirements of having the Constitution.

I vehemently disagree with this statement. Then you're blind and/or deaf!

The pot smokers need to understand why they can't do what they do while living under the freedom of the Constitution.

If I were you, I'd use a more profound sin as an example rather than using marijuana.

How do you make the connection that smoking marijuana (I would never smoke marijuana) would make the constitution somehow disappear?

Here's how the connection is made-
Let's say you're my pot smoking next door neighbor. You smoke pot because it's your "right". So you're out in your back yard sitting naked in your hot tub with your male friends smoking pot and having a grand old time. Meanwhile on the other side of the tall fence I built is my 10 yr old daughter weeding the garden, breathing in all that smoke that you and your "friends" are creating. I go out side and notice what's going on so I call the police because I've asked you before to stop smoking that crap around my kids and you simply say it's your "Constitutional right". So the police come over and talk to me and they say "Sorry Shadow, your neighbor is a selfish twit but the Constitution guarantees him that "right". So I get some good people together including government representatives and we create a law that says it's illegal to smoke pot, and it's illegal to be outside naked (just tossed that one in to irritate you and your male friends). So next month you're out in your hot tub, naked and smoking pot with your male friends again. This time I call the police and they go over to your house and arrest you and your "friends". So what do you and your friends do? You hire an attorney and sue the city for creating an unconstitutional law. See how this ends? Either I think what you're doing is unconstitutional because you're infringing on my rights to be outside and not inhale your smoke or you think it's unconstitutional that there is a law that says you can't smoke pot in your own backyard. Again, the Constitution is ONLY for a RIGHTEOUS people! Dope smoking dopes are not righteous people. Yes, the Constitution allows for some sinful behavior, but once a group of sinners get together and demand their so called "rights", amen to the Constitution.

This example is silly and doesn't answer my question as to how smoking (anything) will somehow make our constitution disappear.

The 10th amendment allows for individual states to allow or prohibit such activities. Within each state, you can break it down even further and pass laws to a more specific degree. Take for example California's public smoking laws. Notice, that California did not prohibit smoking tobacco completely, but did indeed pass public smoking laws which prohibited smoking in certain areas and within certain proximity. The constitution is amazing isn't it? It allows us to vote with our feet.

[InfoWarrior82]

He stated it wasn't Constitutional and provided support with references to the Constitution. Is he right or wrong? It should be fairly clear cut either way shouldn't it?

You said.

I believe he's saying: Money backed by Gold & Silver... like the constitution says.

Where's your evidence to contradict what White Feather said? Is a belief considered evidence? Should we take your word on what the Constitution says?

I personally don't care about who is right or wrong. What is the truth? It can't be both ways. So what is the truth?

Actually he did not prove how it was unconstitutional with his post. I was asking him what Ron Paul said specifically which disagrees with the constitution. I'm still not seeing it.

[InfoWarrior82]

[Would you like to respond to my earlier post?

We don't lose our constitution because we have some "gay" states, or some "prostitution" states, or some "drug" states. We lose our constitution when we allow our federal government to run unchecked. As it is now. By and large we as a country have been lulled into a false state of security. I would argue that most of this degradation of our society has been accomplished by a centralized effort (secret combinations) by those who seek to usurp power and corrupt the moral standards. We lose our constitution when lawmakers and executives adopt unrighteous and unconstitutional federal laws for the entire nation under the guise of being "for our own good". Liberals cry out for the constitution, but abandon it for the chance to pass a federal law that benefits them. Conservatives cry out for the constitution, but abandon it for the chance to pass a federal law that benefits them. This is how we lose the constitution. Returning to the original intent of our constitution IS repentance. Christ gave us the constitution, did He not? A wicked people will not uphold the constitution. I still think it worth salvaging while at the same time crying repentance (for all sins.) Though, I believe the two great sins that would cost us the loss of our constitution are ignorance and apathy.

Sure I'll respond, I disagree with much of it!

Can you be more specific please?

[AGStacker]

"Yes, the Constitution allows for some sinful behavior, but once a group of sinners get together and demand their so called "rights", amen to the Constitution."

In your example, you were the first one to demand your "rights" through legal means. In this example you violated the smokers right to smoke in his backyard. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a Utopia where no problems exist.

You are the same kind of person who probably staunchly supports all of the regulation in medicine. You don't recognize individual liability. If a man is on the side of the road selling miracle cures, are you stupid enough to believe him? Or do you petition government to "protect" you?! Hopefully you would be smart enough to recognize a fraud.

That man has the right to be a deceiver. A free market of intelligent people would eventually and quickly find the man to be a fraud and his efforts would be thwarted.

What you are advocating is the devil's plan. I will force, because all government is force mainly (this is why limited and small government is best), the people to choose "righteousness".

[AGStacker]

See with Constitutional government, how easy would it be for God to judge his people as opposed to an oppressive government? Oppressive governments take some of the blame for the peoples' wickedness. Similar to sins being upon a parent's head.

If all peoples lived under a Constitutional government, and respected the rights of other people and personal property, there would exist no one to blame for others sins.

There would be no "I became a thief to feed my family because government taxes destroyed my business".

