Constitution at BYU

[Bircher]

This past September, the President of BYU and his wife gave a talk on the Constitution
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.p ... 5&x=67&y=7

It had some prety alarming things in it and thought it would be good if some people responded to the talk. you can responde to him here:
President Cecil Samuelson

Brigham Young University Provo, UT 84602

Here is my response, and would like your feedback

Dear President Samuelson,

Although I am not currently a student at BYU, I try to take the opportunity to view or at least read many of the devotionals. Recently I came across the talk that you and your wife gave in September of this year on the U.S. Constitution. I am so grateful for your encouragement to “read, study, and discuss the Constitution”.

I am grateful that the topic of the Constitution, that seems to be overlooked at times, was addressed. However, some remarks sparked some concerns that I would like to address. I will not address them all, but will keep my comments to what I feel to be most important.



Your statement, “Must we accept that it (the Constitution) is the only or final word on every matter of law?” is quite surprising. I am no law expert, however, Judge Joseph E. Nelson, formerly of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of Utah, said at a BYU devotional, “Our forefathers who drafted and adopted the Constitution September 17, 1787, declared in its Preamble the purpose of law and government, saying:

‘We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

In so doing they made this instrument the supreme law of the land, to which all other law must conform.”

An apostle of the Lord, speaking in General Conference (which to me has even more weight) said, “The Constitution thus spoken of consisted of seven Articles and became the supreme law of the land in 1788”-Elder Joseph F. Merrill, Conference, October 1941. The dictionary defines “supreme” as, “Highest in authority”. Therefore, to answer your question, yes, we must accept the Constitution as the final word on every matter of law.

You asked, “Must we support the assertions of some that it (the Constitution) has the same authority as scripture?” What is scripture? I would consider the Ten Commandments as scripture, and in General Conference 1948, a Prophet of God said, “The Constitution is as much from God as the Ten Commandments”. I would say the words of the Lord are scripture, and another Prophet of God, Joseph Fielding Smith, in General Conference of 1946 said “There has been a tendency among some Latter-day Saints, even when the Constitution is mentioned, to say, "There he goes talking politics." I am not talking politics. I am quoting the words of the Lord.” In Revelation and in Deuteronomy, the Lord said that anyone who adds or takes away from the scriptures will have the plagues added to them, the Lord said that anything more or less than the Constitution cometh of evil (D&C 98:6-7). Therefore, to answer your question, yes, we must support the assertion that it has the same authority as scripture

You made the comment, “We live in an age where much is made about the “right of privacy.” The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights do not mention privacy specifically, although some people suggest that they do.”

The dictionary defines privacy as, “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation; freedom from unauthorized intrusion”. The fourth amendment to the Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The fact that the Constitution protects your natural right against unauthorized intrusion is not a suggestion, but a statement of fact. Though the Supreme Court has misapplied this to include the right to murder unborn children, does not make the principle any less true.

You and your wife are correct that our privacy is becoming less and less a reality, and that God knows everything we do in public and in secret ad we can hide nothing from him. However, the inspired Founding Fathers were not trying to include a right to hide from God, but to protect the people from future tyranny. President David O. McKay said, and Elder L Tom Perry reiterated that, “Next to being one in worshiping God there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States”. Therefore, although we may be losing our privacy, we have duty to reverse those current trends, and uphold and defend the Constitution.

President, Samuelson, I appreciate your time and hope that this is taken in the spirit it was intended. I support wholeheartedly your words, “May our Heavenly Father bless you to have a heightened understanding of the tremendous impact for good that the United States Constitution has in the lives of each of us. Please take advantage of the unique opportunity we will all have this year to learn, understand, and appreciate it more.”

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Bravo!

[lundbaek]

Nice letter. A lot nicer than I would have written. Did you get a reply?

[Bircher]

I haven't even sent it yet. I wanted to get some feedback first. One I have received thinks I am being too harsh, and Samuelson isn't saying what I thought he said. I will re read it and see where I may be going wrong.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Just from what you wrote I can see the same concerns that you do. hang on to it for awhile before you send it..

I did the same thing with a letter to President Hinckley... I usually just write thank you letters and letters about other experiences and wanting a temple here.... but this one was different.

I held onto it over a week, and decided to mail it today.

Just so you know, I wasn't "calling him" on anything. I was just telling him how I am feeling right now and some struggles that I have faced lately in the church. I flat out asked him if I had done something wrong to have been treated as I have been because I support Ron Paul.

