12th Article of Faith

[Texan]

Obviously, we believe in being subject to governments and the rule of law. I'm wondering how saints around the world are able to reconcile our/their beliefs with oppressive laws and governments? I believe that men like the reformers and more particularly the founding fathers of the United States of America were divinely inspired to rebel against their governments to create freedom so that the gospel could be restored in its fullness. I'm also aware that many countries have experienced rebellions that were sinister and evil and resulted in the loss of freedom. Rebellion is not inherently good but, when God inspires people to improve their situations, it is always righteous.

Of course, we always follow the prophet so none of us are going to be inspired to be a Martin Luther or a George Washington. However, there have been times where LDS church members have been in situations where it was not possible to live the law of the land AND fully live the gospel. One example is in Europe prior to World War II when Jews, particularly in Germany, were severely persecuted. No one was allowed to befriend them, associate with them, do business with them, etc. Some church members were of Jewish decent. Most church members at least had neighbors, co-workers or acquaintances that were Jewish. As laws became more restrictive for the Jews, they also became more difficult for real Christians who knew they should love their neighbors.

I am not aware of any communication from the prophet or church leaders to the European members of the church regarding their treatment of Jews especially pertaining to local laws. It is certainly possible that there was something that I haven't heard of. Either way, active latter-day saints often chose to follow the law of the land citing the 12th article of faith. Certainly, their and their families safety had to be a consideration in some of the worst circumstances. Still, at a safe distance of time and space, it seems hard to believe that true Christians would persecute fellow Israelites. Those that truly understood the teachings of Jesus and disobeyed the laws of the land suffered greatly. Which was the greater "law"?

As we watch the world become more wicked and the devil gains greater power over more and more people and countries, it seems inevitable that laws will be instituted that conflict with our beliefs. What do we obey? Do we wait, as some European Saints, for the prophet to give specific directions? Do we strictly adhere to the 12th A of F? Do we follow the higher law of God and possibly put our families in danger? How do you think we choose the right?

[Wiikwajio]

Obviously, we believe in being subject to governments and the rule of law.

Of course, we always follow the prophet so none of us are going to be inspired to be a Martin Luther or a George Washington.

I am not aware of any communication from the prophet or church leaders to the European members of the church regarding their treatment of Jews especially pertaining to local laws.

How do you think we choose the right?

Why is that obvious that we believe in being subjects? A sovereign is not a subject. Law comes from the sovereignty and We the People are the sovereignty in the USA. So why is it obvious that we support being subjects? The Declaration of Independence threw off the notion that we would remain subjects. It was inspired by God. We became like Israel of old, before the wickedness of kings and masters and became subject only to ourselves. That is what the Constitution is to protect and defend. That is what we are to fight for. Not subjection but liberty and personal responsibility.

Why would we not be inspired to be a Washington? The Church is not to direct the political activities on any nation. We have been told this time and again. Captain Moroni was not called by the Prophet to the the Captain of the military. Does China not need a Washington? Does North Korea not need a Washington? Does Iraq not need a Washington to throw off US oppression and murderers? Does the USA not need to though off the tyranny of the Twin Party system of Fascism and the Federal Reserve and IRS?

Why would the Prophet need to say anything about the treatment of the Jews at any time after the Book of Mormon was published? It tells how evil such treatment is in the Book of Mormon. Nephi is quite clear.

To choose the right is to listen to the still small voice because you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and you are not a Slothful Servant. If you wait for the prophet to tell you what to do then you have lost the possible glory according to Not Commanded in All Things by Benson in General Conference. To wait for the prophet is the path to a lower kingdom.

http://www.spingola.com/not_commanded_in_all_things.htm

[Texan]

The specific wording of the 12th Article of Faith is, "We believe in being SUBJECT to kings, presidents, rulers... That's why it's obvious. The Prophet Joseph Smith used that direct wording.

Our country already had a George Washington so those of us that live here in the USA don't need to overthrow the government and create a new one like he did. Other countries may need someone like him and let's hope the Lord sends someone to them. I'm just trying to make sure that no one thinks I'm advocating an overthrow of any government.