This wouldn't exist! People would have a limitless amount of opportunity. Any time they sinned it would be their own fault 100% + or - their parental upbringing.

I know many here will disagree with this. Living under King Benjamin or Enoch as opposed to president Obama or Bush makes a huge difference in the way God will judge His people.

Men ultimately are accountable for their own sins.

Just to prove my point, I mentioned yesterday how Elder Oaks said we don't fully live the Celestial law because of the amount of divorce that goes on in the Church and the wickedness of men. God, in His mercy, allows people to remarry after having a temple sealing cancellation. Do you think this would happen living under a King Benjamin or Enoch?

[shadow]

A portion of Pres. Benson's talk- The Constitution, a Heavenly Banner

Fifth: The Constitution was designed to work with only a moral and righteous people. "Our constitution," said John Adams "was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other" (John R. Howe, Jr., The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Princeton University Press, 1966, p. 185).

The Crisis of our Constitution

This, then, is the ingenious and inspired document created by these good and wise men for the benefit and blessing of future generations. It is now two hundred years since the Constitution was written. Have we been wise beneficiaries of the gift entrusted to us? Have we valued and protected the principles laid down by this great document?

At this bicentennial celebration we must, with sadness, say that we have not been wise in keeping the trust of our Founding Fathers. For the past two centuries, those who do not prize freedom have chipped away at every major clause of our Constitution until today we face a crisis of great dimensions.

The Prophecy of Joseph Smith

We are fast approaching that moment prophesied by Joseph Smith when he said:

Even this Nation will be on the very verge of crumbling to pieces and tumbling to the ground and when the constitution is upon the brink of ruin this people will be the Staff up[on] which the Nation shall lean and they shall bear the constitution away from the very verge of destruction. [In Howard and Martha Coray Notebook, July 19, 1840, quoted by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, comps. and eds., The Words of Joseph Smith (Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1980), p. 416]

The Need to Prepare

Will we be prepared? Will we be among those who will "bear the Constitution away from the very verge of destruction"? If we desire to be numbered among those who will, here are some things we must do:
Notice the first thing Pres. Benson lists-
1. We must be righteous and moral. We must live the gospel principles--all of them (What? No prostitution or dope smoking?? #-o ). We have no right to expect a higher degree of morality from those who represent us than what we ourselves are. To live a higher law means we will not seek to receive what we have not earned by our own labor. It means we will remember that government owes us nothing. It means we will keep the laws of the land. It means we will look to God as our Lawgiver and the source of our liberty.

Nothing specific about ignorance and apathy, just being righteous and living all the gospel principles. The Constitution is NOT adequate to govern anything LESS. Does Ron Paul teach this? Do you? I thought not! I encourage you to understand WHY the Constitution can't serve a wicked society.

[AGStacker]

Shadow, I agree with what you are saying about a moral people and the Constitution.

Do you really think that if someone smokes a joint that they are wicked?!

That is a pretty bold claim. I would say the pot smoker is better than the judgmental Mormon.

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

[shadow]

"Yes, the Constitution allows for some sinful behavior, but once a group of sinners get together and demand their so called "rights", amen to the Constitution."

In your example, you were the first one to demand your "rights" through legal means. In this example you violated the smokers right to smoke in his backyard. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a Utopia where no problems exist.

You are the same kind of person who probably staunchly supports all of the regulation in medicine. You don't recognize individual liability. If a man is on the side of the road selling miracle cures, are you stupid enough to believe him? Or do you petition government to "protect" you?! Hopefully you would be smart enough to recognize a fraud.

That man has the right to be a deceiver. A free market of intelligent people would eventually and quickly find the man to be a fraud and his efforts would be thwarted.

What you are advocating is the devil's plan. I will force, because all government is force mainly (this is why limited and small government is best), the people to choose "righteousness".

My point was that it takes a righteous people to be governed by the Constitution. I'm actually quite liberal as far as government laws are concerned, I don't like them! And trust me, calling the police is the last thing I'd do! But I recognize that government has had to step in to stop people from abusing others. It's gone down hill from there.

[AGStacker]

Well, legally state governments can create laws to protect its people from unconstitutional abuse.

The Saints should know this considering no one helped to stop the unconstitutional massacres of them.

[Andrew Jackson]

He stated it wasn't Constitutional and provided support with references to the Constitution. Is he right or wrong? It should be fairly clear cut either way shouldn't it?

You said.

I believe he's saying: Money backed by Gold & Silver... like the constitution says.

Where's your evidence to contradict what White Feather said? Is a belief considered evidence? Should we take your word on what the Constitution says?

I personally don't care about who is right or wrong. What is the truth? It can't be both ways. So what is the truth?

Actually he did not prove how it was unconstitutional with his post. I was asking him what Ron Paul said specifically which disagrees with the constitution. I'm still not seeing it.

Well what I got out of it was that the Constitution specified only Congress could coin or create money. The States were specifically prevented from creating money. The States could only trade gold or silver coins. There isn't anything there specifying that Congress has to use gold or silver which is what Ron Paul is advocating. It also specifies that Congress has the power to coin and the States are prohibited.

