The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Ezra »

Thus far have any of the changes of the constitution brought about a change for the good?

did you come closer to God befor you even knew about the constitution? If yes then you have proved your self wrong that it goes hand in hand. Which I've already given quite a few examples to show it doesn't.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Ezra wrote:Thus far have any of the changes of the constitution brought about a change for the good?
First 10 did, because they were mostly just. The ones after were mostly bad, therefore they brought bad changes. There is no surprise: good brings good, bad brings bad. That's simple.
Ezra wrote:did you come closer to God befor you even knew about the constitution? If yes then you have proved your self wrong that it goes hand in hand. Which I've already given quite a few examples to show it doesn't.
I didn't say they are in complete lock step, but one causes the other ultimately. Good changes in law help to educate people about correct principles. Bad changes in law lead them to believe incorrect principles. (Like so many have the entitlement plunder mentality because the law promotes plunder.)

So passing a good amendment would help mightily with education in and promotion of correct principles of Liberty.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by creator »

LoveIsTruth wrote:No, it is you who came to my thread (thanks Brian). I didn't ask you to post in it. You do it of your own free will. Feel free to start your own, I promise not to post there, and quit complaining about me responding to what is said in my thread. You look ridiculous....
Thanks for what?
Are you going to continue to make inappropriate comments towards others even after I have warned you for it? (RE: your comment to "freedomforall": "You look ridiculous")

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by David13 »

The bad thing about changing the Constitution is then everybody wants to change it to suit whatever, and today we have perversions that seek, yes, sexual perversions that seek legal, spiritual and moral approval.
And every other possible change, rider, amendment, etc., to put forth whatever the politically correct agenda of the day is.
And you end up with a mess.
So if you really don't think the government freeloaders should be "entitled" what you want to do is strictly construe the Constitution and make the amendment process as difficult as possible so that very very very few changes are ever made.
dc

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Ezra »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
Ezra wrote:Thus far have any of the changes of the constitution brought about a change for the good?
First 10 did, because they were mostly just. The ones after were mostly bad, therefore they brought bad changes. There is no surprise: good brings good, bad brings bad. That's simple.
Ezra wrote:did you come closer to God befor you even knew about the constitution? If yes then you have proved your self wrong that it goes hand in hand. Which I've already given quite a few examples to show it doesn't.
I didn't say they are in complete lock step, but one causes the other ultimately. Good changes in law help to educate people about correct principles. Bad changes in law lead them to believe incorrect principles. (Like so many have the entitlement plunder mentality because the law promotes plunder.)

So passing a good amendment would help mightily with education in and promotion of correct principles of Liberty.

The first 10 amendments are from God through the founding fathers. But all the other amendments after the first 10 which are God's creation has been a train wreck

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

BrianM wrote:Thanks for what?
Thanks for the forum, of course.
BrianM wrote:Are you going to continue to make inappropriate comments towards others even after I have warned you for it? (RE: your comment to "freedomforall": "You look ridiculous")
I feel I made an honest comment. But I guess not all truth needs to be said at all times :)

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

David13 wrote:The bad thing about changing the Constitution is then everybody wants to change it to suit whatever, and today we have perversions that seek, yes, sexual perversions that seek legal, spiritual and moral approval.
And every other possible change, rider, amendment, etc., to put forth whatever the politically correct agenda of the day is.
And you end up with a mess.
So if you really don't think the government freeloaders should be "entitled" what you want to do is strictly construe the Constitution and make the amendment process as difficult as possible so that very very very few changes are ever made.
dc
In fact it would've been better that the eternal immutable principles of Liberty and Justice were stated in the Constitution, and could not be changed afterwards. But unfortunately, those principles were not clearly and fully understood at the time of writing of the original Constitution; but now we have the benefit of 200 years of history, and greater light and knowledge available on the subject, so those principles can finally be definitively stated, and incorporated into the Constitution.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:Thanks for what?
Thanks for the forum, of course.
BrianM wrote:Are you going to continue to make inappropriate comments towards others even after I have warned you for it? (RE: your comment to "freedomforall": "You look ridiculous")
I feel I made an honest comment. But I guess not all truth needs to be said at all times :)
When you get kicked off the forum then we'll see who has the truth behind them. You just plain do not know when to quit. I do not appreciate your cocky attitude nor your cocky labels you place on others for your own self aggrandizing gain. I think you better quit while you're behind.
And you show just how much you love others by punching them right in the stomach, huh? By saying:
LoveIsTruth wrote:Ezra and freedomfighter, even though we disagree on points of doctrine, I still regard you as friends and brothers in the Gospel. Please know of my love and respect for you. Thank you for your love of the Gospel, Liberty, and country. Best wishes to both of you.
And then you stick to saying I look ridiculous with emphasis when you say: I feel I made an honest comment. But I guess not all truth needs to be said at all times.

