Should Members of the Church Study and Abide by the US Constitution?

[Spaced_Out]

Tell me, who has more clout, man or God?
If you think we shouldn't do as God directs then you may want to throw your Doctrine and Covenants away. After all, they are 175 +/- years old. Additionally, if current prophets, GA's or Sunday School teachers teach other than what we read in scripture...scripture that we are constantly hounded and prodded to study, then therein lies the problem.
And this insurrection against the government stuff is a laugh. Ever heard of the Declaration of Independence, something that has only been used as toilet paper ever since it was written?
It is crooked politicians and socialistic minded people that caused some of the adverse changes you refer. God didn't raise up men to bring about the Constitution just to have it changed so much that it no longer has its original meaning and purpose. Old Scratch has so many people by the short hairs that evil has distorted every aspect of what used to be good and right. Even some LDS's have endorsed these evil changes, some have even fomented evil changes because they didn't like the way God set it up.

Another thing, did you know there are two Constitutions? One is the Founder's document, the other is the Judicial branch version. Read http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/jh_gk/index.html

Also read An Enemy Hath Done This by Ezra Taft Benson
The Elders of Israel and the Constitution http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/jh_eic/index.html
Prophets, Principles and National Survival http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/ind ... index.html
The Book of Mormon and the Constitution http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/bofmc/index.html
The Constitution of the Founding Fathers http://www.inspiredconstitution.org/jh_cff/index.html

It is a requirement to obey and honour the law. During the communist error the church manged to get a temple in the old east Germany with our breaking the law of the country. Today in Russia the Jehovah Witness church has been labelled as an extremist organisation by a Russian court, as they believe they have a mandate to preach the gospel even against the law of the land. Where the LDS church abides by the law and will accomplish much more.

Yes God inspired a righteous law for the people to live by, but due to wickedness has been rejected, and the law altered. The warning and prophecy of 3 Nephi is now being realised. One can't force obedience to a law the people reject, you have to create a separate society independent of the laws of the country, that is what will happen with the establishment of Zion.

6 For thus it behooveth the Father that it should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me and be baptized in my name and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel;
7 And when these things come to pass that thy seed shall begin to know these things—it shall be a sign unto them, that they may know that the work of the Father hath already commenced unto the fulfilling of the covenant which he hath made unto the people who are of the house of Israel.
8 And when that day shall come, it shall come to pass that kings shall shut their mouths; for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.
9 For in that day, for my sake shall the Father work a work, which shall be a great and a marvelous work among them; and there shall be among them those who will not believe it, although a man shall declare it unto them.
10 But behold, the life of my servant shall be in my hand; therefore they shall not hurt him, although he shall be marred because of them. Yet I will heal him, for I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil.
11 Therefore it shall come to pass that whosoever will not believe in my words, who am Jesus Christ, which the Father shall cause him to bring forth unto the Gentiles, and shall give unto him power that he shall bring them forth unto the Gentiles, (it shall be done even as Moses said) they shall be cut off from among my people who are of the covenant.
12 And my people who are a remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles, yea, in the midst of them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.
13 Their hand shall be lifted up upon their adversaries, and all their enemies shall be cut off.
14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;
15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;
16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;
17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;
18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.
19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.
20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;
21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

[freedomforall]

Is the woman on the left in fantasy land? The Constitution is a living document, BUT, let's tweak it to suit our day. Yea, right!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY9TNrvwdUE

[freedomforall]

[lundbaek]

Written words in the US Constitution can be and have been changed or added thru the formal amendment process described in Article Five. However, we Latter-day Saints are obligated (commanded, to my mind) to support law that meets constitutional muster AND which also supports the principles of God-given rights of all people. (D&C 98:5) So just because an amendment to the Constitution is made properly according Article Five does not automatically make that amendment supportive of God-given rights. And just because the Supreme Court or the President or members of Congress put a certain interpretation on any part of the Constitution does not automatically mean that the interpretation is supportive of God-given rights.