My point is that sometimes governments and laws contradict the teachings of the church and do we have the courage to live the higher law even if the prophet and church leaders haven't specifically told us how we should behave on an hourly basis? Would we be willing to risk it all to do the right thing?

I say, sadly, most wouldn't! Too many people won't participate in good things because the prophet didn't tell them to. I've met many non-members who have made comments like, "the Lord put it in my heart to ..." or "I just felt like it was what I was called to do." Too many church members have said, "Well, I'm not ... until the prophet tells me to"

[Wiikwajio]

The specific wording of the 12th Article of Faith is, "We believe in being SUBJECT to kings, presidents, rulers... That's why it's obvious. The Prophet Joseph Smith used that direct wording.

Our country already had a George Washington so those of us that live here in the USA don't need to overthrow the government and create a new one like he did. Other countries may need someone like him and let's hope the Lord sends someone to them. I'm just trying to make sure that no one thinks I'm advocating an overthrow of any government.

My point is that sometimes governments and laws contradict the teachings of the church and do we have the courage to live the higher law even if the prophet and church leaders haven't specifically told us how we should behave on an hourly basis? Would we be willing to risk it all to do the right thing?

I say, sadly, most wouldn't! Too many people won't participate in good things because the prophet didn't tell them to. I've met many non-members who have made comments like, "the Lord put it in my heart to ..." or "I just felt like it was what I was called to do." Too many church members have said, "Well, I'm not ... until the prophet tells me to"

I have risked it all. Why? Because the still small spirit that is to give is hourly instructions and to be with us always told me to. And you are so right. Most members will wait until commanded in all things.

And it is not obvious that Joseph Smith said we are subjects or that we are to be subjects.

I claim is says that we are only to be subject to kings (There is no king in America so that does not apply) Presidents (there is on of those but he is a public servant in America and we are not subject to him by law so that does not apply ) and rulers (we have no ruler in America so that does not apply) so that article of faith does not and cannot apply to Americans but only to subjects of OTHER countries. And the 12th article does not include a conjunction so we would only be subject to such rulers etc. if THEY the kings, president s and rulers obey honor and sustain the law, not us. Sec. 134 is far more clear. We are to rise up against men that do not protect our inalienable rights. It is our duty to throw off evil government. The Declaration of Independence says so.

Therefore is it not as "obvious" as you claim. I am subject to no SERVANT and that is all we have in America. SERVANTS. So the 12th CANNOT apply to us Sovereigns!

And Thomas Jefferson said we needed a revolution every 20 years. We need another Washington in America to restore the God given Constitution and put the SERVANT president back in his servant quarters to do what he is told to do by We the People. We are not subjects to a the President. He is subject to us. We are the Sovereignty. We are Caesar. We all need to be Washingtons!

[A]t the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects. with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. (US) @ Dall 419, 4541 L Ed 440, 455 @ Dall 1793 pp.471-472.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Sheriff, the Supreme Court ruled:

Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to the law, for it is the author and source of law, but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts... For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life or the means of living or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself. (118 U. 5. 356.)

In Scott v. Sandford, Mo. they ruled:

The words ‘sovereign people’ are those who form the sovereign, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. Every citizen is one of these people and a constituent member of this sovereignty.’ 60 US 393 404

http://www.sovereignfellowship.com/tos/21.2/

You are NOT required to be a subject. We are kings. We MUST act like KINGS not subjects.

[obamohno]

The specific wording of the 12th Article of Faith is, "We believe in being SUBJECT to kings, presidents, rulers... That's why it's obvious. The Prophet Joseph Smith used that direct wording.

Our country already had a George Washington so those of us that live here in the USA don't need to overthrow the government and create a new one like he did. Other countries may need someone like him and let's hope the Lord sends someone to them. I'm just trying to make sure that no one thinks I'm advocating an overthrow of any government.

My point is that sometimes governments and laws contradict the teachings of the church and do we have the courage to live the higher law even if the prophet and church leaders haven't specifically told us how we should behave on an hourly basis? Would we be willing to risk it all to do the right thing?