I can really sense the love shown with this garbage coming out of your mouth in mind.

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Ezra »

I've heard it said that the kingdoms of heaven will be filled by us seperating ourselfs out with those who we feel comfortable with and likeminded with.

Those who don't know God won't feel comfortable with him. And leave. God won't cast them out they will cast themselfs out. All while God is pleading for them to repent and come into him. To stay. They will leave because they don't know him.

Ohh they think they do I'm sure many will think they do. But they don't. And no unclean thing will stay.

It's important to know gods will and ways. If you have not spent your life in persuit of that knowlegde you will be numbered with those whom the lords says "I know you not"

Lov. I honestly feel your missing out on the important things in life with your persuits.

Make a list of the most important accomplishments you could make in this life to build that personal relationship with God.
And then do those things first. Frist change yourself.
Then help others to do the same.

Then look to see what eles can be done.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by creator »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:Thanks for what?
Thanks for the forum, of course.
BrianM wrote:Are you going to continue to make inappropriate comments towards others even after I have warned you for it? (RE: your comment to "freedomforall": "You look ridiculous")
I feel I made an honest comment. But I guess not all truth needs to be said at all times :)
What I was trying to tell you earlier, in the warning, is that you don't need to make personal attacks against others when trying share ideas, opinions, make a point, etc. Just say what you want to say without putting others down (without calling people 'ridiculous' and whatever else you might have said).

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by creator »

I guess I'll chime in on this topic.

I don't agree with all of the amendments to the Constitution but the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights I believe is inspired and accepted by the Lord.

In D&C 101 (77-80) the Lord stated the "constitution ... should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.."

and that He "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose". That purpose being protection of our rights, and that we might have our moral agency preserved and not be in bondage one to another.

This part about the Constitution preserving our moral agency is actually very important and sometimes not well understood. The way it does that it was supposed to keep the Federal government out of everyone's business and allowing individual states, cities and communities the freedom to enforce their own standard. If followed, the result would be like 50 'mini-nations' all experimenting on Freedom and learning from each other by their successes and failures. Allowing men their agency to fail or succeed and to associate with communities that upheld their own moral beliefs.

The flaw is in men - they don't actually follow the Constitution or the proper role of government.

Joseph Smith said it's only flaw is basically that it wasn't broad enough in enforcing its provisions in regards to those who neglect it. But the thing is, and I think Joseph knew this, it's not a flaw in the Constitution but in men. If the elected officials don't follow the Constitution and the people don't hold them accountable there is no law or amendment that is going to change that. If they are already not following the established law it would do no good to enact another law requiring them to obey the law they are already ignoring. (That's why it's so ridiculous that people are calling for a balanced budget amendment - that won't solve the problem).

Joseph prayed that the Constitution would be established forever ( http://www.latterdayconservative.com/quote/dc-10954/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and said that he is "the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth."