James Madison explained it this way in Federalist 44:

The extension of the prohibition to bills of credit must give pleasure to every citizen, in proportion to his love of justice and his knowledge of the true springs of public prosperity. The loss which America has sustained since the peace, from the pestilent effects of paper money on the necessary confidence between man and man, on the necessary confidence in the public councils, on the industry and morals of the people, and on the character of republican government, constitutes an enormous debt against the States chargeable with this unadvised measure, which must long remain unsatisfied; or rather an accumulation of guilt, which can be expiated no otherwise than by a voluntary sacrifice on the altar of justice, of the power which has been the instrument of it. In addition to these persuasive considerations, it may be observed, that the same reasons which show the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States, and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded; retrospective alterations in its value might be made, and thus the citizens of other States be injured, and animosities be kindled among the States themselves. The subjects of foreign powers might suffer from the same cause, and hence the Union be discredited and embroiled by the indiscretion of a single member. No one of these mischiefs is less incident to a power in the States to emit paper money, than to coin gold or silver.

http://constitution.org/fed/federa44.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Under the Constitution the states may not "make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts." There is no such restriction on the federal government. There is no requirement in the Constitution that the coin that Congress is authorized to issue be composed of silver or gold, or even that it be backed by silver or gold. A reading of Federalist 44 may be convincing that James Madison would be opposed to a fiat currency, but that opposition didn’t make its way into the Constitution.

Pertinent part of White Feather's post included below.

Article 1, Section 10 (Powers Prohibited of States):

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I've added emphasis on both the gold and silver as well as "coin money". Ron Paul might be able to make a stand except we have more clarification and the authorization for that express authority in Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government - specifically the representatives of the people in Congress.

One of the primary problems of the Articles of Confederation (which Tom Woods listed above wants to take us back to) is that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos. The founders revised this in the Constitution by reserving the right to Congress to establish a single currency for the whole nation - which facilitates trade and prosperity (accumulation of happiness/property).

The states are absolutely and completely prohibited by these sections of the Constitution from generating their own currency except for literal gold and silver coins. The founders knew the power of the money creation mechanism and reserved it strictly for representatives of the people. Also by central government directive.

Even if you ignore Article 1, Section 10 which restricts the powers of the States, it would not stand for what Ron Paul wants it to stand for, which is that the Federal government must constitutionally adhere to a gold/silver standard.

Here's Tom Wood's rationalization on it -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40MBdt1BQgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So where do competing currencies come into this?

Ron Paul states -

We, the Congress, have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, but not to declare a legal tender," explained Rep. Ron Paul in his in remarks introducing the Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011. "Yet, there is a section of U.S. Code, 31 U.S.C. 5103, that purports to establish U.S. coins and currency, including Federal Reserve notes, as legal tender."

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If Congress can't declare "legal tender" then what is the purpose of coining money?

Legal tender is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation.

The Constitution states -

No State shall ...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

But that is only for the States. Congress has no such restriction. Again if you look at James Madison's statement in #44 about competing currencies from the states being disruptive to the economic well being of the nation then it makes perfect sense to have one legal tender which is why Congress would be the only authorized entity to "coin" money as well as protect that money from counterfeiting.

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States

One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar," stated Ron Paul. "Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service in November of 2007. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't that by design as Madison pointed out?

The reason states do not have the power to create their own legal tender (other than gold or silver coin) is because that is a power expressly reserved to the Federal government. Remember that this was one of the central evils of the Articles of Confederation – that every state had its own currency, which hindered trade and created economic chaos – and so the founders reserved to the Federal government the right to establish a single currency for the whole nation.

The term "legal tender" wasn't even in use then.

Legal Tender Guidelines

Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning in the settlement of debts. It means that a debtor cannot successfully be sued for non-payment if he pays into court in legal tender. It does not mean that any ordinary transaction has to take place in legal tender or only within the amount denominated by the legislation. Both parties are free to agree to accept any form of payment whether legal tender or otherwise according to their wishes. In order to comply with the very strict rules governing an actual legal tender it is necessary, for example, actually to offer the exact amount due because no change can be demanded.

http://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/polici ... guidelines" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

When the United States was established, the U.S. Constitution outlined the basic framework through which government – both state and federal – could act on behalf of America’s citizens. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution was legal tender mentioned, and this is a bone of contention still amongst those who see the Federal Reserve as an illegitimate institution.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They also conveniently leave out the last sentence of Article 1 Section 8 -

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

First, the purpose of legal tender is to centralise the creation of money by creating monopoly control of the money printing press. This might be done to reduce the chaos associated with allowing anyone to issue bank notes. But it also might be done to inflate and increase leverage for taxation purposes. There are competing ideas on this issue but it boils down to a centralisation versus de-centralisation/States’ Rights versus Federalist argument.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This goes to the heart of the libertarian argument as they portray Lincoln as this evil dictator rather than the reality that he was fighting the banks to keep the nation free of banker control and from being divided. Of which church leaders have spoken fondly of him over the years for doing so.

So Abraham Lincoln created the Legal Tender Act for the United States.

