LDS Freedom Forum

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:25 pm

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

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.

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.

Seriously?? You claim that you didn't say they have the authority to restrict rights at will and then proceed to describe the exact way they do it. You wan to talk about straw. You have your head in the sand, cramming said straw up so far up your anus, you start coughing up all manner of nonsense...

Atticus wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 6:42 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:25 pm

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

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



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):


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

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:



Joseph F. Smith:



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.

Seriously?? You claim that you didn't say they have the authority to restrict rights at will and then proceed to describe the exact way they do it. You wan to talk about straw. You have your head in the sand, cramming said straw up so far up your anus, you start coughing up all manner of nonsense...

No, I didn't say that that "they have the authority to restrict rights at will." Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances keeps the government from "restricting rights at will." It takes Congress passing a law, the President signing off on it, and the Courts upholding it. That's not "restricting rights at will." That's how our government was set up under the Constitution, which God inspired.

Since you think you're an expert on the Constitution, please show me where it says that the government can't restrict a single activity or place any limits on certain rights? I'll wait.

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:27 pm

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.

He/she is ok with counting illegitimate votes from states that broke their own election laws, which directly violated federal law. Not to mention all the other anomalies and issues surrounding several of the states.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:27 pm

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.

He/she is ok with counting illegitimate votes from states that broke their own election laws, which directly violated federal law. Not to mention all the other anomalies and issues surrounding several of the states.

Were the anomalies enough to tip the scales in favor of Biden?

I ran an analysis of the election and there's an indication that Georgia and MAYBE Arizona had just enough there to tip the votes to Biden. All the other states were pretty much within the expected margins of a four point polling error in favor of Trump (the Upper Midwestern states were actually five to six points in favor of Trump). Arizona was only a one point polling error in favor of Trump, and Georgia actually went towards Biden by a couple of points which is REALLY suspicious.

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:01 am

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:27 pm

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

He/she is ok with counting illegitimate votes from states that broke their own election laws, which directly violated federal law. Not to mention all the other anomalies and issues surrounding several of the states.

Were the anomalies enough to tip the scales in favor of Biden?

I ran an analysis of the election and there's an indication that Georgia and MAYBE Arizona had just enough there to tip the votes to Biden. All the other states were pretty much within the expected margins of a four point polling error in favor of Trump (the Upper Midwestern states were actually five to six points in favor of Trump). Arizona was only a one point polling error in favor of Trump, and Georgia actually went towards Biden by a couple of points which is REALLY suspicious.

The 5 states that broke state and federal election laws should have not been counted at all.
And we don't know about the anomalies from PA, WI, and MI. There has been no deep audit for those states.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:09 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:01 am

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 1:27 pm

He/she is ok with counting illegitimate votes from states that broke their own election laws, which directly violated federal law. Not to mention all the other anomalies and issues surrounding several of the states.

Were the anomalies enough to tip the scales in favor of Biden?

I ran an analysis of the election and there's an indication that Georgia and MAYBE Arizona had just enough there to tip the votes to Biden. All the other states were pretty much within the expected margins of a four point polling error in favor of Trump (the Upper Midwestern states were actually five to six points in favor of Trump). Arizona was only a one point polling error in favor of Trump, and Georgia actually went towards Biden by a couple of points which is REALLY suspicious.

The 5 states that broke state and federal election laws should have not been counted at all.
And we don't know about the anomalies from PA, WI, and MI. There has been no deep audit for those states.

Which states were those and which laws were broken?

If you are going to do an audit, do an audit of all 50 states.

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 10:16 am

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:09 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:01 am

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 am

Were the anomalies enough to tip the scales in favor of Biden?

I ran an analysis of the election and there's an indication that Georgia and MAYBE Arizona had just enough there to tip the votes to Biden. All the other states were pretty much within the expected margins of a four point polling error in favor of Trump (the Upper Midwestern states were actually five to six points in favor of Trump). Arizona was only a one point polling error in favor of Trump, and Georgia actually went towards Biden by a couple of points which is REALLY suspicious.

The 5 states that broke state and federal election laws should have not been counted at all.
And we don't know about the anomalies from PA, WI, and MI. There has been no deep audit for those states.

Which states were those and which laws were broken?

If you are going to do an audit, do an audit of all 50 states.

I'll have to double check, but definitely PA, GA, WI, and MI. State laws have an exact day things must be sent and received. These states had various state officials modify their election laws, without legislation, and accepted votes outside of their respective state laws, which breaks federal law.