I was trying to find a source for what I recall reading about Joseph Smith attempting to re-write the Constitution.. Found this on a blog (there's a more official source somewhere, but for now):
Did you know that Joseph Smith attempted to rewrite the US Constitution? Yes, he did. And he also attempted to have some of the apostles do so as well. They struggled with it. Joseph Smith struggled with it. As such he went to the Lord and asked, “what shall I change?” As a result of his query we have the 98th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. “…whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” D&C 98:7
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

While campaigning for President of the United States in 1844, Smith had opportunity to take political positions on issues of the day. Smith considered the U.S. Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, to be inspired by God and "the [Latter Day] Saints' best and perhaps only defense"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

BrianM wrote:I guess I'll chime in on this topic.
Excellent.
BrianM wrote:I don't agree with all of the amendments to the Constitution but the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights I believe is inspired and accepted by the Lord.
I believe so too.
BrianM wrote:In D&C 101 (77-80) the Lord stated the "constitution ... should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.."

and that He "established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose". That purpose being protection of our rights, and that we might have our moral agency preserved and not be in bondage one to another.
Would you then agree that the amendment that explicitly forbade slavery was in harmony with that purpose, and improved the original Constitution, which was specifically crafted to allow slavery (with its 3/5th compromise and the founders being slave-holders before and after the adoption of the Constitution)?
BrianM wrote:This part about the Constitution preserving our moral agency is actually very important and sometimes not well understood. The way it does that it was supposed to keep the Federal government out of everyone's business and allowing individual states, cities and communities the freedom to enforce their own standard. If followed, the result would be like 50 'mini-nations' all experimenting on Freedom and learning from each other by their successes and failures. Allowing men their agency to fail or succeed and to associate with communities that upheld their own moral beliefs.
That is a good point and I agree with it.
BrianM wrote:The flaw is in men - they don't actually follow the Constitution or the proper role of government.
Would you agree that better laws help people to be better, and that bad laws encourage them to be bad?
BrianM wrote:Joseph Smith said it's only flaw is basically that it wasn't broad enough in enforcing its provisions in regards to those who neglect it.
Still a flaw though, isn't it? And if a flaw then improvement is possible.

Have we not seen the need for that in the last 200 years? Why should it be a surprise that as the understanding of people increases, their laws become better? (I do wish the understanding of the founders was perfect from the beginning, (and I don't blame them for doing the best they knew how), then the Constitution would have been perfect from the beginning, but it wasn't. And even if it was, if more justice can be put into it, seeing there is a desperate need for it, why not do it, to make it a stronger instrument in the fight for Justice and Liberty?)
BrianM wrote:But the thing is, and I think Joseph knew this, it's not a flaw in the Constitution but in men.
It is both. It is a flaw in the Constitution AND in men. One helps and amplifies the other.
BrianM wrote:If the elected officials don't follow the Constitution and the people don't hold them accountable there is no law or amendment that is going to change that.
But would you agree that it would be easier for the people to keep the officials accountable if the Constitution explicitly forbade certain key perversions of the government which now it almost allows? (For example: it did not say "there will be slavery" but it allowed it. It did not also say "the government shall plunder private property" but it left the door thrown wide open for it, with overly broad taxation clauses like "The Congress shall have power to ... lay and collect taxes...").

I don't think the founders themselves understood the proper place of taxation, that one can only rightly tax the things he owns, (like charging rent for use of them etc), and nothing else. That the public government can only rightly tax the things it owns, i.e. public property and nothing else. To tax private property of someone is to violate it, by definition. You don't own it, you cannot tax it, -- it is not yours.

Neither did the founders fully understand the absolute nature of the prohibition against violation of private property, such violation being the very definition of evil itself, and thus is always wrong in all circumstances, no matter what majority voted for it.

This very important and key weakness in the Constitution must be fix, if the Country is to survive, because this legalized plunder, that is public taxation of private property is the root of all evil in the government, that empowered all the vices and predations of the state including war-state, welfare-state, police-state, and corruption of the monetary system (because interestingly, corruption of the monetary system by government is impossible without using taxation to discourage alternative currencies, which, if allowed to flourish, would kill fiat monetary system with its legalized counterfeiting via free competition in currencies).