However, in 1870, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional in a 4-3 decision in the case Hepburn v. Griswold. What was peculiar about the ruling was that Salmon P. Chase was the chief justice presiding and voted against the greenback as legal tender. He was also Treasury Secretary at the time the legal tender law was enacted. He also happens to appear on the face of the 10,000 dollar bill, a denomination not in circulation today.

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/09 ... ssion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The prospect of American citizens turning away from the dollar towards alternate currencies will provide the necessary impetus to the U.S. government to regain control of the dollar and halt its downward spiral," Rep. Ron Paul said in his final remarks while introducing the bill.

http://www.coinnews.net/2011/03/24/ron- ... t-of-2011/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How does competing currencies do anything other than destroy the unity of the nation's economic system similar to the chaos that occurred under The Articles of Confederation?

[Andrew Jackson]

Shadow, I agree with what you are saying about a moral people and the Constitution.

Do you really think that if someone smokes a joint that they are wicked?!

That is a pretty bold claim. I would say the pot smoker is better than the judgmental Mormon.

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

Do you always attempt to rationalize sin with the claim that everyone else or somebody else is doing it or did it? And stoop to slandering the prophet in the process?

At a minimum you ought to provide some evidence for such slander.

[Mark]

"Yes, the Constitution allows for some sinful behavior, but once a group of sinners get together and demand their so called "rights", amen to the Constitution."

In your example, you were the first one to demand your "rights" through legal means. In this example you violated the smokers right to smoke in his backyard. The Constitution doesn't guarantee a Utopia where no problems exist.

You are the same kind of person who probably staunchly supports all of the regulation in medicine. You don't recognize individual liability. If a man is on the side of the road selling miracle cures, are you stupid enough to believe him? Or do you petition government to "protect" you?! Hopefully you would be smart enough to recognize a fraud.

That man has the right to be a deceiver. A free market of intelligent people would eventually and quickly find the man to be a fraud and his efforts would be thwarted.

What you are advocating is the devil's plan. I will force, because all government is force mainly (this is why limited and small government is best), the people to choose "righteousness".

My point was that it takes a righteous people to be governed by the Constitution. I'm actually quite liberal as far as government laws are concerned, I don't like them! And trust me, calling the police is the last thing I'd do! But I recognize that government has had to step in to stop people from abusing others. It's gone down hill from there.

Hey Bro I rather like this write up titled "The Unwritten Constitution". Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. I think it validates your point. The constitution centers around this principle of morality and virtue. Without self restraint civilization will break down and the constitution will just become a roll of toilet paper.

The Unwritten Constitution

The United States was founded on the Judeo-Christian ethic that historically was the substance of Western civilization. Ours was a specifically English conception of individual morality and individual responsibility that, only in England and its North American colonies, had produced a government of laws, not men, a government in which even the king is subject to the statutes of the land and to a higher moral law.

This conception of government necessitates a citizenry self-regulated by moral precepts that are preserved and taught by religion. The government must similarly be restrained by the limits of natural law, which say that no legitimate government may infringe any individual's rights to life, liberty, and private property.

No society can survive without a consensus about right and wrong, about what constitutes moral conduct. That consensus is the unwritten constitution of society, the content that gives meaning to a written constitution, the meat on the bones of the structure of government.

Opposing our original conception of government is the liberal jihad, driven by the ideology of socialism, sometimes called The Religion of Humanity. This religion was formalized in the 1789 French Revolution, the same year that our Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land.

Socialism is a secular religion. Like Islamic suicide bombers, liberals are so firmly persuaded that their cause is right, good, and just that they are prepared to go to any lengths necessary to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic of individual morality and replace it with a rigidly regulated National-State collectivism, of which Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were extreme examples.

The religion of socialism is being taught unconstitutionally, at your expense, in public schools and colleges receiving Federal aid. Teaching the religious doctrine of socialism as scientific fact amounts to making liberal-socialism the officially established religion of the United States.

The only constitutional way to stop the liberal jihad is to force schools to present both sides of the story, traditionalist, as well as liberal. Publicly funded schools now teach only the amoral, secular materialism of the socialist religion. Schools no longer present true versions of American history and of our original ideas of civic virtue and personal morality that are historically the substance of Western civilization. Penetrating the shield of socialist teachers' unions and the politicians whom they help elect is a very long-term project, but a vital one.

The largest volume of immigration in the nation's history, both legal and illegal, coupled with liberals' relentless efforts to destroy America's original traditions of individual morality, leaves us with no core values and a diminishing will to defend ourselves against foreign enemies.

The unwritten constitution of 1776 expressly or implicitly comprehended the following elements:

-- A philosophical view, reaching back to Plato and Aristotle, that humans, indeed all creatures and things, had inherent natures that implied certain ends or goals, a highest and best role in life. There was consequently a natural law based on an understanding of human nature, from which flowed precepts of civic virtue, morality, and ethics. In the pursuit of these truths lay humanity's greatest happiness and highest good.

-- Acceptance of personal responsibility for one's actions and belief that each individual was to be guided by his own conscience.

