The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

[Ezra]

It's obvious God does not want slavey both taxation slavery and slavery that used to exist. He stated that all men are created equal And the constitutional rights are God given.
Why did we have slavery?? Why do we still have slavery? (Taxation)

Is it the fault of the constitution???? Answer this.

Is it the Bible's fault that Alma's preaching was not in it? No. It is "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have." (2 Nephi 28:30)

You never answered my question about joseph finding fault in the constitution if he wasn't being persicuted by wicked men.
If those men where abiding by the constitution would he have found a fault?

But they did persecute him. Hence the need for better, and more clear law. Laws are given from God to help people in the condition they are in. The more clear the law is the easier it is to understand and follow. It is a simple concept, really.

Thanks for not answering a very simple question.

So since someone uses a gun to murder we should have more gun laws and restrictions?

Since people don't abide by the constitution we should make a law to punish those who don't?

Since we are not taking care of the eldery we should force people to do so.?

All of those are how satan does things. By force.

That's his plan. Not gods.

God laws if broken only keep us out of his presence after we die. It's more a punishment we will inflict on ourselfs for lamenting our wickedness then God places on us.

We have to earn our heavenly reward by obediance without force or fear of doing so.

The more earthy laws we have to compel by fear and force that obediance does not make any heavily progression. That's why satan plan is not to be followed. It's why a bare minimum of laws were created In gods earthy government that he set up with the constitution. Those laws were to protect the citizens from the government. Not laws to restrict our agency and heavenly reward by fear of men's earthy laws.

The constitution doesn't have teeth because God dosent use force. He is a God of patients and long suffering. Turn the other cheek. Change hearts with love not war or force.

But how do you intend to change the constitution to have any effect on a governement and people who don't know it or follow it????

#1 you will never make it happen unless you get a con con.
#2 you will have no control over that con con.
#3 the secret combanations would destroy the remaining constitution if that door was ever opened.
#4 you will not get a public United together enough to vote for a con con. Satan might.

So to me I think your waisting time that could be better spent awaking a sleeping people.

[LoveIsTruth]

So is there scripture saying you should change what I God have created?
Or does it say not to???? I will give you a hint D&c 98:7

• D&C 98:7 says:
  And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

To add more of God's words to the Constitution is not "more or less" than true, and definitely not "cometh of evil" but from God.

Get it?

[Ezra]

So is there scripture saying you should change what I God have created?
Or does it say not to???? I will give you a hint D&c 98:7

• D&C 98:7 says:
  And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

To add more of God's words to the Constitution is not "more or less" than true, and definitely not "cometh of evil" but from God.

Get it?

Oh I do get it.

But how do you plan on changing it with a population of people and a government that does not know it or follow it?

How do you plan on changing it so and not alloeing the secret combanations to destroy it in the process??
And why do you think any changes made would accually be followed???? Since it currently not.

How do you plan to solve that bigger problem?

[LoveIsTruth]

So since someone uses a gun to murder we should have more gun laws and restrictions?

No we should have more freedom for righteous people to have guns. Justice demands that.

Since people don't abide by the constitution we should make a law to punish those who don't?

Joseph Smith said so. I don't know if he has any weight with you. But some people regard him as a prophet. I do.

Since we are not taking care of the eldery we should force people to do so.?

Now you are confusing defensive and aggressive violence. Defensive violence is always justified. Aggressive violence never is. To use force upon people other than in defense is a crime.

All of those are how satan does things. By force.

Not all. You are confused, on this very key point. Force is justified in self-defense only, to protect one's property from being violated. That is God's way. It is called justice.

Force in any other circumstance is aggression, and is not justified. Aggressive violence is Satan's way. And eternal hell is the reward for it.

Don't confuse the two.

God laws if broken only keep us out of his presence after we die. It's more a punishment we will inflict on ourselfs for lamenting our wickedness then God places on us.

We have to earn our heavenly reward by obediance without force or fear of doing so.