[Bircher]

Thanks! If some of you could read the original talk (link posted in first post) that would be great, and we might be able to come to a general agreement on what was said.

[AussieOi]

This past September, the President of BYU and his wife gave a talk on the Constitution
http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.p ... 5&x=67&y=7

It had some prety alarming things in it and thought it would be good if some people responded to the talk. you can responde to him here:
President Cecil Samuelson

wow, i was really enjoying readin that, and then I read this....

Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave this wonderful insight and clarification. Said he: "The United States Constitution was the first written constitution in the world"

Ummmm, it was what? the FIRST you say? Hmmmmmmm.

Sigh, here we go again. AussieOi introduces the other history of the world.

I agree that the US one is is commonly believed to be the oldest modern, national, codified constitution, but I can name 30 before that. Draco of Greece, Rome. Here's a few

The earliest written constitution still governing a sovereign nation today may be that of San Marino. The Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the Statuti Comunali (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the Codex Justinianus, and it remains in force today.

Japan's Seventeen-article constitution written in 604, reportedly by Prince Shōtoku, is an early example of a constitution in Asian political history.

Keep going?

Many of the Germanic peoples that filled the power vacuum left by the Western Roman Empire in the Early Middle Ages codified their laws. One of the first of these Germanic law codes to be written was the Visigothic Code of Euric (471). This was followed by the Lex Burgundionum, applying separate codes for Germans and for Romans; the Pactus Alamannorum; and the Salic Law of the Franks, all written soon after 500. In 506, the Breviarum or "Lex Romana" of Alaric II, king of the Visigoths, adopted and consolidated the Codex Theodosianus together with assorted earlier Roman laws. Systems that appeared somewhat later include the Edictum Rothari of the Lombards (643), the Lex Visigothorum (654), the Lex Alamannorum (730) and the Lex Frisionum (ca 785).

The Romans first codified their constitution in 449 BC as the Twelve Tables. They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but Roman law was never reorganised into a single code until the Codex Theodosianus (AD 438); later, in the Eastern Empire the Codex Justinianus (534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the Ecloga of Leo III the Isaurian (740) and the Basilica of Basil I (878).

Aristotle (ca 350 BC) was one of the first in recorded history to make a formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and constitutionalism, and attempting to classify different forms of constitutional government. The most basic definition he used to describe a constitution in general terms was "the arrangement of the offices in a state". In his works Constitution of Athens, Politics, and Nicomachean Ethics he explores different constitutions of his day, including those of Athens, Sparta, and Carthage. He classified both what he regarded as good and bad constitutions, and came to the conclusion that the best constitution was a mixed system, including monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements. He also distinguished between citizens, who had the exclusive opportunity to participate in the state, and non-citizens and slaves who did not.

After that, many governments ruled by special codes of written laws. The oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the Code of Ur-Nammu of Ur (ca 2050 BC). Some of the better-known ancient law codes include the code of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, the code of Hammurabi of Babylonia, the Hittite code, the Assyrian code, Mosaic law, and the Cyrus cylinder by Cyrus the Great of Persia.

In 621 BC, a scribe named Draco wrote the laws of the city-state of Athens; and being quite cruel, this code prescribed the death penalty for any offence. In 594 BC, Solon, the ruler of Athens, created the new Solonian Constitution. It eased the burden of the workers, however it made the ruling class to be determined by wealth, rather than by birth. Cleisthenes again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC.

[Bircher]

That is what I would call nit picking

[AussieOi]

To the talk itself. What a great talk. really enjoyed it. Encouraging these students with the "rothschild" economic model branded into them to read their own Constitution. Bravo brother, I'm on the same page as you.

Taking the US as a model, I agree with the sentiments, and in the context of the University i think it is terrific that they would focus on the constitution to their students.

Hang on. I'm reading this. Whats going on?

I laughed at the folllwing quote

"....Nevertheless, as Elder Oaks observed, this inspired document has been a major influence for good in providing for the people in many lands an increased understanding of what we regard as God’s gifts to His children..."