In all cases, it is the false premise that private property may be violated by the majority, that is the root of all evil in government, from which all other government evils are derived.

I say it again: violation of private property is the very definition of evil itself, and good is nothing more or less than private property. (Hence the name "goods," and Hans Hoppe's joke that the plundering government produces only "bads" :) because it violates private property.)
BrianM wrote:If they are already not following the established law it would do no good to enact another law requiring them to obey the law they are already ignoring.
That is actually not true. You are ignoring the educational and convincing power of the law, (because in the final analysis persuasion is everything). You are missing a key point of the fact that the ONLY way for a tiny minority to plunder an overwhelming majority (like 300 million people) is to deceive them into compliance "for the greater good" so that they would consent to be plundered.

Disabuse them of the lie, and the consent of the many evaporates, and with it the ability of the very few to plunder the many.

The Constitution can and should be such banner, blazing and exposing to the sky the lie, forbidding legalized plunder, i.e. violation of private property in all of its forms, including and especially public taxation and public regulation of private property.

The only thing the public has the right to regulate is public property, taking care of nuisances, because they own the public property, but they have no right to regulate private property, because they do not own it.

The only just public law that governs private property is this one: "Private Property shall not be violated." All other public laws governing private property are unjust, because no one, and no group no matter the size, have the right to govern what they do not own.

Can you imagine what this country would be like if language like this was a part of the Constitution? Would it then have been possible for so few to deceive and to plunder so many?

I say it again, the only way for the few to plunder the many is to deceive them into compliance "for their own good," so that they would believe that somehow, on some level, the plunder is justified. Expose the lie, and the plunder stops. Remove such believe, and the consent evaporates, and with it the ability of the very few to plunder the very many.

Truth has infinite power. And if understood, it does make people free.

The Constitution MUST contain the truth, or it will become worthless in the fight for Liberty. Hence the wisdom of God in making sure the Constitution could be amended and improved, and then revealing a more perfect understanding of the laws of Justice and Liberty so they could be eventually incorporated into the Constitution, thus fulfilling the mandate that God gave that the "constitution ... should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles..." (D&C 101:77-80), while the original Constitution allowed slavery. Hence was the need to improve it, and it was partially improved with the 13th amendment, which explicitly forbade slavery, in perfect harmony, in that point, with the word of God.

And so it must be improved further to forbid any and all violations of private property by the government, especially public taxation and regulation of private property, which is a violation of private property by definition, and therefore is unjust, and must not be allowed if Liberty is to exist and the country to survive and prosper.
BrianM wrote:(That's why it's so ridiculous that people are calling for a balanced budget amendment - that won't solve the problem).
It would actually help. It would be a positive step. It would be much harder to lie that "deficits don't matter." And it would make easier to sue government officials for putting the public into debt, and remove them from the office. The more clear the law is, the better it could be used to enforce it. Remember, persuasion is everything. That's what rules the world.
BrianM wrote:Joseph prayed that the Constitution would be established forever ( http://www.latterdayconservative.com/quote/dc-10954/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) and said that he is "the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth."

I was trying to find a source for what I recall reading about Joseph Smith attempting to re-write the Constitution.. Found this on a blog (there's a more official source somewhere, but for now):
Did you know that Joseph Smith attempted to rewrite the US Constitution? Yes, he did. And he also attempted to have some of the apostles do so as well. They struggled with it. Joseph Smith struggled with it. As such he went to the Lord and asked, “what shall I change?” As a result of his query we have the 98th section of the Doctrine and Covenants. “…whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.” D&C 98:7
"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn."
More or less than what? Than the law supporting "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges." It does not mean the Constitution is perfect and cannot or should not be improved. Indeed it has been improved by the 13th amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This is in perfect accord with the word of the Lord "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:79)

Joseph struggled with improving the Constitution because he did not understand perfectly the principle that private property is the definition of justice and liberty, and that violation of private property is the very definition of evil. This is why D&C 134 is only a declaration of belief, instead of a declaration of finalized and immutable doctrine.
Last edited by LoveIsTruth on June 16th, 2015, 2:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