I say, sadly, most wouldn't! Too many people won't participate in good things because the prophet didn't tell them to. I've met many non-members who have made comments like, "the Lord put it in my heart to ..." or "I just felt like it was what I was called to do." Too many church members have said, "Well, I'm not ... until the prophet tells me to"

Do you think I should have a voluntary choice to "subject" myself to some large or small group of peoples laws?

Would it be within your religious world view to give me that much? Could I live my life peacefully in a non-aggressive non-forceful way that doesn't infringe on anybody elses ability to do the same without being subject to whatever made up laws you want to subject yourself to and whatever monopoly of force rules you want to be the slave or livestock of?

I would never think of advocating some kind of force to subject you to this kind of tyranny against your will, would you accord me the same?

[Wiikwajio]

Do you think I should have a voluntary choice to "subject" myself to some large or small group of peoples laws?

Would it be within your religious world view to give me that much? Could I live my life peacefully in a non-aggressive non-forceful way that doesn't infringe on anybody elses ability to do the same without being subject to whatever made up laws you want to subject yourself to and whatever monopoly of force rules you want to be the slave or livestock of?

I would never think of advocating some kind of force to subject you to this kind of tyranny against your will, would you accord me the same?

Well of course you can subject yourself to any form of government. Even the 13th Amendment does not restrict voluntary slavery. Most Americans are, after all, voluntary slaves.

If you do subject yourself to a government founded on a False Ism like Socialism, Marxism, Communism Fascism, Corporatism then you will be placed before the judgment bar of God knowing you placed yourself under the dominion of such a political state voluntarily.

Sam Adams had something to say on the subject. I agree with Sam:“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” — Samuel Adams, 1772

The First Presidency was pretty clear about your faithfulness to the gosple if you CHOOSE to be subject to a False Ism. This statement is still on LDS.org and has never been abrogated by the First Presidency.

First Presidency Message, in Conference Report, Apr. 1942
False Political Isms
We again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery and then enslave them.

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.

But I agree that it is your choice.

[Texan]

I was hoping to have an intellectual discussion about how to reconcile "We believe in being subject to Kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." and obedience to laws that contradict this belief.

You people are contentious! Never mind. It was just supposed to be a thought-provoking concept.

[Original_Intent]

I was hoping to have an intellectual discussion about how to reconcile "We believe in being subject to Kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." and obedience to laws that contradict this belief.

You people are contentious! Never mind. It was just supposed to be a thought-provoking concept.

Actually the 12th article of faith states:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

There is a subtle but important difference. No, it is not that you capitalized "kings". Consider the difference and tell me if it makes any difference or if you think I am straining at a gnat. When you find the difference, expound to me what difference it makes. It is kind of like deciding what the meaning of the word "is" is.

[SmallFarm]

I was hoping to have an intellectual discussion about how to reconcile "We believe in being subject to Kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." and obedience to laws that contradict this belief.

You people are contentious! Never mind. It was just supposed to be a thought-provoking concept.

Meh... you'll get used to wiik.... or you could just put him on your foes list and you won't have to read his posts.

[obamohno]

Do you think I should have a voluntary choice to "subject" myself to some large or small group of peoples laws?

Would it be within your religious world view to give me that much? Could I live my life peacefully in a non-aggressive non-forceful way that doesn't infringe on anybody elses ability to do the same without being subject to whatever made up laws you want to subject yourself to and whatever monopoly of force rules you want to be the slave or livestock of?

I would never think of advocating some kind of force to subject you to this kind of tyranny against your will, would you accord me the same?

Well of course you can subject yourself to any form of government. Even the 13th Amendment does not restrict voluntary slavery. Most Americans are, after all, voluntary slaves.

If you do subject yourself to a government founded on a False Ism like Socialism, Marxism, Communism Fascism, Corporatism then you will be placed before the judgment bar of God knowing you placed yourself under the dominion of such a political state voluntarily.

Sam Adams had something to say on the subject. I agree with Sam:“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” — Samuel Adams, 1772

The First Presidency was pretty clear about your faithfulness to the gosple if you CHOOSE to be subject to a False Ism. This statement is still on LDS.org and has never been abrogated by the First Presidency.