The irony is not lost on me not would it be lost of ANYone outside of the US. While the constitution might say "no foreign wars as foreign policy", what the rest of the world sees as the fruits of the US constitution is illegal invasion, pre-emptive strikes, suspension of habeus corpus, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Napalp, White Phosphorous, Depleted Uranium, Secret Rendition torture, no fly lists, warrantless wiretaps, library staff reporting etc. Sadly, this is what we SEE the US constitution is, as reflected in the governing power of the day. In NO wise do we see this as Gods gift to us, rather, what Americans believe is their duty from god, to do to us.

Sorry Brother Oaks, most of us do not like what we see, it has been bastardised. To say or believe otherwise is rather rose glassed. Having said that, up until maybe the 50's, this could be held to be true.

So while some see God in the constitution. The rest of the world does not see god in what it understands of the US constitution (sadly, and thankfully).

As for "......A large number of you have traveled widely around the world and recognize that many nations and peoples may not currently enjoy the blessings, freedoms, and protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution...." well that was even more laughable. I was hoping this was an irony statement, leading us up to the big point, that those freedoms are being taken away from us, that you as LDS students need to study the constitution to know to be aware of it and whats happening to it. At this point, I have great hope.


And then I got to his point. Why it seems he mentioned its beauty in construction, well, basically, as I understand what he said, what this entire point of this talk was, is to say that the US constitution is not much more than a piece of toilet paper, take what you want, flush the rest, and here's a few selective quotes from some brethren to support that position.

"........Must we accept that it is the only or final word on every matter of law? Must we support the assertions of some that it has the same authority as scripture?........"

Faaaaaaaar out. No comment. Unflippinbelievable.

If I were marking this I'd give it a C-. Truisms, motherhood statements and disjointed opinions. No, a D, it was a pointless talk.

The bit about privacy- that you don't have it (in the worldly sense) and that if you think the constitution say you do well you don't. What is he smoking?


"......Thus, while in the eyes of some the right of privacy has been granted by the courts, if not the Constitution, the basic issue of what really constitutes privacy has not been fully addressed. ......."

What the heck was this about? What kind of speech throws in its own interpretation of the US constitution, the Bill of RIghts and the Ninth amendment". Holy smoke. I thought I was arrogant.

What on earth is this talk about? Is he telling his students that their private emails are "discoverable"?

Is this a coded talk? Am I missing something? Heck, I'm smart and I don't know. Most BYU students are so dumb they probably couldn't find Sydney on a map let alone Australia, or spell enumeration. They're mean to get this? A few months after chief "I am the law Cheney" speats at the podium.

Please tell me, is this man STILL in a position of authority at BYU? I'd be curious to know if he has made clarification to some of this comments.

How sad, nothing about reading it to preserve it, no hidden gems about LDG's, constitution by a thread, Elders in Israel. No quoting of D&C about the constitution. What a sad sad day.

[HeirofNumenor]

"........Must we accept that it is the only or final word on every matter of law? Must we support the assertions of some that it has the same authority as scripture?........"

No, the Word of God, from ancient and modern scripture, and living prophets is the last word.

Elder Oaks was saying that the parts about 3/5's of a slave is not to be valued as scripture, while Pres. Clark's comments taken in context lead to when the people are ready for more then Constitution can be amended and improved to reflect that. My example is women's right to vote. The people as a whole were not ready, so the Constitution left who gets to vote up to the states. When enough states decided women should vote, it was amended. Likewise, slavery was left in there until the people could let it go.

The bit about privacy- that you don't have it (in the worldly sense) and that if you think the constitution say you do well you don't. What is he smoking?


"......Thus, while in the eyes of some the right of privacy has been granted by the courts, if not the Constitution, the basic issue of what really constitutes privacy has not been fully addressed. ......."

Actually, this goes to the heart of the controversy over Roe v. Wade -- that some supposed right to privacy exists, therefore abortion must be accepted as legal. He obliquely referred to this just prior...with his comments about Constitution, Bill of Rights, emanation from the Bill of Rights = privacy, etc.

What on earth is this talk about? Is he telling his students that their private emails are "discoverable"?

While maybe not his intent, it wouldn't surprise me that he was subtlety warning the students to be careful of what they post online - esp. with the nationwide issues regarding MySpace, Facebook, et al, with predators finding youth, school officials around the nation busting students, and potential employers seeing the garbage they do and therefore decline to hire them.

Is this a coded talk? Am I missing something?

Yes. That technology has made almost everything you do to likely be discovered - and hold you liable in whatever way, and you can hide nothing from God. Therefore: live your life in such a manner publicly and privately so that nothing you do can ever bring shame to you and what you stand for -- God and country.