-- Belief in inalienable natural law rights of human beings, summed up as life, liberty, and property. The key concept was inviolability of personal property rights, without which individuals could not survive nor maintain their individuality and personal liberties against an arbitrary and abusive political power. If people cannot control the purse-strings and deny money to the king, they cannot protect their individual rights. Money-power is their only leverage, short of armed rebellion. That is what Magna Carta was all about. Forty-seven of its sixty-three articles are concerned with private property rights against the crown. A socialist government like our New Deal upends this by taking a large portion of people's disposable income as taxes and making them dependent upon the National State for their needs.

-- A preference for government motivated by aspiration towards civic virtue and morality; a government of limited powers curbed by a higher law, the natural law rights of mankind.

-- An expectation that government would be essentially a protective shell against foreign aggressors, especially to prevent interference with ocean commerce or invasion from foreign countries. Within that shell, little was expected from the government, with hardly any day-to-day impact on the lives of ordinary Americans. More than anything else, domestically, citizens wanted to be free from arbitrary interference with their individual rights and their private property.

-- Readiness to fight for their legal and political rights as Englishmen, which were embodied in the unwritten British constitution that included the common law, Magna Carta, the 1628 Petition of Right, and the 1689 English Bill of Rights, as well as in their colonial charters.

-- A perspective of justice in the classical Greek model of proportionality, in keeping with the nature of human beings and human society. People were to be rewarded in ratio to the competence and importance of their work and to the effort and skill it required. Justice was a fair price for a good product. Justice was also viewed as adherence to laws of society that accorded with natural law.

Americans in 1776 would have rejected the opposing theory of liberal social-justice under which everyone, without regard to his personal contribution to society, is entitled to equal access to all of the goods and services produced by people who work for a living.

-- Aversion to hereditary class privilege and a preference for reward based on personal merit and hard work; tenacious awareness of equality before the law and of their rights, as Englishmen, under the common law and all Parliamentary statutes that protected individuals and their property from arbitrary exercise of authority.

-- Strong self-reliance and individualism; pioneering spirit; opportunity to do one's best and to go as high as one's talents and luck would carry.

-- Openness to science, inventiveness, and readiness to experiment with new methods. Newton's laws of motion that made the universe seem like a great clockwork devised by God had a clear influence upon the conception of internal structures and balances in the organs of government set forth in the Constitution.

-- A Judeo-Christian, predominantly Protestant, belief that the world was a divine creation in which man was subject to the God-given laws of nature. Legitimacy of statute laws enacted by the people's representatives depended upon their conforming to principles of human nature created by God. Religion was seen as the safekeeper of ethical values and as the teacher of those values to society.

-- A clear awareness that a government of powers limited by inalienable individual rights could not survive unless the people were equally self-restrained by fidelity to principles of individual morality, responsibility, and civic virtue.

-- A strong commitment to the Moral Sense theory of ethics taught by English and Scottish philosophers like the Earl of Shaftesbury, Francis Hutcheson, and Adam Smith (yes, the same Adam Smith who wrote the celebrated "Wealth of Nations"). These thinkers had somewhat different ideas about the origin of moral sentiments, but the common denominator was that benevolence was the most important characteristic to be fostered by society. John Witherspoon, a Scotsman who had studied under Francis Hutcheson, became President of Princeton, where he taught the theory of moral sentiments to James Madison. Madison was arguably the most important single contributor to the writing of the Constitution, and later was President of the United States.

-- Religious toleration, which was, by 1776, perceived as an essential policy if the colonists were to live together. America had more Protestant religious sects than anywhere else in the world. This tremendous diversity of doctrinal belief was itself one of the most powerful forces for individualism and democratic liberty.

-- Piety, not in the sense of religious ritual, but in the original Roman sense of reverence and respect for the traditions of the past and a feeling of responsibility to preserve those traditions for future generations.

-- A belief, based on religion, natural law, and moral philosophy, that all humans are equal in the sight of God, regardless of race, nationality, or station in life. Slavery clearly violated this precept, and many people said so. As early as 1724 the Quakers formally denounced slavery, and Rhode Island outlawed it in 1774, followed by many other states in the north. In the 1787 Constitutional Convention there was lengthy debate in which most delegates favored outlawing slavery. Only the necessity of political compromise to retain the support of all thirteen states preventing the outlawing of slavery. The Constitution did, however, establish a date beyond which the slave trade would be forbidden, the only measure upon which all states could agree. Ultimately the Civil War, the bloodiest war in history at that date, abolished the practice altogether.

-- A view of humanity and the universe as a series of dualities: soul and body, heaven and earth, good and evil. Humans had the potential for being the best or the worst of creatures. Desires of the flesh produced undesirable qualities like laziness, selfishness, sexual promiscuity, and indulgence in drugs or alcohol. Aspirations of the soul produced the moral virtues. Religion, morality, and civic virtue were counterpoised against tendencies of the body to amoral evil. Civilization depended upon the triumph of the former.

[AGStacker]

Shadow, I agree with what you are saying about a moral people and the Constitution.

Do you really think that if someone smokes a joint that they are wicked?!

That is a pretty bold claim. I would say the pot smoker is better than the judgmental Mormon.

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

Do you always attempt to rationalize sin with the claim that everyone else or somebody else is doing it or did it? And stoop to slandering the prophet in the process?

