LDS Freedom Forum

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:03 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:01 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:00 am
If they attempt to take away the basics rights of liberty and freedom, there will be blood.

You sound like the king-men.

• ”Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.” (Alma 48:17)

Enough of your false accusations and excuses for rejecting the words of the Savior.

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Pick a side.

”And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.”

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:28 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:03 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:01 am

Enough of your false accusations and excuses for rejecting the words of the Savior.

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Pick a side.

”And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.”

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So you will take up arms and root out evil. Because if we were all like Moroni, the devil would have no power.

Anything less that free-will is satanic.

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:29 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:03 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:01 am

Enough of your false accusations and excuses for rejecting the words of the Savior.

This is just getting ridiculous now.

Pick a side.

”And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.”

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So was Daniel from the Bible not following the commandments of Jesus Christ when he continued to pray so that others could see him praying? Especially because praying was against the law at the time?
I mean, he was breaking the law right?

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:36 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:28 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:03 am
Pick a side.

”And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.”

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So you will take up arms and root out evil. Because if we were all like Moroni, the devil would have no power.

Anything less that free-will is satanic.

I will take up arms if God commands me to. Otherwise I will let him fight my battles for me. The only exception is if my family is threatened with death or serious bodily harm.

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:40 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:36 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:28 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So you will take up arms and root out evil. Because if we were all like Moroni, the devil would have no power.

Anything less that free-will is satanic.

I will take up arms if God commands me to. Otherwise I will let him fight my battles for me. The only exception is if my family is threatened with death or serious bodily harm.

Sounds like we’re on the same page.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:48 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:40 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:36 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:28 am

So you will take up arms and root out evil. Because if we were all like Moroni, the devil would have no power.

Anything less that free-will is satanic.

I will take up arms if God commands me to. Otherwise I will let him fight my battles for me. The only exception is if my family is threatened with death or serious bodily harm.

Sounds like we’re on the same page.

I don't think we are. But we each get to decide for ourselves what we will do. That's the beauty of free agency.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:29 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:03 am
Pick a side.

”And it came to pass that Moroni commanded that his army should go against those king-men, to pull down their pride and their nobility and level them with the earth, or they should take up arms and support the cause of liberty.”

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So was Daniel from the Bible not following the commandments of Jesus Christ when he continued to pray so that others could see him praying? Especially because praying was against the law at the time?
I mean, he was breaking the law right?

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:29 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:24 am

My side is following the commandments of Jesus Christ.

So was Daniel from the Bible not following the commandments of Jesus Christ when he continued to pray so that others could see him praying? Especially because praying was against the law at the time?
I mean, he was breaking the law right?

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:29 am

So was Daniel from the Bible not following the commandments of Jesus Christ when he continued to pray so that others could see him praying? Especially because praying was against the law at the time?
I mean, he was breaking the law right?

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 10:53 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 9:16 pm

Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 8:35 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 7:41 pm

Checks and balances were never the the argument. Now you’re shifting to another topic and still no actual content from your side of the debate to provide direct sources for your argument that the feds can take rights away with whatever law they decide to impose.

I'm not shifting to another topic at all. The power of the government is checked primarily by other levels and branches of the government. That is how it was set up. There is nothing in the Constitution that limits the governments ability to enact laws that restrict the rights of citizens, which aren't expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And even the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to interpretation. And it is the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause most certainly limits the fed’s ability, as there is no enumerated authority in the Constitution that allows this (and you certainly have not be able to rebut that), and as such, as the clause states, that any law that must be pursuant to it (the Constitution), otherwise is no law and has no force. The Founders were very clear about unconstitutional laws.

And the courts opine on interpretation and that’s it. They are not a legislative branch. Jefferson and others were very clear about this as well.

Yes the courts interpret the laws created by Congress and how the Constitution is to be applied. That's my point. If the courts uphold the law as constitutional, then it is constitutional until overturned at a later point in time. Any time the government restricts any activity Americans can do, they are limiting the rights of the people. And there have been many, many laws that restrict activities Americans can do that have been upheld as constitutional by the courts.

Oaks is right about what he said.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:29 am

So was Daniel from the Bible not following the commandments of Jesus Christ when he continued to pray so that others could see him praying? Especially because praying was against the law at the time?
I mean, he was breaking the law right?

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:13 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

The law you cite from D&C 58:21-22 refers to the Constitution, as evidenced in D&C 98:4-10 (also in the footnotes):

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Then we have D&C 101:77-80:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for the word bondage: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion. In ancient English law, villenage.