Right. But again, you are confusing the force of self-defense, which is justified before God, with coercion of aggressive violence which is never justified. You are not justified to use force to coerce people to do anything, unless to offset their aggression against your property, and in nothing else. In that you are right. But to do away with defensive force in the law altogether is wrong.

The more earthy laws we have to compel by fear and force that obediance does not make any heavily progression.

Again you are confusing defensive force that is perfectly justified, with aggressive force that never is. Get the difference. It is really important. Defensive force does make heavenly progression. Aggressive force does not.

That's why satan plan is not to be followed. It's why a bare minimum of laws were created In gods earthy government that he set up with the constitution.

The bare minimum is nothing more or less than absolute prohibition against all forms of aggressive violence. And this defines justice. That is the bare minimum. Anything less than that is no law at all.

Those laws were to protect the citizens from the government. Not laws to restrict our agency and heavenly reward by fear of men's earthy laws.

Right. However, the use of defensive force does not restrict our agency, but upholds it, and is perfectly justified before God. Only aggressive violence restricts agency. Defensive violence supports agency. Get the difference. One is evil. The other is good.

The constitution doesn't have teeth because God dosent use force.

Wrong. A Constitution without teeth is useless or ineffective. Joseph Smith said that; reason says that, and I say that. Why? Because it is true. God's law justifies force in self-defense. These are the teeth that were missing from the Constitution. An explicit prohibition against all forms of injustice by the government is missing in the Constitution. A law that does not forbid injustice is useless and no law at all. The Constitution forbids some injustice by the government, but not all. That's what needs to be fixed, or improved.

He is a God of patients and long suffering. Turn the other cheek. Change hearts with love not war or force.

There is a difference between changing hearts and self-defense. Force for self-defense is ALWAYS justified. To use force "to change hearts" outside of self-defense of property, is an abomination, and is forbidden by God. Do you see the difference yet? One is justified, the other is not. A very important difference.

But how do you intend to change the constitution to have any effect on a governement and people who don't know it or follow it????

#1 you will never make it happen unless you get a con con.

Not necessarily. There have been plenty of amendments without a con con.

#2 you will have no control over that con con.
#3 the secret combanations would destroy the remaining constitution if that door was ever opened.
#4 you will not get a public United together enough to vote for a con con. Satan might.

Right. I do not support a con con. I am against it at this time.

So to me I think your waisting time that could be better spent awaking a sleeping people.

Proposing just amendments to the Constitution, that expose the Eternal Principles of Justice, is one way to educate and awake the people. Posting to this forum is another. ;) Thanks for a lively debate, friend.

[LoveIsTruth]

• D&C 98:7 says:
  And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

To add more of God's words to the Constitution is not "more or less" than true, and definitely not "cometh of evil" but from God.

Get it?

Oh I do get it.

But how do you plan on changing it with a population of people and a government that does not know it or follow it?

How do you plan on changing it so and not alloeing the secret combanations to destroy it in the process??
And why do you think any changes made would accually be followed???? Since it currently not.

How do you plan to solve that bigger problem?

Education. That's what we are doing here. The mere effort to promote a just amendment to the Constitution is a great educational tool. Look at this wonderful debate we had here! And this is because I am proposing a just amendment. We win either way. Such is the nature of the truth.

[freedomforall]

We're not talking about the bible. Why change the topic matter in an attempt to discredit what Joseph Smith and John Taylor said?

Where did I discredit either? You are seriously confused, friend.

the same men you say said it is flawed and shouldn't be upheld.

Are you lying now? Where did I ever say it shouldn't be upheld? I said it should be saved and improved.

Why, why is there an apparent agenda of trying to make people think the Constitution is, in so many words, worthless and needs to be improved before it will be valuable?

Didn't say it was worthless. Did say it must be improved. Why? Because it is true.

Again, John Taylor said:

It may be asked why the framers of the Constitution did not carry out the views enunciated by the declarers of independence, in regard to the inalienable rights of man? . . .
It may be asked, if this instrument was imperfect, why do you sustain it? Simply that, with this one fault, it was the best instrument in existence, and it was all and more than the nation has ever lived up to.
( Source: John Taylor Papers 1:282 )

Well, here he says again "this instrument was imperfect." Then why not improve it, according to the amendment pattern God made sure was written into the very Constitution itself? Are you wiser than him?