[freedomforall]

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/wise ... p?lang=eng June 1976

Wise Men Raised Up

By Frank W. Fox and LeGrand L. Baker

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord said that he had “raised up … wise men” for the “very purpose” of writing the Constitution of the United States. (D&C 101:80.) President George Albert Smith added, “I am saying to you that to me the Constitution of the United States of America is just as much from my Heavenly Father as the Ten Commandments.” (Conference Report, April 1948, p. 182.) President Wilford Woodruff, seventy-eight years ago, reported that a tithe of those “wise men,” those who had also signed the Declaration of Independence, appeared in the St. George Temple with George Washington at their head, and “demanded” temple ordinances. (Conference Report, April 10, 1898, pp. 89–90.)

Who were the men who wrote the Constitution? What personal characteristics qualified them for the task of creating a document which the Lord says he “established”? (D&C 101:80.)

We can divide the fifty-five men who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 into three groups. First, there were those who wanted a strong central government; their leaders were James Madison, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Robert Morris (not related), and Alexander Hamilton. They believed that the states had already demonstrated their inability to survive as a loosely knit confederation and that governmental power must be centralized or America would be split into small, warring nations as was Europe.

Second, at the other end of the political continuum were Elbridge Gerry, Roger Sherman, William Patterson, and Luther Martin. This group feared the overpowering control of a strong national government above all else and felt that the states were the only place to trust the bulk of governmental power. They believed that the federal government’s chief function should be to protect the United States from foreign nations and wanted to limit the federal government to regulating foreign trade and to maintaining an army.

In the middle was a third group led by George Mason, John Dickinson, Oliver Ellsworth, and John Rutledge. This group wanted a strong central government, but also believed that the states must play an important role in the affairs of their own citizens.

There were two men whose roles in the Convention were so significant that they must be considered separately. One, George Washington, was elected president of the Convention and therefore did not participate in the debates except as a moderating influence. The other was the aged Benjamin Franklin, whose role was to mold divergent opinions into a working compromise. These men were so revered by their countrymen that their very presence gave the Convention’s work a stamp of approval.

Three absent men had a great effect upon those who were there. One, John Adams, then ambassador to England, had just written a two-volume work on the nature of representative government. This book had been carefully read by all members of the Convention and had a profound effect upon their thinking. The second was Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France. Jefferson was a good friend of many men at the Convention and his ideas were often represented in their attitudes. The third was Samuel Adams, whose hatred for a strong centralized government had been a major “cause” of the Revolutionary War.

The wise philosophical differences between delegates are typified by two members, Elbridge Gerry and Robert Morris. Gerry, a close friend of Samuel Adams and James Madison’s future vice-president of the United States, feared governmental power. Only four years before, as a member of the Continental Congress, Gerry had nearly ruined his health in a struggle to prevent Morris, then superintendent of finance, from acquiring nearly dictatorial powers in the United States. Now Morris was eager to see the Constitutional Convention create the kind of government that would again provide him and his associates with that power. Gerry feared such power above all else. Each had felt bitter political defeat from the other. Now they faced each other again.

The Philadelphia summer of 1787 was stifling hot. The members of the Constitutional Convention were so determined that their work would be free from outside pressures that one of their first rules prohibited talking with any outsider about Convention proceedings. To prevent some enterprising newspaper reporter from crouching below an open window and taking notes, the doors and windows were locked. No breeze softened the oppressive heat of Constitutional Hall or cooled the rising tempers of its occupants.

Few would have supposed that a worthy document could ever be produced under such difficult circumstances. Yet that was the situation in which the Founding Fathers did their work. Let us now examine the characteristics they had in common which qualified them for their task.

The framers of the Constitution were mostly young men, aggressive and energetic. Their average age was forty-four. That included Benjamin Franklin, who was eighty-one years old and at least fifteen years the senior to everyone else. Five of the delegates were in their twenties. Many others, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were in their thirties. James Wilson, Luther Martin, and Oliver Ellsworth were between forty-one and forty-five. George Washington and a few others were fifty-five. Only four were sixty or older.