Please tell me, is this man STILL in a position of authority at BYU?

Ummm well, since Pres. Samuelson, is also ELDER Samuelson of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and that the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles have felt it highly desirable to have a General Authority to lead BYU these last 10 plus years...I'd say YES he is still there in authority.

How sad, nothing about reading it to preserve it, no hidden gems about LDG's, constitution by a thread, Elders in Israel. No quoting of D&C about the constitution. What a sad sad day.

Several of us have covered this concern quite thoroughly the last 2 weeks and before.

May I remind you of what a "wise" gentleman wrote recently on this forum?

Thankfully, the Church is true. We are promised that the Church will not be led astray. We are not promised that it will be led in the direction we might want it to go when we want it to. My wisdom is pretty slim, theirs is substantially greater. I'll whine, but still defer to theirs, plus the more information thing.

Sound familiar?

[ShineOn]

I highly recommend "Prophets, Principles, and National Survival" to every member that wants to understand what the official position on the constitution, the founders, and politics has been ( http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UB ... -7&seller= and http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchR ... al&x=0&y=0).

I have read what Elder Oaks has said, and I have watched what Elder Samuelson said (and didn't say). All I gotta say is they do not teach very similar views of the constitution that other apostles have taught us in General Conference. I look at dozens of talks from many church leaders in official church capacities (General Conference, etc) and then I look at what some leaders say now in festivals or devotionals and when they aren't the same, I go with the official church setting.

And it's not just Benson. It's practically every President of the Church, many in the First Presidency, and many apostles, over decades, at least up until a point. Why two leaders outside any correlation think they can change that is beyond me. But they aren't really changing anything officially, they are just stating their opinions, which don't hold water to me (which is my opinion).

[Bircher]

D&C 98 6-7 says anything more or less than the Constitution cometh of evil. I think the Lord is the ultimate authority on the document HE wrote. Finding things to have a problem with in the Constitution seems not to be the safest position to take.

[AussieOi]

That is what I would call nit picking :wink:

Yes it is nitpicking. When I am a member of a Universal church, I get very tired of hearing from white americans how great the US is.

When a falsehood is misrepresented, a falsehood which just a little research would refute, I will pick that up, especially when it creates a mindset that is do damaging.

This entire speech was about the great gift of the US constitution and democracy to the world. Well if you haven't figured it out this great gift has been twisted with bizarre logic and satan to be a perpetual war state, an empire imposing its might on others.

It relies on compliant and ignorant pee-ons doing the will of the masters. Such falsehoods perpetuated as the one that the US was the first written constitution and is the best- and then the rest of the world copied us, so we should go and share this freedom and democracy with others recalcitrant nations- is propaganda for the masses and the fools who sign up to the war machine and become its footsoldiers. I will not stand by it without comment as it goes to the heart of the superioristic, imperialistic nature of too many US citizens, particularly those who are in power.

You call it nitpicking, i call it the heart of US aggression. That they are ignorant and naive. They have been on the block for 15 minutes and tell the world they are better. What did they call Eurpore in 2003 for opposing the Iraq invasion "old Europe" was is.

[Bircher]

It is the land choice above all other lands, and ours is the Constitution the Lord gave to the world to follow.

Have we picked some lame leaders recently (at least 87 years)? YES. Does that change what the Lord has said about the Constitution? NO.

Your bitterness is being combined towards both what God has given us and what has been done with it. I am just as upset about how it has been misused as the next gu, but that does not take away from our founding document being given to us from the Lord.

[AussieOi]

What on earth is this talk about? Is he telling his students that their private emails are "discoverable"?

While maybe not his intent, it wouldn't surprise me that he was subtlety warning the students to be careful of what they post online - esp. with the nationwide issues regarding MySpace, Facebook, et al, with predators finding youth, school officials around the nation busting students, and potential employers seeing the garbage they do and therefore decline to hire them.


FOR goodness sake this is the real world, it is university. these kids are paying 20grand for an education. do they really need to hear about something as simplistic as this from their President? Are they that dumb? they get a booklet at enrolment. it also refers to issues of plagiarism, sexual harrassment. talk about it there. don't drop in interpretations about ambiguity of the application of privacy in the constitution, unless you are going to talk about it from the perspective of our own doctrine.

Is this a coded talk? Am I missing something?