Then we have a couple talks from the 1882 April General Conference.

Erastus Snow:

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

Joseph F. Smith:

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

You claim that the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will, but that is patently false and you still have yet to provide any primary source to back your claims.

Serragon wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:51 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:13 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

The law you cite from D&C 58:21-22 refers to the Constitution, as evidenced in D&C 98:4-10 (also in the footnotes):

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Then we have D&C 101:77-80:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for the word bondage: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion. In ancient English law, villenage.


Then we have a couple talks from the 1882 April General Conference.

Erastus Snow:

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

Joseph F. Smith:

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

You claim that the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will, but that is patently false and you still have yet to provide any primary source to back your claims.

The problem here is that there are 2 different ideologies at play.

The first, known as "constitutional Law", is what the ruling class understand to be correct. It is the idea that the constitution was simply a starting point and that judicial rulings set precedent and become the new understanding of what is constitutional. This is the standard that we have been operating under for a long time. All of our current church leaders believe this. Nearly all of our politicians believe this, democrat or republican. All of our Supreme Court justices bleieve this except perhaps Thomas who has some love for originalism.

Here is a real example of how this works: The Constitution forbids the federal government from exercising power outside of what is specifically enumerated. So they are unable to regulate or tax private business. However, they do have the power to regulate trade among the states via the commerce clause. At some point unconstitutional legislation to regulate a business who does business in 2 states is passed that exceed the authority of the fed to regulate. When taken to court, a judge finds that the fed does have that authority because he understands the commerce clause to allow the government to regulate anyone doing business in multiple states. This becomes the new "Constitutional Law" and is now the foundation from which other decisions are made.

Legislation is then passed to regulate a business that does business in only 1 state. This is taken to court and a judge rules that because the product may eventually be sold into another state by another company, this too is covered under the commerce clause. This now becomes the new "Constitutional Law". A judge further down the road finds that if what a person does on their private land might affect someone in another state in some abstract way it can also be regulated under the commerce clause.

So we see how what is constitutional becomes twisted to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. What was a limit on government becomes the very device used to justify unlimited government. This is why Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether Obamacare was consitutional, laughed and said "Are you serious?".

The other ideology is originalism, where all law should be viewed against what is specifically stated in the original document or its amendments. Benson and Skousen would have been considered originalists, as well as Thomas on the Supreme Court. They really are few and far between.

Atticus is a proponent of "Constitutional Law" and is arguing that because a judge says its OK, it therefore is constitutional. He doesn't provide anything from the document itself because he doesn't recognize the document as authoritative.

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 11:32 am

Serragon wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:51 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:13 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

The law you cite from D&C 58:21-22 refers to the Constitution, as evidenced in D&C 98:4-10 (also in the footnotes):

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Then we have D&C 101:77-80:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for the word bondage: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion. In ancient English law, villenage.


Then we have a couple talks from the 1882 April General Conference.

Erastus Snow:

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

Joseph F. Smith:

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

You claim that the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will, but that is patently false and you still have yet to provide any primary source to back your claims.

The problem here is that there are 2 different ideologies at play.

The first, known as "constitutional Law", is what the ruling class understand to be correct. It is the idea that the constitution was simply a starting point and that judicial rulings set precedent and become the new understanding of what is constitutional. This is the standard that we have been operating under for a long time. All of our current church leaders believe this. Nearly all of our politicians believe this, democrat or republican. All of our Supreme Court justices bleieve this except perhaps Thomas who has some love for originalism.

Here is a real example of how this works: The Constitution forbids the federal government from exercising power outside of what is specifically enumerated. So they are unable to regulate or tax private business. However, they do have the power to regulate trade among the states via the commerce clause. At some point unconstitutional legislation to regulate a business who does business in 2 states is passed that exceed the authority of the fed to regulate. When taken to court, a judge finds that the fed does have that authority because he understands the commerce clause to allow the government to regulate anyone doing business in multiple states. This becomes the new "Constitutional Law" and is now the foundation from which other decisions are made.

Legislation is then passed to regulate a business that does business in only 1 state. This is taken to court and a judge rules that because the product may eventually be sold into another state by another company, this too is covered under the commerce clause. This now becomes the new "Constitutional Law". A judge further down the road finds that if what a person does on their private land might affect someone in another state in some abstract way it can also be regulated under the commerce clause.

So we see how what is constitutional becomes twisted to mean the exact opposite of its original intent. What was a limit on government becomes the very device used to justify unlimited government. This is why Nancy Pelosi, when asked whether Obamacare was consitutional, laughed and said "Are you serious?".