The Founding Fathers were well educated. Of the fifty-five, thirty-one had been to college, and these included all of the active participants. William Samuel Johnson of Columbia and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia were college presidents; James Wilson, George Wythe, and William C. Houstoun were or had been college professors; and a dozen others had taught grammar school at one time or another. James McClurg and Hugh Williamson were physicians. Four of the delegates had studied law at the prestigious Inns of Court in London.

Yet they were significantly more than scholars—they were men of wisdom. “In no other period of history,” writes Edmund Morgan, “would it be possible to find in politics five men of such intellectual stature as Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson; and there were others only slightly less distinguished.” 1

His point is well taken. In 1740, a mere generation before the Revolution, the intellectual life of America was dominated by clergymen; by 1840, a generation or so after the Revolution, it would be dominated by scientists and inventors. Only for the brief span of a single lifetime would America’s statesmen and her brightest thinkers be the same men.

They had at their fingertips the best wisdom of their age, for they were in constant touch with the exciting minds of the Enlightenment: Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume, Pope, Mandeville, Locke, and Adam Smith.

In those days, no education could be considered complete without a thorough background in ancient and modern history. The Founding Fathers were conversant in the history and philosophy of the Greek democracies, the Roman republic, and the British constitutional system. Their study and their experience combined to qualify them for their role in the Convention by preparing them to test their theories against the whole history of mankind’s struggle for freedom.

The Founding Fathers were men of affairs. They had learned from experience to be down-to-earth, practical men. Most of the Southerners owned large plantations. George Mason, with 5,000 acres, was one of the most prosperous farmers in America. Pierce Butler was both planter and merchant. Their experience with the land had taught them to pay close attention to the myriad daily details of plowing, planting, harvesting, milling, marketing, and the like.

Their Yankee counterparts included many wealthy merchants who had built their success on careful attention to details. Boston’s Elbridge Gerry began as a shoemaker and became one of the wealthiest men in Massachusetts. Pennsylvania’s Robert Morris had once been a shopkeeper. Yet during the Revolutionary War he proved to be so talented at the art of high finance that he dominated both the politics and the economy of America by the time the Revolution ended.

Most of the Constitutional delegates were lawyers; eight were judges. All were accustomed to making decisions that affected the courses of other men’s lives. Each played important and complex roles in society. For example, Benjamin Franklin had often made decisions with international implications. He had associated with kings and generals, spies and pirates. He had little formal education, but he was one of the most learned men in America. He was printer, inventor, politician, wit, scientist, statesman, sage, and all-purpose, public-spirited citizen.

The framers of the Constitution were men of brilliance—but not the ivory-tower sort. They were practical-minded men who understood the enormity of their task and conducted themselves with a studied determination to succeed.

The Convention delegates were natural leaders. A look at their individual careers shows that each of them had been elevated by his peers to a position of prominence. In their day, many politicians neither campaigned nor actively solicited public office. They believed that an election should be an expression of public trust and were themselves recipients of that kind of trust.

The Founding Fathers were not so much the “representatives” as they were the “leaders” of their constituents. For example, a group of Benjamin Harrison’s constituents gave him the following “instructions” as he departed for the Continental Congress in 1774: “You assert that there is a fixed intention to invade our rights and privileges; we own that we do not see this clearly, but since you assure us that it is so, we believe the fact.” The people, in other words, trusted Harrison implicitly and although they could not share his personal concern, were ready, as they put it, “to support you in every measure you shall think proper to adopt.” 2 Imagine such a mandate in our own day!

Harrison was not alone in enjoying nearly absolute confidence. There is probably no better example of trust to be found in history than that bestowed on George Washington.

During the Revolutionary War, Washington had control of the army and may have been able to use its power for his own political gain. Indeed, after the fighting had ended, some men tried to use the army to make Washington king. When Washington learned of this, he went to Newburgh, Connecticut, to speak to the army officers.