First Presidency Message, in Conference Report, Apr. 1942
False Political Isms
We again warn our people in America of the constantly increasing threat against our inspired Constitution and our free institutions set up under it. The same political tenets and philosophies that have brought war and terror in other parts of the world are at work amongst us in America. The proponents thereof are seeking to undermine our own form of government and to set up instead one of the forms of dictatorships now flourishing in other lands. These revolutionists are using a technique that is as old as the human race—a fervid but false solicitude for the unfortunate over whom they thus gain mastery and then enslave them.

They suit their approaches to the particular group they seek to deceive. Among the Latter-day Saints they speak of their philosophy and their plans under it as an ushering in of the United Order. Communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order. They are merely the clumsy counterfeits which Satan always devises of the gospel plan. Communism debases the individual and makes him the enslaved tool of the state to whom he must look for sustenance and religion; the United Order exalts the individual, leaves him his property, "according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs," (D&C 51:3) and provides a system by which he helps care for his less fortunate brethren; the United Order leaves every man free to choose his own religion as his conscience directs. Communism destroys man's God-given free agency; the United Order glorifies it. Latter-day Saints can not be true to their faith and lend aid, encouragement, or sympathy to any of these false philosophies. They will prove snares to their feet.

But I agree that it is your choice.

Do you believe I should be able to subject myself to "no" form of government and act on a voluntary basis with my fellow human beings who want to do the same?

[jnjnelson]

I was hoping to have an intellectual discussion about how to reconcile "We believe in being subject to Kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." and obedience to laws that contradict this belief.

You people are contentious! Never mind. It was just supposed to be a thought-provoking concept.

Actually the 12th article of faith states:

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

There is a subtle but important difference. No, it is not that you capitalized "kings". Consider the difference and tell me if it makes any difference or if you think I am straining at a gnat. When you find the difference, expound to me what difference it makes. It is kind of like deciding what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Two letters make all the difference, don't they?

The word "and" implies the joining of two separate concepts. If the word were originally "and", it would imply that the phrase "we believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates" stands on its own, separate from the concept of "we believe in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." However, because the word "in" is the actual word used, it implies that the first part of the 12th Article of Faith is not separate from the last part; it implies that the first part is conditional upon the last part. Another way of saying it is "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, so long as doing so does not conflict with our belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

[Wiikwajio]

I was hoping to have an intellectual discussion about how to reconcile "We believe in being subject to Kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates and obeying, honoring and sustaining the law." and obedience to laws that contradict this belief.

You people are contentious! Never mind. It was just supposed to be a thought-provoking concept.

So if we basically agree with your position or close to it then is it thought provoking but if we disagree with it then it is contentious?

Why did you post it if you did not want people to write honestly about what they thought about what you wrote?

Is honesty contentious?

[Wiikwajio]

Do you believe I should be able to subject myself to "no" form of government and act on a voluntary basis with my fellow human beings who want to do the same?

I believe there is reality and fantasy.

You DO have such a choice. It always has costs involved. How much are you willing to pay. Your life? Your liberty?

[Wiikwajio]

Another way of saying it is "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, so long as doing so does not conflict with our belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Correct. And Amen.

However if the law of the land does not create subjects then how can a person be a subject.

Americans are not subjects. They are the sovereignty. From the President to the Sheriff the elected officials are nothing more than public servants. Why would the sovereignty be subject to the servants? Being subjects turns the whole American system on its head and makes the servants the rulers. We are not vassals to the president. n fact the President has practically no legal direct authority over the average no Federal employee at all.

That is why the 12th makes no sense without the law of the land considered. A person in China is a subject. A person in England is a subject. An American is a sovereign.

I believe the 12th is very much a parable. I find nothing it it that applies to Americans.

Therefore if a president, the only one in the group listed, that could honestly be considered in the American system, claimed that we were his subjects, he would not be obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

Main Entry: sub·ject
1 : one that is placed under authority or control: as a : vassal b (1) : one subject to a monarch and governed by the monarch's law

Main Entry: vas·sal

1 : a person under the protection of a feudal lord to whom he has vowed homage and fealty : a feudal tenant
2 : one in a subservient or subordinate position

We the People are the sovereignty.