No, this is why I stated above that I've never had alcohol, smoked weed, used illegal drugs or smoked cigarettes. I personally don't rationalize any sins but to say someone who smokes a joint is wicked is highly judgmental. Maybe this person, Mormon or not, isn't as valiant is being obedient but it definitely doesn't make him wicked.

At a minimum you ought to provide some evidence for such slander.

Not slander. "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman.

[Andrew Jackson]

Shadow, I agree with what you are saying about a moral people and the Constitution.

Do you really think that if someone smokes a joint that they are wicked?!

That is a pretty bold claim. I would say the pot smoker is better than the judgmental Mormon.

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

Do you always attempt to rationalize sin with the claim that everyone else or somebody else is doing it or did it? And stoop to slandering the prophet in the process?

No, this is why I stated above that I've never had alcohol, smoked weed, used illegal drugs or smoked cigarettes. I personally don't rationalize any sins but to say someone who smokes a joint is wicked is highly judgmental. Maybe this person, Mormon or not, isn't as valiant is being obedient but it definitely doesn't make him wicked.

At a minimum you ought to provide some evidence for such slander.

Not slander. "Rough Stone Rolling" by Richard Bushman.

Please define wicked.

Bushman's own confession from the book — "Perhaps he [Joseph Smith] cannot be entirely known, but my aim has been to imagine him as fully as the record allows."

Launching into the projective world of Richard L. Bushman. Anyways I'd love to see the quote from the book stating Joseph was an occasional heavy drinker and where it originated.

[EmmaLee]

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

And stoop to slandering the prophet in the process? At a minimum you ought to provide some evidence for such slander.

I wouldn't say he was a "pretty heavy drinker", but he most certainly drank alcohol till the day he died. In Joseph’s time, wine was used in the sacrament well after the revelations found in sections 27 and 89. For example, at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple: “The bread and the wine were then brought in, and I observed that we had fasted all the day, and lest we faint as the Savior did, so shall we do on this occasion; we shall bless the bread, and give it to the Twelve, and they to the multitude.” (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.30, p.431)

We know this was acceptable since the Lord later appeared and accepted the temple. He has promised He would again “drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.” (D&C 27:5)

Even though the Lord designated wine be used for the sacrament, we know from the History of the Church, Joseph and other early brethren drank wine occasionally outside of the sacramental context. For example, on 3 May, 1843, Joseph drank a glass of wine with Jenetta Richards. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.380) The Twelve also drank wine outside of the sacrament: “April 17 -- This day the Twelve blessed and drank a bottle of wine at Penworthan, made by Mother Moon forty years before.” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 120)

At the end of his life, Joseph, John Taylor, and the others accompanying the prophet, drank wine while in Carthage Jail. The History of the Church records: “The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail .... Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph Smith, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor ....” (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 616)

John Taylor said, “Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards.” (History of the Church, Vol. 7, page 101)

The Prophet Joseph occasionally drank beer, as well, long after receiving the revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom. For example, Joseph recorded in his diary that on 1 June, 1844, just prior to his martyrdom, he “...went to John P. Greene’s, and paid him and another brother $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers.” (Millennial Star, v. 231 p. 720)

The Twelve and others also drank beer, as Hosea Stout recorded in his diary entry of April 12, 1845: “The Old police and wives and some of the Twelve were present. We had a joyful time with as much cakes & beer as we could eat and drink...” (On The Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, v. 1, p. 34)

“Elder Hyde told of the excellent white wine he drank in the east. Joseph prophesied in the name of the Lord--that he would drink wine with him in that country.” (Joseph Smith, Diary, 20 January, 1843)

Benjamin F. Johnson, a personal friend of Joseph Smith, wrote the following about Joseph: “He was partial to a well-supplied table and he did not always refuse the wine that ‘maketh the heart glad.’” (A letter by Benjamin F. Johnson to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, page 4)

“We then partook of some refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 369)

“Elders Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, and Warren Parrish, then presented the Presidency with three servers of glasses filled with wine to bless. And it fell to my lot to attend to this duty, which I cheerfully discharged. It was then passed round in order, then the cake in the same order; and suffice it to say, our hearts were made glad while partaking of the bounty of earth which was presented, until we had taken our fill...” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 378)

On July 1, 1845, Hosea Stout recorded: “This day there was a grand concert...we had also the 12 and other authorities with us, and was also provided with as much beer, wine, cakes &c as we could eat and drink.” (On The Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, v. 1, page 50)

[John Michael Kane]

Oh, let's not forget that Joseph Smith himself was on rare occasion a pretty heavy drinker according to more than one account.

And stoop to slandering the prophet in the process? At a minimum you ought to provide some evidence for such slander.