John Taylor also said:

We are told, however, that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty;” and as we possess the best Constitution and the best government in the world, let us preserve it, and transmit it intact, pure and unadulterated to our children. (JT Papers 1:285)

How is that working for you? To add more God's words to the Constitution, according to the pattern he set, will not defile the Constitution. It will still be pure and unadulterated, but much more effective in preserving Liberty and Justice. Do you not want that for your children? Do you think God made a mistake by insuring the amendment process was an important part of the Constitution, and then revealed the principles needed to improve it? Are you wiser than he?

Funny story. You say the Constitution needs to be improved,right? Therefore, if it needs to be improved as you claim, then the current Constitution in your mind cannot be upheld because of the so called flaws you claim are in it. Thus, you are in essence saying it should not be upheld as it is written. Come on, you're the one telling the story. If you cannot take critiquing don't post the story.
I do not hold such a narrow view of the Constitution and neither did the Founders or church leaders. I posted what Joseph Smith and John Taylor really had to say about the Constitution but you still reject those statements?
Look, it's fine and dandy that you believe the Constitution is flawed, but those of us who don't share that assumption do not have to agree with you. There is no viable proof to convince us otherwise. Agree to disagree and get over it. We simply do not have to agree to such weak assertions especially with so many church leaders telling us to uphold and befriend it. They do not agree either. Okay? Do you think they have such a weak intellect as to ranting and telling the body of the church that the Constitution is problematic to our country? You can keep arguing until everyone puts you on their foe list, but you will not accomplish having people believe such accusations against our Title of Liberty, even the Constitution.

God, in his owns words, loveistruth, is to befriend and uphold the Constitutional law of the land, also of whom, he also raised up the writers of it.

[Ezra]

The right to defence is already a God given right defined by the 2nd amendment.

But again people don't use or know there rights. And so they have been taken away by wicked men.


Adding an amendment won't undo what been done to the constitution already. It wouldn't change anything. Wicked men rule. And Intel that changed nothing will.

The only way for that to change is either God comes or educate the masses to vote out wickedness.

[freedomforall]

We're not talking about the bible. Why change the topic matter in an attempt to discredit what Joseph Smith and John Taylor said?

Where did I discredit either? You are seriously confused, friend.

the same men you say said it is flawed and shouldn't be upheld.

Are you lying now? Where did I ever say it shouldn't be upheld? I said it should be saved and improved. What part of intact, pure and unadulterated do you not understand? Not my words, John Taylor's. Talk about confusion.

Why, why is there an apparent agenda of trying to make people think the Constitution is, in so many words, worthless and needs to be improved before it will be valuable?

Didn't say it was worthless. Did say it must be improved. Why? Because it is true. Not according to John Taylor, so it is not true.

Again, John Taylor said:

It may be asked why the framers of the Constitution did not carry out the views enunciated by the declarers of independence, in regard to the inalienable rights of man? . . .
It may be asked, if this instrument was imperfect, why do you sustain it? Simply that, with this one fault, it was the best instrument in existence, and it was all and more than the nation has ever lived up to.
( Source: John Taylor Papers 1:282 )

Well, here he says again "this instrument was imperfect." Then why not improve it, according to the amendment pattern God made sure was written into the very Constitution itself? Are you wiser than him? Apparently I'm wise enough to listen and understand John Taylor, because John Taylor gave you the answer..."it was the best instrument in existence, and it was all and more than the nation has ever lived up to." This is why.

John Taylor also said:

We are told, however, that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty;” and as we possess the best Constitution and the best government in the world, let us preserve it, and transmit it intact, pure and unadulterated to our children. (JT Papers 1:285)

How is that working for you? To add more God's words to the Constitution, according to the pattern he set, will not defile the Constitution. It will still be pure and unadulterated, but much more effective in preserving Liberty and Justice. Do you not want that for your children? Do you think God made a mistake by insuring the amendment process was an important part of the Constitution, and then revealed the principles needed to improve it? Are you wiser than he?