The other ideology is originalism, where all law should be viewed against what is specifically stated in the original document or its amendments. Benson and Skousen would have been considered originalists, as well as Thomas on the Supreme Court. They really are few and far between.

Atticus is a proponent of "Constitutional Law" and is arguing that because a judge says its OK, it therefore is constitutional. He doesn't provide anything from the document itself because he doesn't recognize the document as authoritative.

Imagine that. Not believing an actual legal document, a compact (contract) between the states and ignoring all of the revelation stating that the Constitution is from God and that we are to follow it directly.

Serragon wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:27 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

If I remember right, Alma set up a city in Lamanite lands and surrendered to the Lamanites when they were found. they were a small group of people, probably less than 600 in enemy territory.

Comparing this situation to what we find ourselves in today seems like quite a stretch. We are not in enemy territory. We are on home ground with the enemy infiltrating all positions of power and authority with the express purpose of changing the very principles this nation was founded upon. But we find our leaders using the language of the infiltrator and actively putting us into alliances and subjection to the enemy.

Instead of finding common ground with the enemy by giving up our own principles, shouldn't we be finding common ground with other Christians and individualists in order to drive out these infiltrators?

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:43 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 10:53 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 9:16 pm

Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 8:35 pm

I'm not shifting to another topic at all. The power of the government is checked primarily by other levels and branches of the government. That is how it was set up. There is nothing in the Constitution that limits the governments ability to enact laws that restrict the rights of citizens, which aren't expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And even the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to interpretation. And it is the job of the courts to interpret the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause most certainly limits the fed’s ability, as there is no enumerated authority in the Constitution that allows this (and you certainly have not be able to rebut that), and as such, as the clause states, that any law that must be pursuant to it (the Constitution), otherwise is no law and has no force. The Founders were very clear about unconstitutional laws.

And the courts opine on interpretation and that’s it. They are not a legislative branch. Jefferson and others were very clear about this as well.

Yes the courts interpret the laws created by Congress and how the Constitution is to be applied. That's my point. If the courts uphold the law as constitutional, then it is constitutional until overturned at a later point in time. Any time the government restricts any activity Americans can do, they are limiting the rights of the people. And there have been many, many laws that restrict activities Americans can do that have been upheld as constitutional by the courts.

Oaks is right about what he said.

Courts give opinions. Their opinions change depending on who is sitting on the benches. Opinions are not legislation. Neither is precedence. There are zero words in the Constitution that gives the Judicial Branch any power to change or enforce legislation. Study up here.

And still zero rebuttal other than saying "hey, I'm right, with zero primary sources to back me up."

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:13 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:37 am

Sometimes God commands his people to break unjust laws and other times he doesn't. The commandments in the D&C are specifically for us in the last days. The Lord expects us to follow them.

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

The law you cite from D&C 58:21-22 refers to the Constitution, as evidenced in D&C 98:4-10 (also in the footnotes):

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Then we have D&C 101:77-80:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for the word bondage: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion. In ancient English law, villenage.


Then we have a couple talks from the 1882 April General Conference.

Erastus Snow:

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

Joseph F. Smith:

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

You claim that the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will, but that is patently false and you still have yet to provide any primary source to back your claims.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:44 pm We can vote them out. That is the right we have under the Constitution. We don't have the right to start an insurrection.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:53 pm

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:44 pm We can vote them out. That is the right we have under the Constitution. We don't have the right to start an insurrection.

You probably think Biden won the past election fair and square, am I right?

And yes, there is a reason for the 2A and standing militias. Our founding fathers are turning over in their grave at the pacivity.

That's why I asked about which right you are not willing to give up. They'll take every single one of them and convince you it is for your good. We haven't learned anything from the past two years.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:48 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:43 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 10:53 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 17th, 2021, 9:16 pm

The Supremacy Clause most certainly limits the fed’s ability, as there is no enumerated authority in the Constitution that allows this (and you certainly have not be able to rebut that), and as such, as the clause states, that any law that must be pursuant to it (the Constitution), otherwise is no law and has no force. The Founders were very clear about unconstitutional laws.

And the courts opine on interpretation and that’s it. They are not a legislative branch. Jefferson and others were very clear about this as well.

Yes the courts interpret the laws created by Congress and how the Constitution is to be applied. That's my point. If the courts uphold the law as constitutional, then it is constitutional until overturned at a later point in time. Any time the government restricts any activity Americans can do, they are limiting the rights of the people. And there have been many, many laws that restrict activities Americans can do that have been upheld as constitutional by the courts.