Washington was not an orator. Years later when he gave his first inaugural address as president of the United States, he delivered the speech so poorly that few even knew what he said until the next day when it was published in the newspapers. Then it was hailed as a great speech. In Newburgh it was different. When one reads the speech, it does not seem so overwhelming—he simply reminded them that they had been fighting for their freedom and said that he would “spurn” any attempt to distort that freedom. But his simple speech “drew tears” from the war-hardened officers who heard him and dissolved the conspiracy. 3

It speaks well of Washington that those who wanted a king trusted his ability to be king but that is only half the story. Several years later, when the new Constitution was being debated, many people feared it gave too much power to the president. One reason they were willing to vote for the ratification of the Constitution was because they knew that Washington would become our first president and believed they could trust him with that much power.

Throughout his career Washington was aware of the significance of the role he played. “It has been a kind of destiny that has thrown me upon this service,” he once confided to his wife. “I shall hope that my undertaking it is designed to answer some good purpose.” 4

This is essentially the story of the framers of the Constitution; a kind of destiny had placed them at the helm. Half of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had been members of the Continental Congress. Nearly half had been officers in the army during the Revolutionary War. Many, as noted, were lawyers and judges. Six had signed the Declaration of Independence. Two had signed the Articles of Confederation. Sixteen had been or were later state governors. More than half would be elected to the United States Congress. Two were to become president and one would be vice-president. Two were to be chief justices of the Supreme Court. As the natural leaders of their society, they found themselves in a remarkably strong position to undertake the task before them.

The Convention delegates had few illusions about human nature. They understood man’s petty jealousies and competition for power. They realized the political importance of wealth—that poor men seek power to get rich, and that rich men seek power for power’s sake. Above all, they knew that a system of government which permitted any man or group of men to rise to unchecked political dominance would invite a tyranny. They fought the Revolution to throw out one such government; they had no intention of creating another.

Thus, much of the debate at Philadelphia was concerned with the problem of governmental power and how to hold it in check. Some of the delegates believed that the answer lay in keeping power close to the people in the various state governments. Others at the Convention, believing that the common people were politically incompetent, would have trusted all power to the federal government, far removed from popular whims and passions. This group insisted that the government be so constructed that the rich and the wellborn could prevent a popular majority, inflamed by some demagogue, from getting the upper hand. Yet, even they admitted that unchecked power in the hands of the elite, however enlightened or benevolent, would invite usurpation and tyranny.

So the opinion of the Convention struck a kind of balance between those who had no respect for local government and those who could not trust federal power. In the end they worked out a compromise that balanced each part of the society against the other so that neither could get control. That is why the national legislature was made bicameral, with a House of Representatives favoring the common people and a Senate favoring the elite. The same kind of balance was used in a geographic way, offsetting the interests of one state or region by the interests of all others so that no state or region could rise to a position of dominance. It was as though sin and folly were somehow being used to cancel one another out.

The framers of the Constitution thus demonstrated that they were close enough to the hard realities of human life to understand what was going on and deal with it intelligently. This ability contrasted markedly to that of revolutionaries in some other countries whose ideals were too often divorced from the facts of life. The really amazing thing about the Founding Fathers is not that they knew all of this, but that they could know it and somehow retain a measure of innocence and optimism. They had an almost sublime confidence in the power of human reason to overcome the base and mortal within man.

The Founding Fathers were men of vision and hope. George Washington expressed all of their attitudes when he wrote, “In the first place it is a point conceded, that America, under an efficient government, will be the most favorable Country of any in the world for persons of industry and frugality. …” 5 They were all aware that they must not create a government which would stifle the individual enterprise of its people. They believed that America’s economic and cultural development depended upon the government they created.

