Lawful, peaceful obsolescence of government destructive to rights and liberty.

[freedomforall]

Answered.

Could you please copy and paste the specific passage where you state your agreement and acceptance of those definitions of prime constitutional intent? I ask because I do not see in what is quoted where you have specifically answered with agreement and acceptance.

President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. What some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard. The true test will be based on who actually steps up and fulfills the prophecy at the appropriate time.

From A Glorious Standard we read:

I'm very sorry freedomforall, I'm really not interested in past presidents words. This is a mighty shame, because it is written in many Ensign articles we consider to be latter-day scripture where we find the words "stand up for freedom" or "the Constitution, a heavenly banner" or "befriend the Constitution" and "I raised up men for that very purpose." I am saddened by the slight cavalier stance.

I'm interested in your words. The ones that show simple agreement and acceptance for the two most prime rights conferred by the framing documents. It really is as easy as "yes" or "no". Please, do you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Answered. Has anyone answered them satisfactorily, for that matter?

Here, let's turn this around.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Reading the DOI may give us insight to this dilemma. That which may be believed is not the reality of today, now is it? We see that what is being abolished is freedom and liberty. God, in his own due time will sweep the wicked off the land.

[freedomforall]

Here is someone you may be able to wrangle with.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=19981" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ChristopherABrown]

Could you please copy and paste the specific passage where you state your agreement and acceptance of those definitions of prime constitutional intent? I ask because I do not see in what is quoted where you have specifically answered with agreement and acceptance.

President Benson stated that America will not be saved in Washington, rather, by patriots and the Elders of Israel coming together. So those two questions are not relevant any longer, the time for those to have had any effect is passed. What some people may want doesn't corroborate what will happen in this regard. The true test will be based on who actually steps up and fulfills the prophecy at the appropriate time.

From A Glorious Standard we read:

I'm very sorry freedomforall, I'm really not interested in past presidents words. This is a mighty shame, because it is written in many Ensign articles we consider to be latter-day scripture where we find the words "stand up for freedom" or "the Constitution, a heavenly banner" or "befriend the Constitution" and "I raised up men for that very purpose." I am saddened by the slight cavalier stance.

I'm interested in your words. The ones that show simple agreement and acceptance for the two most prime rights conferred by the framing documents. It really is as easy as "yes" or "no". Please, do you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Answered. Has anyone answered them satisfactorily, for that matter?

Here, let's turn this around.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Reading the DOI may give us insight to this dilemma. That which may be believed is not the reality of today, now is it? We see that what is being abolished is freedom and liberty. God, in his own due time will sweep the wicked off the land.

Hmmm, no direct answer from freedomforall. Strange, because the principles of the inquiry protect freedom of all.

Yes, many have answered those two inquiry satisfactorily, online and face to face. And of course I agree with and accept them completely. They are purely logical, derived from and extensions of existing principles the framing documents hold.

There is nothing so different today than in 1776, 1787 and 1792 which makes the inquiry less valid now than then.

But please explain, what great sacrifice or compromise can you suffer by agreeing and accepting these logical definitions or elements of these inquiries as constitutional intent, keeps you from agreeing and accepting these things we have in common?