Apparently I'm wise enough to take John Taylor's word for it, that we must teach our children the Constitution AS IS, intact and pure. He did not say to change it prior to teaching it. Let's keep his words in perspective and not add our own words to it. Remember, INTACT = no changes, still in one piece, PURE = something that's made of only one substance and is not mixed with anything else, and UNADULTERATED = Something that's pure, not mixed with other ingredients. Maybe it's time you accept this.

[Lockey]

And thus "Amendments" to the constitution was born for the sake of civil common sense.

Our constitution isn't perfect, if it was we'd be living in the city of Enoch right about now. But I believe its the closest thing to perfect the world over! Show me a like wise nation state that has a constitution that values life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness on a higher level than our's? The constitution is worth saving, protecting and preserving. There's a whole lot of blood that already testifies of this! There simply isn't another country that empowers their own citizens of the same level, even after Obama has taken aim at it!

Its funny how much of the world, especially after civil wars, often use our U.S. Constitution as a foundational basis in creating a new one for themselves. There is a reason for this. Unless you've lived in a world that doesn't value and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness its a hard concept to cherish and understand. But I have a funny feeling that if you asked the average Syrian refugee, Congolese child soldier, displaced farmer who lives on the shores of Lake Nicaragua or a nomadic Kurd who no longer even has a single nation state to call home they'd probably die to have a constitution such as ours. In fact many of them have probably lost all faith and hope that such a world could even exist. But a whole lot of people died so that we could have the luxury of having ours!

[LoveIsTruth]

You say the Constitution needs to be improved,right?

Right.

Therefore, if it needs to be improved as you claim, then the current Constitution in your mind cannot be upheld because of the so called flaws you claim are in it. Thus, you are in essence saying it should not be upheld as it is written.

All the justice in it can and should be upheld. While all the weakness in it must be fixed. I do not throw away the baby with bath water. Constitution was a very noble, but imperfect effort. It is our duty to carry on and improve it further. God thinks so. That's why he made the Constitution amendable, and revealed greater light and knowledge to improve it thereby. Do you have a problem with that? I think it is a very good thing. Line upon line. Remember?

I posted what Joseph Smith and John Taylor really had to say about the Constitution but you still reject those statements?

I don't. You do.

Look, it's fine and dandy that you believe the Constitution is flawed, but those of us who don't share that assumption do not have to agree with you.

Even if you don't believe it is flawed, you shouldn't object to more light and truth being added to it. Otherwise, it will be like saying "A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough." God condemns such sentiments.

There is no viable proof to convince us otherwise.

There is proof. Including God's words, statements by the prophets of God, and reason itself. But you accept neither of them. That shows a flaw in your reasoning ability, not in the proof I gave.

Agree to disagree and get over it.

Please do.

We simply do not have to agree to such weak assertions especially with so many church leaders telling us to uphold and befriend it.

I am upholding and befriending it. You are killing it, because you do not believe the prophets on this point.

They do not agree either. Okay?

Not Ok.

You do not agree with the prophets, because they said it was imperfect, and you do not believe them.

Do you think they have such a weak intellect as to ranting and telling the body of the church that the Constitution is problematic to our country?

The Constitution was a noble effort, but it needs improvement. God said it. Prophets said it. Reason says it. And I say it. Feel free to disagree, but it will not make the truth without an effect.

The Constitution will be improved. God made sure of that.

You can keep arguing until everyone puts you on their foe list, but you will not accomplish having people believe such accusations against our Title of Liberty, even the Constitution.

I am saving the Constitution. Do you have a problem with that?

God, in his owns words, loveistruth, is to befriend and uphold the Constitutional law of the land, also of whom, he also raised up the writers of it.

You should remember that, and stop fighting against improving and strengthening it therefore.

Cheers.

[LoveIsTruth]

And thus "Amendments" to the constitution was born for the sake of civil common sense.