CONSIDER:

After each of the delegates had signed the Declaration of Independence Samuel Adams declared: We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come.

Jonathan Turmbull a Crown-appointed Governor wrote back to England: If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ.

The Committees of Correspondence sounded the cry across the Colonies: NO King but KING JESUS

The men of Marlborough, Massachusetts unanimously declared in 1773: Death is more eligible than slavery, a free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny, but may make use of such power as God has given them to recover and support their laws and liberties...

These men of Marlborough implored, the Ruler above the skies, that He would make bare His arm in defense of His Church and people, and let Israel go.

[ktg]

I think it also makes it clearer to add:

Another way of saying it is "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, so long as doing so does not conflict with our belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law which is constitutional."

Wiik,
I may not agree with everything you write, but your posts in this thread are well written and spot on.

[Original_Intent]

Well, hopefully Texan has found the posts since his last one sufficiently intellectually stimulating.

[Wiikwajio]

I think it also makes it clearer to add:

Another way of saying it is "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, so long as doing so does not conflict with our belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law which is constitutional."

Wiik,
I may not agree with everything you write, but your posts in this thread are well written and spot on.

I don't agree with everything I write. I think by writing. I test myself and my beliefs.I look for weakness and error. But if there is one thing I know it is that we are here on earth to become gods, are gods in embryos and are here to learn what we need to learn to be gods. if you are a subject and are told what to do and need to be obedient to another's will then you are not learning what you need to know to rule yourself.

As Joseph Smith said: "I teach my people correct principles and they govern themselves."

Look at the Book of Mormon after Christ came. What form of government did they have? It is never mentioned. I always found that fascinating. No kings except themselves. No judges. No subjects. 150 years of liberty. Is that not really what we should be striving for. Then why not practice it in our lives today?

I have been working on a small independent State for a long time. I appear to be very close to that kind of liberty. Diplomatic immunity.

One thing I learned long ago is that the freest person on this earth was a foreigner in the United States of America. Add diplomatic immunity on top of that and you truly are sovereign. And that is what we should be striving for. King Benjamin's speech has always been my inspiration.

Mosiah 29:
32 And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.
33 And many more things did king Mosiah write unto them, unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king; and he explained it all unto them.
34 And he told them that these things ought not to be; but that the burden should come upon all the people, that every man might bear his part.
35 And he also unfolded unto them all the disadvantages they labored under, by having an unrighteous king to rule over them;
36 Yea, all his iniquities and abominations, and all the wars, and contentions, and bloodshed, and the stealing, and the plundering, and the committing of whoredoms, and all manner of iniquities which cannot be enumerated—telling them that these things ought not to be, that they were expressly repugnant to the commandments of God.
37 And now it came to pass, after king Mosiah had sent these things forth among the people they were convinced of the truth of his words.
38 Therefore they relinquished their desires for a king, and became exceedingly anxious that every man should have an equal chance throughout all the land; yea, and every man expressed a willingness to answer for his own sins.

They became anxious to answer for their own sins. Perfect.

And look at what he says about a righteous king. It reminds me so much of the prophet we have today.: unfolding unto them all the trials and troubles of a righteous king, yea, all the travails of soul for their people, and also all the murmurings of the people to their king.

And when we wait for the prophet to tell us what to do then we are not anxious to answer for our own sins. We also place that burden upon the prophet instead of " the burden should come upon all the people." We are to sustain the prophet not the other way around. When we wait to be commanded in all things politically we are indeed wicked as we seek to place the burden of government upon one man and as King Benjamin said: "these things ought not to be."

Milk drinkers need to follow. But you cannot be a god and be a milk drinker. Meat eaters should kill their own food. Followers are just that, followers. But we are to a nation of KINGS and be anxious to answer for our own sins. Subjects are not kings and will forever be milk drinkers.

[obamohno]

Do you believe I should be able to subject myself to "no" form of government and act on a voluntary basis with my fellow human beings who want to do the same?