If people lived their lives as God wants them to there would be no need for improving the Constitution. Satan is the guy who wants to force people to obey. This is not God's way. Forced obedience is what Nazi Germany practiced. God already said that he had the Constitution written so slavery would eventually stop...and it did. Likewise, the Israelites were in bondage four around 400 years before Moses came along and freed them.
Righteousness is what is needed in order for every man to have his own property without someone coming along and taking it from them or even attempting to...just like in Nevada. The government has no business running the lives of a free people. It is evil minded people that have made life miserable for the rest until now evil doings are more commonplace. Want a better Constitution? Fix the people. The Constitution was to be for a righteous republic nothing else. God has a place all set up for the wicked, because they didn't see fit to obey his commandments. But even he will not force people into obedience, but he can sure make their life miserable.
I like what John Taylor said when he told us that the Constitutions should be taught to our children, intact, pure and unadulterated. So if, if Joseph had said anything to the contrary, JT didn't agree with it either. No one can change the Constitution and then claim it is intact and unadulterated. I fully believe that if God had wanted it written a different way, he'd had someone do it way before now.
President Benson told us outright that God placed his stamp approval on the Constitution and I stick with him.

President Benson tells us what we must do. For those who say he is full of it do so at their own peril.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

freedomforall wrote:If people lived their lives as God wants them to there would be no need for improving the Constitution. Satan is the guy who wants to force people to obey. This is not God's way. Forced obedience is what Nazi Germany practiced. God already said that he had the Constitution written so slavery would eventually stop...and it did. Likewise, the Israelites were in bondage four around 400 years before Moses came along and freed them.
Righteousness is what is needed in order for every man to have his own property without someone coming along and taking it from them or even attempting to...just like in Nevada. The government has no business running the lives of a free people. It is evil minded people that have made life miserable for the rest until now evil doings are more commonplace. Want a better Constitution? Fix the people. The Constitution was to be for a righteous republic nothing else. God has a place all set up for the wicked, because they didn't see fit to obey his commandments. But even he will not force people into obedience, but he can sure make their life miserable.
I like what John Taylor said when he told us that the Constitutions should be taught to our children, intact, pure and unadulterated. So if, if Joseph had said anything to the contrary, JT didn't agree with it either. No one can change the Constitution and then claim it is intact and unadulterated. I fully believe that if God had wanted it written a different way, he'd had someone do it way before now.
President Benson told us outright that God placed his stamp approval on the Constitution and I stick with him.

President Benson tells us what we must do. For those who say he is full of it do so at their own peril.
God also put a stamp of approval upon the Bible. It didn't mean the Book of Mormon should not have come forth.
  • "A [Constitution]! A [Constitution]! We have got a [Constitution], and there cannot be any more [Constitution].
    But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, ... murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? ... And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; ... Wherefore, because that ye have [the Constitution] ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written." (2 Nephi 29: 3-10) "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men 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).
Unless we accept more of God's words into the Constitution, it will be taken away from us.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15)

:)

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by creator »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:In D&C 101 (77-80) the Lord stated the "constitution ... should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles.."
Would you then agree that the amendment that explicitly forbade slavery was in harmony with that purpose..?
Yes, agreed.
LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:The flaw is in men - they don't actually follow the Constitution or the proper role of government.
Would you agree that better laws help people to be better, and that bad laws encourage them to be bad?
I think the way I would word it is that man's laws should mirror God's laws. The laws aren't even necessarily for the good people (who are already following God's law) but allows them a way to be protected from the bad people. Also, those laws should be made at the proper level of government (local > state > federal).
LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:Joseph Smith said it's only flaw is basically that it wasn't broad enough in enforcing its provisions in regards to those who neglect it.
Still a flaw though, isn't it? And if a flaw then improvement is possible.
Have we not seen the need for that in the last 200 years?
If you want to say it's "still a flaw" I don't care to argue that point back and forth. It's a flaw that is only a flaw because men are flawed. Yes, we've seen a lot of corruption and ignoring of the Constitution over the years.