I wouldn't say he was a "pretty heavy drinker", but he most certainly drank alcohol till the day he died. In Joseph’s time, wine was used in the sacrament well after the revelations found in sections 27 and 89. For example, at the dedication of the Kirtland Temple: “The bread and the wine were then brought in, and I observed that we had fasted all the day, and lest we faint as the Savior did, so shall we do on this occasion; we shall bless the bread, and give it to the Twelve, and they to the multitude.” (History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.30, p.431)

We know this was acceptable since the Lord later appeared and accepted the temple. He has promised He would again “drink of the fruit of the vine with you on the earth.” (D&C 27:5)

Even though the Lord designated wine be used for the sacrament, we know from the History of the Church, Joseph and other early brethren drank wine occasionally outside of the sacramental context. For example, on 3 May, 1843, Joseph drank a glass of wine with Jenetta Richards. (History of the Church, Vol.5, Ch.19, p.380) The Twelve also drank wine outside of the sacrament: “April 17 -- This day the Twelve blessed and drank a bottle of wine at Penworthan, made by Mother Moon forty years before.” (History of the Church, Vol. 4, page 120)

At the end of his life, Joseph, John Taylor, and the others accompanying the prophet, drank wine while in Carthage Jail. The History of the Church records: “The guard immediately sent for a bottle of wine, pipes, and two small papers of tobacco; and one of the guards brought them into the jail .... Dr. Richards uncorked the bottle, and presented a glass to Joseph Smith, who tasted, as also Brother Taylor ....” (History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 616)

John Taylor said, “Sometime after dinner we sent for some wine. It has been reported by some that this was taken as a sacrament. It was no such thing; our spirits were generally dull and heavy, and it was sent for to revive us.... I believe we all drank of the wine, and gave some to one or two of the prison guards.” (History of the Church, Vol. 7, page 101)

The Prophet Joseph occasionally drank beer, as well, long after receiving the revelation, known as the Word of Wisdom. For example, Joseph recorded in his diary that on 1 June, 1844, just prior to his martyrdom, he “...went to John P. Greene’s, and paid him and another brother $200. Drank a glass of beer at Moessers.” (Millennial Star, v. 231 p. 720)

The Twelve and others also drank beer, as Hosea Stout recorded in his diary entry of April 12, 1845: “The Old police and wives and some of the Twelve were present. We had a joyful time with as much cakes & beer as we could eat and drink...” (On The Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, v. 1, p. 34)

“Elder Hyde told of the excellent white wine he drank in the east. Joseph prophesied in the name of the Lord--that he would drink wine with him in that country.” (Joseph Smith, Diary, 20 January, 1843)

Benjamin F. Johnson, a personal friend of Joseph Smith, wrote the following about Joseph: “He was partial to a well-supplied table and he did not always refuse the wine that ‘maketh the heart glad.’” (A letter by Benjamin F. Johnson to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, page 4)

“We then partook of some refreshments, and our hearts were made glad with the fruit of the vine.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, page 369)

“Elders Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, and Warren Parrish, then presented the Presidency with three servers of glasses filled with wine to bless. And it fell to my lot to attend to this duty, which I cheerfully discharged. It was then passed round in order, then the cake in the same order; and suffice it to say, our hearts were made glad while partaking of the bounty of earth which was presented, until we had taken our fill...” (History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 378)

On July 1, 1845, Hosea Stout recorded: “This day there was a grand concert...we had also the 12 and other authorities with us, and was also provided with as much beer, wine, cakes &c as we could eat and drink.” (On The Mormon Frontier, The Diary of Hosea Stout, v. 1, page 50)

The Word of Wisdom was intended to protect us from evil and conspiring men in The Last Days. Hence the lack of emphasis until the early 1900's.

[awake]

This is a little confusing, for if Joseph drank alcohol all his adult life, I wonder why he refused it as a child when he was about to have that painful operation?

[Juliette]

This is a little confusing, for if Joseph drank alcohol all his adult life, I wonder why he refused it as a child when he was about to have that painful operation?

Good point awake. I am confused about this also.

[Original_Intent]

The first thing that comes to mind is there is likely a difference in alcohol content of wine and beer, and wahtever was offered to Joseph to help him endure the leg surgery. I don't know that is the case - does the WoW prohibit alcohol or is it "strong drink". I'm not suggesting that the current policy of abstinence is wrong, but it may not have been the original interpretation, either.

[EmmaLee]

This is a little confusing, for if Joseph drank alcohol all his adult life, I wonder why he refused it as a child when he was about to have that painful operation?

My understanding is that he was offered liquor to dull the pain of the leg operation, and that is different than wine and/or beer - neither of which were against the WoW until the early 1900's.

[EmmaLee]

The first thing that comes to mind is there is likely a difference in alcohol content of wine and beer, and wahtever was offered to Joseph to help him endure the leg surgery. I don't know that is the case - does the WoW prohibit alcohol or is it "strong drink". I'm not suggesting that the current policy of abstinence is wrong, but it may not have been the original interpretation, either.

"Strong drink" referred to what we would call hard liquor, not to wine or beer, which were both acceptable until about 100 years ago.

[HeirofNumenor]

I think it would be important to keep conspiracy and other scary stuff completely out of it at the early stages. Just education on principles, such as kind of a book club where you read "The Law" and got together once a week to discuss. Or study the Constitution and the writings that influenced the founders such as John Locke's 2nd Treatise on government. (Random thought, did his 1st treatise just suck, or is it just not as well known?)

OI -
John Locke's 1st Treatise is not as well known as the 2nd (Social Compact/private property), but I have read it, and it is generally boring and a much harder read - about as hard as Hobbe's Leviathan (but in better english) though thankfully not hard as Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations.