John Adams predicted, “Many hundred years must roll away before we shall be corrupted. Our pure, virtuous public spirited, federative republic will last forever, govern the globe and introduce the perfection of man.” 6

Political freedom does not exist in a vacuum. The framers of the Constitution believed that political freedom would foster excellence in literature, the arts, science, and all other human achievements. Thomas Jefferson may have said it best of all: “We have spent the prime of our lives in procuring [for the youth of America] the blessing of liberty. Let them spend their lives in showing that it [freedom] is the great parent of science and of virtue; and that a nation will be great in both, always in proportion as it is free.” 7

The Framers were religious men—in their own way. But we must be careful about making them religious in ways they were not.

There is a tradition among many that the Constitutional Convention began each day with prayer. That is not true. At one point, when their debate was exceedingly hot and Franklin feared that the Convention might fall apart on account of its intensity, he suggested they have a prayer. Since there was no clergyman in the Convention, they would have had to hire an outsider to come in and say the prayer. But Alexander Hamilton pointed out that the Convention had been in session for some time, and if it sent for a preacher, it now would be taken as a public announcement of deadlock or imminent failure. In the end, someone observed that the Convention had no money with which to employ a minister anyway, so the matter was dropped and no official prayer was ever pronounced at the Constitutional Convention.

That does not mean, however, that the individual members did not pray. Only a minority of the Founders, such as James McHenry, who was president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore, considered themselves “religious” men in the sense that they attended a church. Most of the Convention’s leaders were Deists.

These men, like Washington, Madison, and Jefferson, believed that the world had been organized by a Divine Creator. They recognized his majesty and glory as reflected in the order and beauty of his creations, but they did not believe that the organized religions of their time represented the omnipotent power, majesty, or wisdom of this great Creator. Their political enemies often called them atheists, but such a characterization was false and slanderous. These framers of the Constitution saw man’s intellect and his ability to act for himself as the surest evidence of the wisdom and power of a Divine Creator. Consequently, they viewed any infringements upon the freedom of that intellect as the most flagrant obstructions of the divine purpose. Thomas Jefferson expressed this philosophy in this single sentence: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” 8

The writings of the Founding Fathers overflow with references to God and the divine nature of man. Freedom was their watchword, and reverence for the individual was their driving principle. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord says that he raised up these “wise men” to establish a government which would nurture and defend individual freedom, “that every man may act in doctrine and principle … according to the moral agency which I have given unto him.” (D&C 101:78.) The fundamental philosophy of the Founding Fathers was very consistent with that purpose.

The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that he had “raised up unto this very purpose … wise men” to write the Constitution which he “suffered to be established and [which] should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh.” (D&C 101:80, 77.)

The creation of such a government was a necessary prerequisite to the restoration of the gospel. There would have been little point in the Lord’s establishing his church among people who were not free to accept it. For a thousand years he had carefully prepared the world for the restoration of the gospel, and the American Constitutional Convention was one of the final events in that preparation.

The writing of the Constitution was a miracle. But the miracle was not that the Lord found fifty-five men who understood so well the principles of a representative government. It is unlikely that any one of those men could have written the Constitution as it was in its finished form. The miracle lies in how that great document was produced: The spirit of revelation is the spirit of peace, and there was a prevailing spirit of peace among them. It was a miracle that these men—who represented extremely diverse political philosophies and who, in some instances, almost hated each other—sat during that sweltering summer to talk and compromise until they had written a document which is an expression of what the Lord called “just and holy principles.” They created a government so well balanced that it prevented any one of its social or geographical factions from getting dominance over the other, a government so strong that it could protect the individual rights of all its citizens and yet so weak that it could not invade their private lives or infringe upon the exercise of their free agency.

See article for reference sources.