Our constitution isn't perfect, if it was we'd be living in the city of Enoch right about now.

Well the time for this is drawing nigh. Thanks for your post.

[LoveIsTruth]

The right to defence is already a God given right defined by the 2nd amendment.

But again people don't use or know there rights. And so they have been taken away by wicked men.

Adding an amendment won't undo what been done to the constitution already. It wouldn't change anything. Wicked men rule. And Intel that changed nothing will.

The only way for that to change is either God comes or educate the masses to vote out wickedness.

We've been over this before. God thinks the Constitution should be improved, because it still makes too easy for the wicked to rule. Joseph Smith think so as well. And so do I. Reason demands it.

Get over it, and stop fighting against improving it. It is unwise.

[freedomforall]

You say the Constitution needs to be improved,right?

Right.

Therefore, if it needs to be improved as you claim, then the current Constitution in your mind cannot be upheld because of the so called flaws you claim are in it. Thus, you are in essence saying it should not be upheld as it is written.

All the justice in it can and should be upheld. While all the weakness in it must be fixed. I do not throw away the baby with bath water. Constitution was a very noble, but imperfect effort. It is our duty to carry on and improve it further. God thinks so. That's why he made the Constitution amendable, and revealed greater light and knowledge to improve it thereby. Do you have a problem with that? I think it is a very good thing. Line upon line. Remember?

I posted what Joseph Smith and John Taylor really had to say about the Constitution but you still reject those statements?

I don't. You do.

Look, it's fine and dandy that you believe the Constitution is flawed, but those of us who don't share that assumption do not have to agree with you.

Even if you don't believe it is flawed, you shouldn't object to more light and truth being added to it. Otherwise, it will be like saying "A Bible, a Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough." God condemns such sentiments.

There is no viable proof to convince us otherwise.

There is proof. Including God's words, statements by the prophets of God, and reason itself. But you accept neither of them. That shows a flaw in your reasoning ability, not in the proof I gave.

Agree to disagree and get over it.

Please do.

We simply do not have to agree to such weak assertions especially with so many church leaders telling us to uphold and befriend it.

I am upholding and befriending it. You are killing it, because you do not believe the prophets on this point.

They do not agree either. Okay?

Not Ok.

You do not agree with the prophets, because they said it was imperfect, and you do not believe them.

Do you think they have such a weak intellect as to ranting and telling the body of the church that the Constitution is problematic to our country?

The Constitution was a noble effort, but it needs improvement. God said it. Prophets said it. Reason says it. And I say it. Feel free to disagree, but it will not make the truth without an effect.

The Constitution will be improved. God made sure of that.

You can keep arguing until everyone puts you on their foe list, but you will not accomplish having people believe such accusations against our Title of Liberty, even the Constitution.

I am saving the Constitution. Do you have a problem with that?

God, in his owns words, loveistruth, is to befriend and uphold the Constitutional law of the land, also of whom, he also raised up the writers of it.

You should remember that, and stop fighting against improving and strengthening it therefore.

Cheers.

Far reaching statements at best. You will not win. Twisting my words around only makes you look weak. Try improving that problem before working on the Constitution. Start big and then move on to smaller projects.
John Taylor gave you the answer, yet you ignore it and keep up the charade. I don't have to twist his words around in order to make a point either, like intact, pure and unadulterated. These words stand on their own. Improvement is not necessary nor is it written in scripture to do so.

Did you know that the Lord had the Constitution written so slaery would be no more? Yes, it's true...just read the scriptures. They can be quite enlightening.

Now here is God speaking, God:

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

Are you with me so far?

Now comes the reason for the Constitution:

80 And for this purpose, (to abolish slavery as per verse 79), 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.

Did you get that part? It took a while but eventually slavery was no more. I'd say God knew what he was doing. This is not confusing in the least.

For that matter, Indians of all tribes, were placed into bondage. Their lands, homes and way of life torn asunder by the white man, and the Indians thrown into reservations to rely on the white man to take care of them. Was that just and right? There were Indians on this Continent way before Columbus ever came here.