Yes. That technology has made almost everything you do to likely be discovered - and hold you liable in whatever way, and you can hide nothing from God. Therefore: live your life in such a manner publicly and privately so that nothing you do can ever bring shame to you and what you stand for -- God and country.



WELL say that then. don't give your opinion about the ambiguity of some elements of the constitution in the context of eroding freedoms and invoking the "hallowed" memories of 9/11. This talk only seems to empower bush's orwellian police state. Stand up for the rights of the constitution, don't say it stands for little. the last thing we want is MORE BYU grads coming out and joining the FBI and homeland security with a mindset that there is no privacy and its not enshrined in the constitution, or that the constitution is evolving and open for interpretation, which is what I understand he is telling these kids.

In light of Cheney at BYU and in light of The Alumni speech lauding the Rothschild model as somethng to strive for, in light of rights being eroded, in light of the known proclivity of fundamentalist LDS fascists to joing acronym police agencies in Utah, you don't think he could have perhaps STOOD UP FOR THE US CONSTITUTION AND REPEATED THE WORDS OF PREVIOUS PROPHETS AND OUR OWN DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS?

Please tell me, is this man STILL in a position of authority at BYU?

Ummm well, since Pres. Samuelson, is also ELDER Samuelson of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and that the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles have felt it highly desirable to have a General Authority to lead BYU these last 10 plus years...I'd say YES he is still there in authority.


Yep, well, there you go, Next member of the 12 I believe too is how it tends to work. Oh well. I think I'll just stay safe and stick with what all our previous brethren have said about ambiguity in the constitution.

How sad, nothing about reading it to preserve it, no hidden gems about LDG's, constitution by a thread, Elders in Israel. No quoting of D&C about the constitution. What a sad sad day.

Several of us have covered this concern quite thoroughly the last 2 weeks and before.



Any links/ references, I might have missed that

May I remind you of what a "wise" gentleman wrote recently on this forum?

Thankfully, the Church is true. We are promised that the Church will not be led astray. We are not promised that it will be led in the direction we might want it to go when we want it to. My wisdom is pretty slim, theirs is substantially greater. I'll whine, but still defer to theirs, plus the more information thing.



Its all I have. thankfully, its all I need. in the meantime, I work out my OWN salvation with fear and trembling

[AussieOi]

D&C 98 6-7 says anything more or less than the Constitution cometh of evil. I think the Lord is the ultimate authority on the document HE wrote. Finding things to have a problem with in the Constitution seems not to be the safest position to take.

I agree, with caveats. Namely, there is room in there for evolution. It is meant to, life evolves. states can vote, there can be amendments.

In the meantime, interpretation is to the supreme court I believe, in the absence of that, refer to the original document.

My OPINION, as to anyone elses OPINION, is irrelevent. thankfully

[Bircher]

yep, and amendments are part of the Constitution, so it would fall into the criteria of being technically ok, but as far as the spirit of the law is concerned any changes would have to be in the tradition of the founding fathers. (ETB, GC Oct 1987)

[AussieOi]

yep, and amendments are part of the Constitution, so it would fall into the criteria of being technically ok, but as far as the spirit of the law is concerned any changes would have to be in the tradition of the founding fathers. (ETB, GC Oct 1987)

(Pink Floyd)

All in all its just a-nother...........

[HeirofNumenor]

This entire speech was about the great gift of the US constitution and democracy to the world. Well if you haven't figured it out this great gift has been twisted with bizarre logic and satan to be a perpetual war state, an empire imposing its might on others.

As you stated earlier...

Having said that, up until maybe the 50's, this could be held to be true.

[referring to the mention of the US Constitution being inspired, gift to the world, etc.]

FOR goodness sake this is the real world, it is university. these kids are paying 20grand for an education. do they really need to hear about something as simplistic as this from their President? Are they that dumb? they get a booklet at enrolment. it also refers to issues of plagiarism, sexual harrassment.

Ummmm yeah, they are. And plagiarism, sexual misconduct, etc. are there as well. You can find any sin you want to at BYU -- you just will have to look a bit harder to find it than you would at-- oh, San Diego State University. [I'm a former Californian]

WELL say that then. don't give your opinion about the ambiguity of some elements of the constitution in the context of eroding freedoms and invoking the "hallowed" memories of 9/11. This talk only seems to empower bush's orwellian police state. Stand up for the rights of the constitution, don't say it stands for little. the last thing we want is MORE BYU grads coming out and joining the FBI and homeland security with a mindset that there is no privacy and its not enshrined in the constitution, or that the constitution is evolving and open for interpretation, which is what I understand he is telling these kids.