[lundbaek]

Reasons I have been given by local Church authorities for members NOT promoting study of and abiding by the principles of the US Constitution:

The Prophet/First Presidency/Apostles are not urging members to study and abide by the principles of the US Constitution,

Doing so could antagonize certain elements in the US government and lead to retribution and persecution that would disrupt the Church's missionary and building programs,

Doing so could cause serious controversy among Church members,

Doing so could drive investigators away,

[samizdat]

Reasons I have been given by local Church authorities for members NOT promoting study of and abiding by the principles of the US Constitution:

The Prophet/First Presidency/Apostles are not urging members to study and abide by the principles of the US Constitution,

Doing so could antagonize certain elements in the US government and lead to retribution and persecution that would disrupt the Church's missionary and building programs,

Doing so could cause serious controversy among Church members,

Doing so could drive investigators away,

Reason 1: Correct through a GENERAL sense as there are more members outside the USA than in it. Incorrect though in a LOCAL sense as people like Elder Christofferson and President Eyring HAVE talked about protecting the Constitution in a LOCAL sense (Freedom Festival, IDF Temple Dedication).

Reason 2: I don´t think that is the case. There is more fear from antagonizing INTERNATIONAL governments though especially those who see America in a negative light (now that Trump is doing the things that he is doing, he is pretty much universally reviled outside of America).

Reason 3: See second half of reason 2.

Reason 4: Could happen outside of the USA not so much within the USA. See second half of reason 2.

When President Uchtdorf was called to the First Presidency, the Deutsche Welle ran this article:

http://www.dw.com/en/german-joins-inner ... /a-1694123

In it it was noted that Uchtdorf thought that it was easier to be a Mormon in the USA than in Germany, but that the USA should be more supportive and less egoist.

[lundbaek]

Later this year 2017 Sunday School Lesson 44 will afford an excellent opportunity to initiate discussion about the significance of the US Constitution to Latter-day Saints. I suggest studying Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22, 26–28; 98:4–10; 134; and Articles of Faith 1:12 well beforehand, and during the lesson presentation looking for opportunity to chime in.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... s?lang=eng

[Silver]

Later this year 2017 Sunday School Lesson 44 will afford an excellent opportunity to initiate discussion about the significance of the US Constitution to Latter-day Saints. I suggest studying Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22, 26–28; 98:4–10; 134; and Articles of Faith 1:12 well beforehand, and during the lesson presentation looking for opportunity to chime in.

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and ... s?lang=eng

Great idea, lundbaek. I am the Gospel Doctrine instructor in our ward so I will also add Ether 8 to the discussion.

[Vision]

No because the founders themselves didn't abide by the words they penned. "All Men are Created Equal" if you are of European descent, all other men can be owned,traded,sold, and don't even think about Women being equal

[Silver]

No because the founders themselves didn't abide by the words they penned. "All Men are Created Equal" if you are of European descent, all other men can be owned,traded,sold, and don't even think about Women being equal

I dare say that most of us are descendants of those Europeans who were ready, in some cases, to leave their homelands at great risk or under terms of servitude, to get to America where they would finally have as equal an opportunity as is possible under a man-made system to achieve their dreams. There were quite a few indentured servants who came to colonial America because they knew they would never break out of the class system in their respective countries in Europe.

The promise of the Constitution was not perfection. It was simply to clearly define and limit the role of government in public affairs. If the government could keep its nose out of our business and our pockets then human ingenuity should (and did) kick in giving millions upon millions a better life than they could have ever achieved under any system back in their original country.

As for the status of women, I have done enough genealogy to see women in my ancestry inherit land, buildings, and other property from their fathers and husbands. Except among royalty in Europe, was that even possible a few hundred years ago?

[EmmaLee]

“All Men are created equal”

The meaning of the idea that “All Men are created equal.” The Declaration of Independence states that among the “truths” that Americans hold to be “self-evident” is that “all Men are created equal.” What did Thomas Jefferson mean by this statement?

There are two ways that all “men”—all persons—might be “created equal.” One is that they are all by birth or naturally political equals. This means that no one is legitimately the ruler of others by birth and no one is by birth the subject of a ruler. The other is that human equality goes deeper than just political equality. In this sense, all people are considered of equal value and worth, or equal in the eyes of God. All are created moral equals.