And you want to improve what God already did? =)) =)) =))


Tah, tah, tah......don't try to change my words or God's. Won't work as if it ever did.

[LoveIsTruth]

What part of intact, pure and unadulterated do you not understand?
Adding more God’s words to the Constitution does not adulterate it. Get it?

Not according to John Taylor, so it is not true.

You do not understand John Taylor. He said it was imperfect, not just I. Will you argue with him too?

Well, here he says again "this instrument was imperfect." Then why not improve it, according to the amendment pattern God made sure was written into the very Constitution itself? Are you wiser than him?

Apparently I'm wise enough to listen and understand John Taylor, because John Taylor gave you the answer..."it was the best instrument in existence, and it was all and more than the nation has ever lived up to." This is why.

Yes it was the best. But it is not enough. More truth has been revealed from God since then. Do you have a problem with that?

Apparently I'm wise enough to take John Taylor's word for it, that we must teach our children the Constitution AS IS, intact and pure. He did not say to change it prior to teaching it.

Joseph Smith did.

Remember, INTACT = no changes, still in one piece, PURE = something that's made of only one substance and is not mixed with anything else, and UNADULTERATED = Something that's pure, not mixed with other ingredients. Maybe it's time you accept this.

So adding more God’s words to the Constitution will shutter and defile it?

You are wrong about that. Adding more true principles to it will only strengthen and purify it further, and make it more effective in the fight for Liberty and Justice. Joseph Smith said so. Should you not believe him? (That is if God, Reason, and truth are not reason enough for you). Maybe it's time you accept this.

[LoveIsTruth]

And you want to improve what God already did?

God wants to improve it. It is work in progress. And he will succeed. Look he made you. And you still need improvement. As I said. It is work in progress.

Do you have something against progress?

[Lockey]

Just a suggestion, maybe you guys might want to consider "agreeing on disagreeing".

The point I tried to make in my post, but I must of failed at miserably, is that a whole lot of people died so that you all can argue openly and freely. Don't take the gift for granted.

[LoveIsTruth]

Just a suggestion, maybe you guys might want to consider "agreeing on disagreeing".

I agree to disagree, but not agree to the error. I am here promoting truth.

The point I tried to make in my post, but I must of failed at miserably, is that a whole lot of people died so that you all can argue openly and freely. Don't take the gift for granted.

Yes. And it will be a real waste and insult to their memory not to improve and build upon the work they have done. This is how you honor them.

Thanks for your comment.

[freedomforall]

What part of intact, pure and unadulterated do you not understand?
Adding more God’s words to the Constitution does not adulterate it. Get it?

Not according to John Taylor, so it is not true.

You do not understand John Taylor. He said it was imperfect, not just I. Will you argue with him too?

Well, here he says again "this instrument was imperfect." Then why not improve it, according to the amendment pattern God made sure was written into the very Constitution itself? Are you wiser than him?

Apparently I'm wise enough to listen and understand John Taylor, because John Taylor gave you the answer..."it was the best instrument in existence, and it was all and more than the nation has ever lived up to." This is why.

Yes it was the best. But it is not enough. More truth has been revealed from God since then. Do you have a problem with that?

Apparently I'm wise enough to take John Taylor's word for it, that we must teach our children the Constitution AS IS, intact and pure. He did not say to change it prior to teaching it.

Joseph Smith did.

Remember, INTACT = no changes, still in one piece, PURE = something that's made of only one substance and is not mixed with anything else, and UNADULTERATED = Something that's pure, not mixed with other ingredients. Maybe it's time you accept this.

So adding more God’s words to the Constitution will shutter and defile it?

You are wrong about that. Adding more true principles to it will only strengthen and purify it further, and make it more effective in the fight for Liberty and Justice. Joseph Smith said so. Should you not believe him? (That is if God, Reason, and truth are not reason enough for you). Maybe it's time you accept this. Not your version at least.

Read my post again, and again and again until it begins to sink in. You will not win. John Taylor explained the Constitution had one little error and why, but it was to be taught to our children as is.
I can show you contradictions within the scriptures but does that make then imperfect, not of value, to be mocked and changed just because one person does not like the way they are written?