I'm going to address the rest by skipping down to...
LoveIsTruth wrote:More or less than what? Than the law supporting "principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges." It does not mean the Constitution is perfect and cannot or should not be improved. Indeed it has been improved by the 13th amendment: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." This is in perfect accord with the word of the Lord "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:79)
Yes, "more or less than this" - this meaning: "supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges".

Yes, amendments can be beneficial/good (such as the 13th) but most things are best left for each state to decide.
LoveIsTruth wrote: ..This is why D&C 134 is only a declaration of belief, instead of a declaration of finalized and immutable doctrine.
D&C 134 was written by Oliver Cowdery and approved by the Saints for inclusion in the D&C while Joseph was away (FYI).

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

BrianM wrote:If you want to say it's "still a flaw" I don't care to argue that point back and forth. It's a flaw that is only a flaw because men are flawed.
Men are flawed, and the Constitution was written for flawed men. That was its purpose. It would have fulfilled its purpose better if Joseph Smith's suggestion for improving it was put in place.
BrianM wrote:Yes, amendments can be beneficial/good (such as the 13th) but most things are best left for each state to decide.
For sure. But it is the Federal government that does the most plunder, and it should be restricted by an amendment to the Constitution to explicitly forbid all public taxation and regulation (read violation) of private property. Because violation of private property is the definition of evil. And this evil (violation of private property via public taxation of private property) is the very life blood of the monster that empowers all of the vices of the government, and this key evil was not explicitly forbidden in the original Constitution, yet it must be, if Liberty and the country is to survive.

The only things a public government has a right to regulate and tax are the things it owns, i.e. public property, and nothing else.
BrianM wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:..This is why D&C 134 is only a declaration of belief, instead of a declaration of finalized and immutable doctrine.
D&C 134 was written by Oliver Cowdery and approved by the Saints for inclusion in the D&C while Joseph was away (FYI).
I am sure it would not have made into D&C without Joseph's approval.

Thanks for your comments.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8237
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by creator »

LoveIsTruth wrote:.. But it is the Federal government that does the most plunder, and it should be restricted by an amendment to the Constitution to explicitly forbid all public taxation and regulation (read violation) of private property. Because violation of private property is the definition of evil. And this evil (violation of private property via public taxation of private property) is the very life blood of the monster that empowers all of the vices of the government, and this key evil was not explicitly forbidden in the original Constitution, yet it must be, if Liberty and the country is to survive...
I'm not opposed to trying to eliminate government plunder and violations of the constitution and our rights -- however I think it might be too late. Perhaps it can be implemented after the cleansing of America.
LoveIsTruth wrote:
BrianM wrote:
LoveIsTruth wrote:..This is why D&C 134 is only a declaration of belief, instead of a declaration of finalized and immutable doctrine.
D&C 134 was written by Oliver Cowdery and approved by the Saints for inclusion in the D&C while Joseph was away (FYI).
I am sure it would not have made into D&C without Joseph's approval.
Actually, the story is that Joseph would not have put it in the D&C but allowed it to be so because the people had voted for it (this was told by Joseph F. Smith who was teaching about the law of common consent - this being an example of that law in action).