In fact Jefferson intended both of these senses of natural equality. Late in life he stated that in composing the Declaration he was not stating original principles or ideas of his own. Instead, his writing “was intended to be an expression of the American mind.” Both senses of natural human equality were common beliefs of colonial Americans in 1776.

History of the idea of political equality. Ideas of natural political equality were developed in seventeenth-century England and exported to its colonies across the North Atlantic. They were the expressions of English republican thought by writers such as the so-called “Levellers” (1640s), republican political theorist Algernon Sidney (1623–1683), and (especially) John Locke in his Second Treatise (1690). All of these sources speak of natural human political equality flowing from their natural equality by birth. “Equals,” Sidney wrote, “can have no right [to rule] over each other.” Locke emphasized that political equality is an aspect of man’s natural equality. Jefferson cited English republican Richard Rumbold’s (1622–1685) graphic analogy that “none comes into the world with a saddle on his back, neither any booted and spurred to ride him.” For these writers, since all are by nature political equals, legitimate government authority arises only by consent.

History of the idea of moral equality. The idea of the moral equality of human beings has more ancient origins. The equality and universal fraternity of humanity was a doctrine of the Stoic philosophers of the third century BC. These ideas were taken up and spread by Christianity, which held that each person has an immortal soul and that each person is equal in the sight of God. The Apostle Paul (5 AD–67) famously expressed this egalitarianism, saying, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Centuries later, the Protestant Reformation deepened the idea of universal moral and political equality in the doctrine of the “priesthood of all believers,” which attacked church hierarchy, and in various aspects of self-rule in church government.

Equality and the American mind. In colonial America, where Christianity was already deeply established, the Great Awakening, a religious revival movement that swept the colonies from the 1730s to the 1760s (a Second Great Awakening would take place in the nineteenth century), helped spread the idea of universal moral human equality, including equality among social classes. By the eve of the Revolution, universal human equality was a common American idea. It is little wonder that the Virginia Declaration of Rights—adopted on June 12, 1776 while Jefferson was working on his draft Declaration—asserted that “all men are by nature equally free and independent….”

http://www.civiced.org/resources/curric ... ms-to-know

Also, although "men" in this case was intended to represent "all mankind," at the time of the American Revolution full citizenship was reserved for white men. By saying all men were "created equal" Thomas Jefferson intended to abolish the system of hereditary aristocracy, where some individuals were born as lords and others were ordinary. Over time, the phrase "all men are created equal" has come to be interpreted to mean "all people are created equal," regardless of race, sex, or class.

[aspietroll]

The church isn't going to push the constitution the way Benson did because that will get the missionaries into trouble abroad.

Because the one way you can justify mormons being encouraged to study the constitution outside of America is to learn how it is the antithesis to socialism (which is the governmental system of many countries mormons are in) and the study the idea of self-evident inalienable right, given to man by his creator.

Does anyone else remember some time within the past two years when President Monson talked about missionaries in Germany, and how proselytizing there is illegal? If the principals of the Constitution become taught as church doctrine, are the missionaries in Germany going to follow the law? And if they do, what happens when they teach any German converts about the constitution as part of church doctrine? In the room in the church in Germany discussing the constitution, it would only be natural for the German people to begin discussing how Angela Merkel's governing style is very contrary to what is in the constitution.

Seeing as it is becoming increasingly hard for anyone in America today to be a constitutionalist and not be a racist or a fascist, wouldn't members of the LDS in foreign countries have even more difficult, where there isn't always going to protection of the law?

Though I would like to see the aftermath of an "international dispute" with Trump as President where Canada jails several American missionaries for proselytizing.

endnote: Monson mentioned proselytizing being illegal in Germany only in passing while talking about the missionaries. A good constitutionalist leader would had made that the subject of his speech.

[Silver]

Does anyone else remember some time within the past two years when President Monson talked about missionaries in Germany, and how proselytizing there is illegal?

endnote: Monson mentioned proselytizing being illegal in Germany only in passing while talking about the missionaries. A good constitutionalist leader would had made that the subject of his speech.