[Lockey]

Not to distract anyone from the memorizing argument that nobody can get enough of, but on a side note I like the title of your non-aggression principal. Whats that all about Loveistruth guy?

[Ezra]

So you think that all amendment after the 10th has purified the constitution?

Taxing income? Taking away the balances of power from the people to the government. Going away from the gold standard?

[Ezra]

And you want to improve what God already did?

God wants to improve it. It is work in progress. And he will succeed. Look he made you. And you still need improvement. As I said. It is work in progress.

Do you have something against progress?

What would promote more progress. Education of the wicked or a change to a document?

Why don't you work at changing scriptures lov?

[freedomforall]

Just a suggestion, maybe you guys might want to consider "agreeing on disagreeing".

I agree to disagree, but not agree to the error. I am here promoting truth. It depends on whose truth it really is. There is an account of Korihor going about trying to teach his truth also. Look where it got him. If truth is to be taught, it had better be truth and not supposition or conjecture. I quoted right out of scripture why God had the Constitution written, yet, you still seem to reject that truth and supply your own paradigm. as truth. Not good.

The point I tried to make in my post, but I must of failed at miserably, is that a whole lot of people died so that you all can argue openly and freely. Don't take the gift for granted.

Yes. And it will be a real waist and insult to their memory not to improve and build upon the work they have done. This is how you honor them.

Thanks for you comment.

[LoveIsTruth]

Read my post again, and again and again until it begins to sink in.

You do the same with mine.

You will not win.

I already did.

John Taylor explained the Constitution had one little error and why

No, he spoke of "future development in the progress of a man to the intelligence and light, the power and union that God alone can impart." So it sounds to me there is a lot of room for improvement. Did you miss that?

but it was to be taught to our children as is.

Yes, but Joseph Smith, Reason, and God said it should be improved. Did you miss that too?

I can show you contradictions within the scriptures but does that make then imperfect, not of value,

Contradiction is the definition of imperfection. True scriptures, translated correctly, contain no contradictions. Otherwise they would not be true, by definition. God is not the source of error and confusion, and he does not give contradictory scriptures.

to be mocked and changed just because one person does not like the way they are written?

If there are errors, they will be corrected. But the scriptures are still of immense value, because they contain a great deal of truth (as far as they are translated correctly).

[Lockey]

No. Not even maybe. I think some of our current supreme court Justices are not capable of righteous judgments. BUT the concept of constitutional amendments is a good and sound concept. But obviously ANY good concept in the wrong hands is going to go south, the scriptures testify of this. Changing the foundations of those concepts in my opinion is not going to solve the problem. Changing who we allow to govern over us will.

On a personal note, my personal prayer is that God will come back soon.You can't blame me for hoping. After all it just may take God himself to change these issues. In the mean time coming together in the spirit of true change, doing our homework on the issues and praying before we vote folks into office in this country would help a lot! But in my ldsfreedomforum posters opinion, fighting over your differences isn't going to help either. You both seem so protective over "Truth". That to me is a rare thing in this world. You two ought to be brothers, not foes. It doesn't mean you have to give up Truth. It means you both have a passion for and a love for truth. It both means you BOTH Love God.

[freedomforall]

And you want to improve what God already did?

God wants to improve it. It is work in progress. And he will succeed. Look he made you. And you still need improvement. As I said. It is work in progress.

Do you have something against progress?

What would promote more progress. Education of the wicked or a change to a document?

Why don't you work at changing scriptures lov?

I'm going to allow loveistruth to believe as he wishes. It does not change anything one way or another. I stand by my posts and all he can do is keep arguing against them...but that is all it ever will be, sheer argument. There is no need for me to continue for all it does is raise cackles, and I have my limits.
For that matter, many people do not believe the word of God either, so this is no different. God says that for those that will not go by his teachings there is a very hot spot just for them one day. He has no need of arguing because hell is the default setting for the rebellious.
I think your input is right on target, my friend.