I believe there is reality and fantasy.

You DO have such a choice. It always has costs involved. How much are you willing to pay. Your life? Your liberty?

I believe their is reality and fantasy too and how ironic that you bring that up, lol.

Reality is that it is wrong to use aggression against peaceful people and supporting a monopoly of violence like the government to legislate your own views on personal morality and to force others to pay for services they don't want.

Fantasy is having a belief that since some God says its ok then it doesn't make it wrong.

[obamohno]

Do you believe I should be able to subject myself to "no" form of government and act on a voluntary basis with my fellow human beings who want to do the same?

I believe there is reality and fantasy.

You DO have such a choice. It always has costs involved. How much are you willing to pay. Your life? Your liberty?

I believe their is reality and fantasy too and how ironic that you bring that up, lol.

Reality is that it is wrong to use aggression against peaceful people and supporting a monopoly of violence like the government to legislate your own views on personal morality and to force others to pay for services they don't want is grossly immoral.

Fantasy is having a belief that since "God" says its ok then it doesn't make it wrong and you are justified in support aggression against peaceful people.

[Randy Due]

Texan,


Your Quote: "As we watch the world become more wicked and the devil gains greater power over more and more people and countries, it seems inevitable that laws will be instituted that conflict with our beliefs. What do we obey? Do we wait, as some European Saints, for the prophet to give specific directions? Do we strictly adhere to the 12th A of F? Do we follow the higher law of God and possibly put our families in danger? How do you think we choose the right?"

Answer: Maybe the 1st question should be are we one of those Sheep going to the Butcher who cannot think for themselves?

In this case you continue to the Butcher shop, if you must wait on some supposedly prophet to tell you what you can or cannot do.

Myself, I believe that God has told us that if we shall Seek the Truth and learn how to properly apply this Truth, that We shall be set Free!

Maybe along the way we can set others Free?

Is it possible?

Last I checked God is the Supreme , not some man. So we can check to see if any man-made rule or law agrees with our Creators Law and the Constitution. If the man-made Law doesn't agree with our Creator and the Constitution , why should we be Stupid enough to follow this Un-just and Unconstitutional Law?

Randy Due

[Wiikwajio]

Do you believe I should be able to subject myself to "no" form of government and act on a voluntary basis with my fellow human beings who want to do the same?

I believe there is reality and fantasy.

You DO have such a choice. It always has costs involved. How much are you willing to pay. Your life? Your liberty?

I believe their is reality and fantasy too and how ironic that you bring that up, lol.

Reality is that it is wrong to use aggression against peaceful people and supporting a monopoly of violence like the government to legislate your own views on personal morality and to force others to pay for services they don't want.

Fantasy is having a belief that since some God says its ok then it doesn't make it wrong.

Whenever governments pass law they legislate morality. Can you name a single law not based on imposing society's morals on others?

Being a Viking and an Odinist I am still upset about all those anti-Rape, Murder and Pillage laws. They get in the way of my religion! How am I to make it to Valhalla when I cannot raid villages and neighbors? Valhalla through Death in battle! Hail Thor!

Now as a Hindu I don't like the laws that keep the rich from stealing from the poor. The poor need to be stolen from because the Gods want us to be punished for our past lives.

As a Calvinist I know that no matter what I do it does not matter so I can do anything I want so their should be no laws that keep Calvinists from doing anything they want to do.

[obamohno]

Whenever governments pass law they legislate morality. Can you name a single law not based on imposing society's morals on others?

Being a Viking and an Odinist I am still upset about all those anti-Rape, Murder and Pillage laws. They get in the way of my religion! How am I to make it to Valhalla when I cannot raid villages and neighbors? Valhalla through Death in battle! Hail Thor!

Now as a Hindu I don't like the laws that keep the rich from stealing from the poor. The poor need to be stolen from because the Gods want us to be punished for our past lives.

As a Calvinist I know that no matter what I do it does not matter so I can do anything I want so their should be no laws that keep Calvinists from doing anything they want to do.[/quote]







And it's wrong to enforce personal morality on others who are not hurting anybody else, you disagreE?