I believe that just as the top LDS leaders can't come right out and say what they want to (restrained by by commandment, inspiration, or unwillingness of the people to hearken); the leaders at BYU also can't come out and openly say what they need to.

One person in a high BYU admin position, who must remain anonymous for now, told parents of kids in "alternate education models" (interpret that how you want to), that BYU-UT has become rather socialist in both a high percentage of the students, and also the faculty. If you want a REAL education -- the type Karl Maeser had (1st BYU pres), then you send your kids to BYU-Idaho.

But this is the best BYU can do. Most students have been severely tainted by public schools and socialism already, no matter how strong their testimonies. Faculty can be the same way -- but they also have the idea that academic freedom means "let's publish things that contradicts Church doctrine because we can"; or else the faculty often comes from other secular institutions - and they bring the mindset with them.

As for the FBI: with all corrupted government, police, and military: there is a white side, and a black side. All the RM's join the FBI, CIA, etc., because they want to serve their country. They only see the noble purple. They are the poster boys for all-American youth -- and they are kept in the dark like the rest of the people. The black side is the part that does all the drug running, assassinations, terrorist provocateur acts, and the like. You only get to this because you are being very naughty and are being blackmailed, or are very sadistic.

[HeirofNumenor]

Several of us have covered this concern quite thoroughly the last 2 weeks and before.

Any links/ references, I might have missed that

Give me some time. But myself and Lundbaek in particular, and I think john adams (?) have posted a lot -- often in response to you.

I will post one of my last ones again.

Why the brethren do not speak out against the government and secret combinations?

Why does the former Mayor of Salt Lake have to be the one to call out our current federal government on corruption and evil, while the church' hierarchy, which is supposed to be in tune with the Lord, says nothing?

Flagg (and to everyone who who keeps witching and moaning that the Brethren do nothing)

The Brethren have a divine commission to lead the Church to get as much done as possible to proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the Saints, in as little time as we have left to operate before all Hell breaks loose and the Church gets persecuted (and shut down) and then we all get cleansed by sword, fire, famine, pestilence, plague and earthquake.

Rocky Anderson is under no such charge.

Several people here (CHH, Aussieoi, and Swismiss in particular) have repeatedly posted a talk from Pres. David O. Mackay stating that next to [the work of the Lord's restored gospel], the most sacred thing we should be doing is upholding and defending the Constitution.

I agree...

But often in our frustrations it is easy to forget that ABOVE the Constitution is THE WORK OF THE LORD.

You rail that Ezra Taft Benson stopped talking about the Constitution and Communism when he was ordained the Prophet. That is true, and the liberal democrats and Sunstone/Dialogue fans were much relieved.

However, if he STILL was railing against communism, would we have been able to get a temple dedicated in Freiberg, East Germany in 1985? I think not. The power that emanates from the House of the Lord, and those who attend faithfully and righteously, works wonders in the area around it. That Temple in particular had a dramatic effect. Many have credited it's dedication for leading directly to the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the Warsaw Pact, and the USSR (Sen. Orin Hatch sending Stinger AA missiles to the Afghan Mujahadeen, and Gorbechov's deceptions notwithstanding).

Back in 1997, when Bill Clinton was being impeached, I commented to my mom that I wished the Church leaders would officially condemn Pres. Clinton. She said: "What do you want to do, pick a fight with the US government and bring it down upon the Church?" The Lord is not ready for that to happen -- yet.

This lead to a discussion of Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto, where in vision he saw the Federal government seizing the 4 temples, imprisoning all church leaders and many other fathers, and shutting down the Church entirely. So the Lord led him to advise he Saints to end polygamy so that the work of the Lord could continue.

Then I mentioned to my mom, that all these new, small temples Pres. Hinckley was announcing -- none of them were of a size to allow for large congregations of saints would be repeatedly returning to the temple to do work for their kindred dead.

No -- these temples were spread out other the earth in places were the membership would not grow large enough to have large temples. These were small enough to to accomodate small groups of families coming for their own work - their sealings, and more immediately - their own endowments. We viewed it as critical that these people get their own work done immediately, rather than trying to get large groups to do it for ancestors and extracted names. Because the time is so short.

