[Deleted]

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
mes5464
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 29570
Location: Seneca, South Carolina

Re: What are the thoughts here on the NAC (New Articles of Confederation)?

Post by mes5464 »

I would have to disagree with the premise that the Constitution sucks since Christ established it. What I would agree with is that there are a few amendments that need to be added. One of those amendments should abolish the use of case law. Judges do not get to make laws by virtue of their rulings. On the whole I do like the NAC and would recommend adding many of them as amendments to our Constitution.
D&C 101 wrote: 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.

abelchirino
captain of 100
Posts: 526

Re: What are the thoughts here on the NAC (New Articles of Confederation)?

Post by abelchirino »

LDS Anarchist wrote:He also mentions the moral agency of man (which reminds me of anarchy) and then the Lord says something quite peculiar. He says, “Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” The word “therefore” means “for that reason” or “consequently.” So, the part about slavery in the Constitution obviously came of evil and was ‘not right,” but also any part of the Constitution that caused that “any man should be in bondage one to another” was “not right.”

As all forms of government force people to obey certain rules, called government laws, upon pain of death, imprisonment or property theft, government in and of itself causes all men to “be in bondage one to another.” So, pretty much the entire Constitution is in the “more or less” category that “cometh of evil.”
Let me see if I can understand you:

Bondage, in the eyes of God, is sin. For God to say that bondage is not right, I would assume that it is sin for someone to be in bondage to another. A law is passed by government, therefore placing individuals in bondage to (shall we say) society by forcing individuals into a code upon pain of death, imprisonment or "property theft". So in conclusion, government, because of the mere fact that governments come with bondage-creating laws, is a sin, or is not right in the eyes of God.

Is this what you're trying to say? (No long explanation please just a yes or no response).

abelchirino
captain of 100
Posts: 526

Re: What are the thoughts here on the NAC (New Articles of Confederation)?

Post by abelchirino »

LDS Anarchist wrote:
abelchirino wrote:Let me see if I can understand you:

Bondage, in the eyes of God, is sin. For God to say that bondage is not right, I would assume that it is sin for someone to be in bondage to another. A law is passed by government, therefore placing individuals in bondage to (shall we say) society by forcing individuals into a code upon pain of death, imprisonment or "property theft". So in conclusion, government, because of the mere fact that governments come with bondage-creating laws, is a sin, or is not right in the eyes of God.

Is this what you're trying to say? (No long explanation please just a yes or no response).
Lol. It took me awhile to figure out where you were getting that quote from.

To answer your question: NO, that is not what I was trying to say.
Lol. Alright, now can you expand a little more on your statement so that I could understand it?

abelchirino
captain of 100
Posts: 526

Re: What are the thoughts here on the NAC (New Articles of Confederation)?

Post by abelchirino »

LDS Anarchist wrote:
abelchirino wrote:Lol. Alright, now can you expand a little more on your statement so that I could understand it?
See this post:

Talking to myself
https://ldsanarchy.wordpress.com/2012/1 ... to-myself/
In a sense, this post of yours agrees with my interpretation of your belief. Laws are evil, only bills of rights are justifiable before God. A bill of right is just a declaration of right which should be protected from harm by government/society. Is this not what you are saying?

abelchirino
captain of 100
Posts: 526

Re: What are the thoughts here on the NAC (New Articles of Confederation)?

Post by abelchirino »

LDS Anarchist wrote:
abelchirino wrote:In a sense, this post of yours agrees with my interpretation of your belief. Laws are evil, only bills of rights are justifiable before God. A bill of right is just a declaration of right which should be protected from harm by government/society. Is this not what you are saying?
Man-made laws are evil. Laws that proceed from the Spirit of God are not evil. In the context of the U.S. Constitution, the only portion that proceeded from the Spirit was the Bill of Rights. Thus, all other parts of the Constitution are or can be considered evil. The NAC supports the principle of freedom in its entirety, therefore, although it is not solely a Bill of Rights, the whole thing, from top to bottom, is justifiable before the Lord. Should something else come from the Lord, under inspiration of the Spirit, or even direct revelation of the Holy Ghost, that also would be good in the Lord's sight, even though it may not be solely a Bill of Rights. So, it is not that Bill of Rights are only justifiable before the Lord, but only things that are given by the Spirit. The United Nations charter of human rights, or whatever it is called, is in no way, shape, or fashion, inspired of God, even though it is put forth as, essentially, a Bill of Rights. So, merely having a "Bill of Rights" does not get God's approval. It comes down to where did the inspiration come from? From man, from the devil, or from the Spirit? If from the devil or from man, it is considered evil. If from God's Spirit, it is considered good. The U.S. Constitution is proof positive that you can have a mix, part coming from men and part coming from God.

The NAC, in fact, is sort of a mix, also, for some parts of the NAC were left intact from the original Articles of Confederation, which came from men. But those parts were left in because they were correct. In other words, they were co-opted for use in the NAC because, in the context of the NAC, they can be considered inspired of the Spirit. Even the Bill of Rights from the U.S. Constitution, which were included in the NAC, were altered somewhat and expanded, showing that the original set of Bill of Rights were a mere abridgment of the actual enumeration. And also, at least one of the Bill of Rights Amendments was in an incorrect state, which was then corrected to conform more closely with the Spirit of freedom, which was in me at the time I wrote the NAC.

And this is the reason why the NAC is superior on every level to the USC. Whereas the USC is mostly man-made, with a few parts given under inspiration of God, the NAC was wholly written under inspiration.
So what are your thoughts on Mosiah 29, so long as it talks about the election of civil judges?

Post Reply