Oaks is right about what he said.

Courts give opinions. Their opinions change depending on who is sitting on the benches. Opinions are not legislation. Neither is precedence. There are zero words in the Constitution that gives the Judicial Branch any power to change or enforce legislation. Study up here.

And still zero rebuttal other than saying "hey, I'm right, with zero primary sources to back me up."

What are you even talking about? When did I say that the Judicial Branch can change or enforce legislation? I didn't. They interpret the laws and the Constitution.

As for primary source evidence, please show me where in the Constitution it says that the government can't pass any laws that restrict the activities of Americans and place some restrictions on their rights? You made the charge that they can't do this. Show me where it says that.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:51 pm

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 10:13 am

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 9:07 am

Godislove wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 8:52 am

Maybe you could point me to where specifically God commanded Daniel (or his people) to break this unjust law about praying as opposed to Daniel realizing it was an unjust law and refusing to obey it.

The command in the D&C not to break the law and be subject to the powers that be is is clear and the people of Alma complied with the unjust law not to pray vocally. That's good enough for me. Not going to use the short summary of an event in the Bible to justify breaking God's commands to the church in the latter days.

The law you cite from D&C 58:21-22 refers to the Constitution, as evidenced in D&C 98:4-10 (also in the footnotes):

4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

Then we have D&C 101:77-80:

77 According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

80 And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.

From the 1828 Webster's Dictionary for the word bondage: Slavery or involuntary servitude; captivity; imprisonment; restraint of a person's liberty by compulsion. In ancient English law, villenage.


Then we have a couple talks from the 1882 April General Conference.

Erastus Snow:

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon tells that God will cause a free government to be established upon this land in the latter days, 3 Ne. 21:4 and inasmuch as the people will serve the Lord they shall forever be a free people. Ether 2:12 And in the Doctrine and Covenants is contained a revelation which was given to the Latter-day Saints in the early history of the Church, commanding us to uphold [p. 91a]and maintain the principles of freedom and liberty, as claimed by our fathers and consolidated in the Constitution of the United States, D&C 98:4-10 and in which is written this remarkable declaration: “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God has no need to break the laws of the land;” D&C 58:21 and we are further told that we should uphold and maintain that law which is the Constitutional law of the land; D&C 98:4-6 for, the Lord said, the Constitution was established by wise men whom he raised up for that purpose, after the land had been redeemed by bloodshed. D&C 101:80 This doctrine was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith, in the early days of this people, and cannot be separated from the religion we have embraced; and by the help of the Lord we mean to maintain those principles to the end, notwithstanding that some of our American statesmen wax wanton in their feelings and tyrannical in their acts and expressions, while religious bigots and political demagogues are undermining the foundations of our American institutions.

Joseph F. Smith:

I firmly believe that the only way in which we can be sustained in regard to this matter by God our Heavenly Father is by following the illustrious examples we find in holy writ. And while we regret, and look with sorrow upon the acts [p. 71b] of men who seek to bring us into bondage and to oppress us, we must obey God, for He has commanded us to do so; and at the same time He has declared that in obeying the laws which He has given us we will not necessarily break the constitutional laws of the land. D&C 58:21
I wish to enter here my avowal that the people called Latter-day Saints, as has been often repeated from this stand, are the most law-abiding, the most peaceable, long-suffering and patient people that can today be found within the confines of this republic, and perhaps anywhere else upon the face of the earth; and we intend to continue to be law-abiding so far as the constitutional law of the land is concerned; and we expect to meet the consequences of our obedience to the laws and commandments of Godlike men. These are my sentiments briefly expressed, upon this subject.

You claim that the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will, but that is patently false and you still have yet to provide any primary source to back your claims.

When did I say that "the Constitution gives the feds the authority to restrict rights at will?" I didn't say that. Stop setting up a strawman to try and knock down.

If Congress passes a law, the President signs off on it, and the courts uphold it, then it is Constitutional. That's the way it works. And that includes limiting certain rights and privileges, which many, many laws do.

Reluctant Watchman wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:53 pm

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 12:44 pm We can vote them out. That is the right we have under the Constitution. We don't have the right to start an insurrection.

You probably think Biden won the past election fair and square, am I right?

And yes, there is a reason for the 2A and standing militias. Our founding fathers are turning over in their grave at the pacivity.

That's why I asked about which right you are not willing to give up. They'll take every single one of them and convince you it is for your good. We haven't learned anything from the past two years.

Atticus wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:03 pm There was definitely media collusion and fraud, but to what level the fraud actually impacted the election results is hard to say.