Remember that after Joseph and Hyrum Smith were martyred, the Saints stayed in Nauvoo for another 18(?) months just to finish a temple which they knew they would have to lave imminently, under force and duress.

Why did they stay and finish it? So they could receive their endowments and sealings (and the resulting spiritual power) to sustain them in heir extremities and adversities as their were forced to flee outside the United States, with members of Congress, standing in session in the US Capitol building, openly calling for the Army to ride out and massacre them on the plains. And then to raise a new people in a desolate wilderness (call in a desert, or more properly -- semi-arid steppe), while the government comes out and tries to shut them down again!

This power that comes from making your personal covenants with the Lord while completing your own temple work is so important, that not only every person is to make them prior to being married and sealed in the Temple so that they may have power and guidance in their married lives, but that also every missionary receives his or her endowment prior to serving a full-time mission so that they can preach with power from on high, and withstand the trials of the adversary.

This, despite Brigham Young saying -- that "you young people have utterly no comprehension of how sacred the endowment is, you are not ready for it, and if you didn't need it, I would not let you receive it until you were older & wiser (age 25+?) Okay, so this is my paraphrasing...

Okay, so I am rambling. The time is short. The Lord is in charge. He "do(es) nothing save he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets (and apostles)."
Amos 3:7

The leaders are forbidden by the Spirit from revealing clearly what they know is coming. The time is short, there is much to do. Plus, we will all have much more horrible trials of faith ahead of us.
[/quote]

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Good points Heir and Threepercentite.

[Mark]

The Brethren have a divine commission to lead the Church to get as much done as possible to proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, and perfect the Saints, in as little time as we have left to operate before all Hell breaks loose and the Church gets persecuted (and shut down) and then we all get cleansed by sword, fire, famine, pestilence, plague and earthquake.

Rocky Anderson is under no such charge.

Several people here (CHH, Aussieoi, and Swismiss in particular) have repeatedly posted a talk from Pres. David O. Mackay stating that next to [the work of the Lord's restored gospel], the most sacred thing we should be doing is upholding and defending the Constitution.

I agree...

But often in our frustrations it is easy to forget that ABOVE the Constitution is THE WORK OF THE LORD.

Kudos on getting to the heart of the matter Heir. If those here who keep insinuating that the prophets are hedging and cowering before wickedness are not totally committed to accepting this principle and they continue to question and bellyache why the Brethren don't do this or that I fear they will be deceived in some manner or another. Unless you can develop an unwavering testimony that the prophets are doing just as they should and are emphasising precisely what the will of the Lord to his people is at THIS time in history some way some how those seeds of doubt will turn into deception. The adversary knows our achilles heal and will use it to our detriment. Our strengths can become a weakness in our progression if we begin to question the Lords ways.

[Bircher]

the prophets are doing just as they should and are emphasising precisely what the will of the Lord to his people is at THIS time in history .

I agree... and disagree

It was not the will of the Lord that Israel be given a King, but he told His Prophet to give them what they ask for. It was not His will that Joseph should give the 116 pages, but after asking and asking he "gave permission".

When we are wicked the Lord let's us hang ourselves.

Additionally, Judas was one of Christ's chosen 12, who was a wolf amongst the flock, there were those in the Temple that plotted to kill Joseph and Brigham had to flee for his life. There are going to be those that seek to lead us astray.

The Prophet will not, and the majority of the 12 will not, BUT there will be instances where almost the majority or one or two will seek to lead others astray.

Follow the Prophet, there is safety there, however be weary of ravening wolves amongst the sheep

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

umm yeah .. I second that.

[Mark]

The Prophet will not, and the majority of the 12 will not, BUT there will be instances where almost the majority or one or two will seek to lead others astray.

How do you know this to be the case Bircher? I understand what happened back at the time of Joseph with the apostates but where do you get your info that almost a majority or 1 or 2 of the prophets will seek to deceive the Saints? I have never read anything specific that points to this. I see that the 15 we sustain as prophets seers and revelators are totally united on bringing about the Lords purposes at this time. I don't have any reason to believe that this will not be the case right up to the Lords coming. Those like CHH may think that some like Elder Oaks are deceived but that is his opinion that I surely do not share nor does any of the other 14 prophets apparently. Of course many others in the kingdom will fall into deception but I don't see it happening with the prophets at this time. Time will tell I guess. It is surely not a given though.