[HeirofNumenor]

Great post Aussie -

Aussie, thank you for the compliment. Most of the men on this forum are like you.
trust me. im one of a kind


They spar with me but are also respectful.( maybe they feel sorry for me! )
i dont spar. you win. i concede every time


One of my favorite friends lives in Brisbane. He is blunt,
he is australian

but also humble.
he is polynesian




Your reply was just great!
I am more than willing to admit that I go with my heart, and not so much with intellect. I do know this however. This is the Lord's church. If men or women had to be perfect, to hold a leadership position, there would be no leaders. . I admire my leaders, the GA"s and our Prophet. I don't question them. I don't need to.
i dont believe we need to but i believe we are told to, and should

I am not a follower. I am very fiesty ( I'm sure you are laughing at that statement! haha). But I can honestly tell you, I have never, never, had anything but positive feelings about this church. Everything makes perfect sense to me. I have held several leadership positions. It only increased my testimony. Yes, there are people who frustrate me, but the Gospel is true!
all of which is correct sis
mind you, like Awake tries to get across, the perfection of the gospel has nothing to do with the imperfection of the people who are part of it (and being perfected in it) and vice versa

I am not voting for Mitt Romney because he is LDS. I am voting for him because I think he is a great alternative to what we've got.
can't argue with that
Yes, Ron Paul would have been a good President, but like it or not, he is not accepted or electable. I just hope he has the sense to not dilute the vote.
sigh. is that an LDS warrior talking?
how many analogies can i throw in?
when were you nuetered?, better to die on you rfeet than live on your knees, all it takes for evil to triumph is good people do nothing
im sorry, i think that is an attitude you will look past one day and see the error in it as a way of thinking
have you thought maybe Romney is the one diluting the vote?
Abinadi was unelectable. im not equating ron p with abinadi, just saying good never is popular
wont it worry you to see mitt being popular?


Gingrich is icky. Santorum just wasn't what I wanted. I wanted Mitt in the last election. If we had a candidate besides John McCain, we might not have gotton stuck with Obama. I want him OUT. I pray Mitt can do it!

lol sis. wake up. you know, its not who votes that counts...you know...

You don't like America or most Americans? I love America. My Grandfather, Father and husband have all fought so we can have freedom.
maybe your grandfather. maybe
the rest sorry, no. they were pawns of gadiantons preserving and perpetuating empire


You are controlled and cannot even have a gun. Nope, not here! It is still a great nation!
i could only wish to have a the rights enshrined in your constitution and bill of rights.
if i had one like that, id never let them water it down and trample on it like they do


How can we support the candidate, who in your opinion reflects lds values, when we know he can't win?

well with that attitude held by LDS as a start, no, they never will
but what, you think we can beat the gadiantons too?
har. no. we can't. but our test is to do the right, armour up and go out on the field, ready for battle
maybe if enough people stop blindly supporting the status quo with attitudes like yours...?
im so sad to read that. its like you gave in to the lesser of two evils. obama or romney
you need to be braver juliet, be a leader, not a defeatist.
its not about who wins, its about what people we become through this
its not who wins the battle, its if we will turn up
THATS what sorts the sheep from the goats in this battle
the church leaders will never tell us to stand behind them and fall in. it doesnt work that way
we've been told in the scriptures what to do
its not up to us
that GAs and leaders don't, won't, or can't, is irrelevant
this is our OWN battles.
too many LDS think they need to be commanded.
on the contrary, they need to lead
these are the people god wants as his leaders in his kingdom
which are you going to be juliet?


I value my vote. I am going to place it where I think it can do the most good. Simple as that..
braveheart film. william wallace is out on the field waiting for the flank attack as planned and then his "ally" lines up with the enemy.
mitt, barrack, ron. at the end of the day it wont make a dimes difference cos the USA is going to hell in a handbasket- as they say
but you are voting Darth ahead of Luke, saying the emporer is so bad, but luke wont beat him, so Darth is more likely to be not as bad, so you are throwing your hat in with him.
hows that for an example eh! pretty poor, but as an LDS, come on, you can do better
we need warriors out there juliette. not followers taking the easiest course



I am sorry you left the church. My friend in Brisbane has declared that he no longer believes in organized religion. We met him while he was serving a mission in Arizona.
re-read juliette. i teach gospel essentials and LOVE it. i havent left the church, i found Christ. one day you might understand what i mean.
the church is not the gospel. it will not save me. it is just a noun.
i enjoyed bishopric and high council and all that, done very other calling, love this the most.

I could not leave the sweetness this gospel brings into my life.
you don't have to.
what i am saying is that peace and salvation is not found in a building, or in a program, or in a talk. it is found in christ - as you agree i see

Once again, I appreciate your response. :ymhug:

i must be in a mellow mood or something. thats about an annual dose of nice from me. Lyra the Harp must be near Vega. or something like that
peace out

[patriotsaint]

This is a little confusing, for if Joseph drank alcohol all his adult life, I wonder why he refused it as a child when he was about to have that painful operation?

Maybe the refusal came because the Doctor was asking him to drink himself into a stupor. This is different than simply having a drink or two in moderation.