Would you kindly provide a reference for the talk mentioned above?

[aspietroll]

Does anyone else remember some time within the past two years when President Monson talked about missionaries in Germany, and how proselytizing there is illegal?

endnote: Monson mentioned proselytizing being illegal in Germany only in passing while talking about the missionaries. A good constitutionalist leader would had made that the subject of his speech.

Would you kindly provide a reference for the talk mentioned above?

It was shown to me by someone else, I won't find it again. Might not even had been Monson.

[freedomforall]

Does anyone else remember some time within the past two years when President Monson talked about missionaries in Germany, and how proselytizing there is illegal?

endnote: Monson mentioned proselytizing being illegal in Germany only in passing while talking about the missionaries. A good constitutionalist leader would had made that the subject of his speech.

Would you kindly provide a reference for the talk mentioned above?

It was shown to me by someone else, I won't find it again. Might not even had been Monson.

http://www.mormontemples.org/eng/temple ... rt-germany

[lundbaek]

I believe we should study the US Constitution and Bill of Rights and become familiar with their original intent/meaning, and also we should become aware of the meaning and intent of the 17 subsequent amendments, some of which have increased our freedoms and others of which have infringed on our freedoms.

D&C 98:4 tells me that our foremost obligation is to obey the Lord, not laws per se.

Verse 5 gives us the conditional justification to give allegiance to law, but limited to the condition that it not only meet constitutional muster, but that it supports the principles of fundamental rights of all---an important caveat against accepting modern legal interpretations, such as allowing for socialism in the welfare clause of the Constitution.

Verse 6 justifies us befriending the law but only if it is constitutional.  

So, it seems to me that even though these verses do not directly endorse the Constitution itself, the Lord has given us a higher standard in law that any allegiance to law must meet. That higher standard, I am sure, will have to be met when the "elders of Israel" will, as prophesied, restore all of our God-given rights.

[freedomforall]

Is pure air invisible?
Does water flow downhill?
Is Marz in Austria?
Do mice eat cheese?
Do sheep go home wagging their tails behind them?
Are airplanes heavy?
Did our Founding Fathers write the Constitution for the mere pleasure of it, and knowing it was going to go belly up in the future?

[lundbaek]

I think now that the Lord knew all along we would fail not be able to overturn the conspiracy and suffer dearly the loss of liberty in this country. Those murderus combination that Moroni warned us about have gotten above us now and a huge conspiracy of power infests all crucial centers of power in our government.

[freedomforall]

I think now that the Lord knew all along we would fail not be able to overturn the conspiracy and suffer dearly the loss of liberty in this country. Those murderus combination that Moroni warned us about have gotten above us now and a huge conspiracy of power infests all crucial centers of power in our government.

Here is an example of a man in a thoughtless stupor thinking he knows everything, and is oblivious to the fact that flying a flag upside down is proper in a time of distress.
There are too many people in America that don't, or won't accept truth as Gavin Seim shows here. Listen to this uninformed ex-military that has no clue of what he was supposed to defend, and totally oblivious to the growth of tyranny in our Government.

176. Respect for flag
No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.

(a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.



Another example is Michael Badnarik in his Constitution class.

Start at the 2:07 mark and thru to the 3:15 mark

I happen to concur with Gavin and Michael, flying the flag upside down "is legal!"

[freedomforall]

The day America Voted to Kill the Police! Gavin talks about freedom, liberty and independence being taken away.

[freedomforall]

Is it okay for a Judge to say "this is my courtroom", is in contempt of court themselves according to the Constitution...all the while being paid their salary by the public?

This is a typical example of tyranny that is taking place all across the nation. Is it any wonder our church leaders have been adamant in telling the members to learn and abide by the Constitution as meant by our Founder's, and not local Gadiantons wearing black robes?


Fifty Shades of Vegas! Judge Loses it when He Won’t Worship Her!

[freedomforall]

Josh was released after only two days due to patriots calling out freedom. liberty and the Constitution.