Pulled from online:
Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives plenary power to the state legislatures to choose their electors.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives (which states combine with POTUS elections and local), shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 6:02 pm

Gadianton Slayer wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 5:57 pm

Korsgaard46 wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 5:40 pm Such a foolish statement from Oaks, especially since he pushes religious freedom. With this mind set governments slowly, through precedent, remove your freedoms. Oaks better hope the 1st Amendment is absolute otherwise the future of his religion may be in peril.

He literally says in the same talk that the first amendment isn’t absolute.

I think he is more qualified than most of us to say what the First Amendment says and doesn't say.

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 11:34 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 10:16 am

Subcomandante wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:09 am

Niyr wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 9:01 am

The 5 states that broke state and federal election laws should have not been counted at all.
And we don't know about the anomalies from PA, WI, and MI. There has been no deep audit for those states.

Which states were those and which laws were broken?

If you are going to do an audit, do an audit of all 50 states.

I'll have to double check, but definitely PA, GA, WI, and MI. State laws have an exact day things must be sent and received. These states had various state officials modify their election laws, without legislation, and accepted votes outside of their respective state laws, which breaks federal law.

Pulled from online:
Pennsylvania: The complaint accuses Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar of, among other things, “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogating” Pennsylvania statutes that require “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots.” These changes were “not ratified” by the Pennsylvania legislature.
Georgia: Similarly, the complaint describes how Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, also “without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated Georgia’s statute governing the signature verification process for absentee ballots.”
Michigan: The complaint states that Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson “abrogated Michigan election statutes related to absentee ballot applications and signature verification.”
Wisconsin: Lastly, the Wisconsin’s elections commission made similar changes in state laws without the permission of the legislature that “weakened, or did away with, established security procedures put in place by the Wisconsin legislature to ensure absentee ballot integrity.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution gives plenary power to the state legislatures to choose their electors.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives (which states combine with POTUS elections and local), shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.

If you put it that way, then we would be talking about anti-constitutional measures having been done by the executive authorities of each state when the true power would reside in the state legislatures.

I think it is preposterous that you guys don't do signature verification on your absentee ballots. Anyone could essentially vote under those circumstances. Not that I don't believe you.

Robin Hood wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 7:04 am

Sunain wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 6:24 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 4:01 pm Oaks' credibility is completely shot as far as I'm concerned. And the fact that he's next in line for the top job doesn't bode at all well.
But maybe Bishop Koyle is right and three leaders will pop their clogs in quick succession and this nightmare will be over.

I think the 3 that popped in quick succession where Packer, Perry, and Scott. Three solid members of the 12 who were all pretty senior and I feel if they were alive still, we wouldn't have the decisions coming from the church leadership that we've had in recent years. Perry died pretty quickly after his visit to the Vatican...

I know that's the common interpretation, I just don't agree with it. I think we'll literally have three church presidents die in quick succession.
The reason is that we also had 3 apostles die in 1906, and nothing happened.

Lemarque wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 4:30 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 7:04 am

Sunain wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 6:24 pm

Robin Hood wrote: ↑November 13th, 2021, 4:01 pm Oaks' credibility is completely shot as far as I'm concerned. And the fact that he's next in line for the top job doesn't bode at all well.
But maybe Bishop Koyle is right and three leaders will pop their clogs in quick succession and this nightmare will be over.

I think the 3 that popped in quick succession where Packer, Perry, and Scott. Three solid members of the 12 who were all pretty senior and I feel if they were alive still, we wouldn't have the decisions coming from the church leadership that we've had in recent years. Perry died pretty quickly after his visit to the Vatican...

I know that's the common interpretation, I just don't agree with it. I think we'll literally have three church presidents die in quick succession.
The reason is that we also had 3 apostles die in 1906, and nothing happened.

Wasn't Koyle's statement given after 1906? I'm looking and can't find a year associated with the statement "Near the time of the end, many of the General Authorities will become quite old. Troubles will start when three leaders will die in close proximity to one another. The new replacements will not be able to hold the Church together" but it looks like most of his statements were around 1910 to 1940 or so.

EvanLM wrote: ↑November 22nd, 2021, 7:14 pm I think that it is extremely narrow to call out the leaders of COJCLDS like this when you know they are decieved. . . . and won't admit it.