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

BrianM wrote:I'm not opposed to trying to eliminate government plunder and violations of the constitution and our rights -- however I think it might be too late. Perhaps it can be implemented after the cleansing of America.
You are exactly right. But we still should try. It is a chance to proclaim the truth.
BrianM wrote:Actually, the story is that Joseph would not have put it in the D&C but allowed it to be so because the people had voted for it (this was told by Joseph F. Smith who was teaching about the law of common consent - this being an example of that law in action).
Interesting. I did not know that. Thanks for the info. But it still proves the point that non of them understood the principles well enough to state them in absolute terms.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
freedomforall wrote:If people lived their lives as God wants them to there would be no need for improving the Constitution. Satan is the guy who wants to force people to obey. This is not God's way. Forced obedience is what Nazi Germany practiced. God already said that he had the Constitution written so slavery would eventually stop...and it did. Likewise, the Israelites were in bondage four around 400 years before Moses came along and freed them.
Righteousness is what is needed in order for every man to have his own property without someone coming along and taking it from them or even attempting to...just like in Nevada. The government has no business running the lives of a free people. It is evil minded people that have made life miserable for the rest until now evil doings are more commonplace. Want a better Constitution? Fix the people. The Constitution was to be for a righteous republic nothing else. God has a place all set up for the wicked, because they didn't see fit to obey his commandments. But even he will not force people into obedience, but he can sure make their life miserable.
I like what John Taylor said when he told us that the Constitutions should be taught to our children, intact, pure and unadulterated. So if, if Joseph had said anything to the contrary, JT didn't agree with it either. No one can change the Constitution and then claim it is intact and unadulterated. I fully believe that if God had wanted it written a different way, he'd had someone do it way before now.
President Benson told us outright that God placed his stamp approval on the Constitution and I stick with him.

President Benson tells us what we must do. For those who say he is full of it do so at their own peril.
God also put a stamp of approval upon the Bible. It didn't mean the Book of Mormon should not have come forth.
  • "A [Constitution]! A [Constitution]! We have got a [Constitution], and there cannot be any more [Constitution].
    But thus saith the Lord God: O fools, ... murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? ... And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; ... Wherefore, because that ye have [the Constitution] ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written." (2 Nephi 29: 3-10) "For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men 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).
Unless we accept more of God's words into the Constitution, it will be taken away from us.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." (Matthew 11:15)

:)
Since you do acknowledge that God did put his stamp of approval on the Constitution, then you also should know that it was written exactly the way he wanted it or he wouldn't have put his stamp of approval on it. Only man would come up with such an idea of changing it to read something else.

2 Nephi 9:28
28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

1 Corinthians 3:18,19
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

Does any one man know more, understand more or think at a higher level than God? See: 2 Nephi 9:28
A very simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Yes or no!

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by Ezra »

The stumbeling block of the gentiles is that they put down the miracles of God. And teach there own wisdoms and learnings. 2 nephi 26:20.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

freedomforall wrote:Since you do acknowledge that God did put his stamp of approval on the Constitution, then you also should know that it was written exactly the way he wanted it or he wouldn't have put his stamp of approval on it. Only man would come up with such an idea of changing it to read something else.
God also put a stamp of approval on the amendment process, that he put into the Constitution. He also put his stamp of approval on the 13th amendment, which squares perfectly with his word. He also put his stamp of approval upon the principles I propose to be added to the Constitution. Why do I say so? Because they are his principles, and square perfectly with his words in the scriptures.
freedomforall wrote:Does any one man know more, understand more or think at a higher level than God? See: 2 Nephi 9:28
A very simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Yes or no!
No. And you should respect the wisdom of Him who made the Constitution amendable, and revealed more light and knowledge to be added to it, which if you reject, even that which you have received will be taken away from you, according to his own words.

User avatar
LoveIsTruth
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5497

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by LoveIsTruth »

Ezra wrote:The stumbeling block of the gentiles is that they put down the miracles of God. And teach there own wisdoms and learnings. 2 nephi 26:20.
The stumbling block of many LDS is that they don't wish to think, nor believe God and his prophets when they bring additional light to them.
  • "I have tried for a number of years to get the minds of the Saints prepared to receive the things of God; but we frequently see some of them, after suffering all they have for the work of God, will fly to pieces like glass as soon as anything comes that is contrary to their traditions."
    — Joseph Smith, Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 520.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

Ezra wrote:The stumbeling block of the gentiles is that they put down the miracles of God. And teach there own wisdoms and learnings. 2 nephi 26:20.
As in..."Dear God, I come before you to tell you that you made some mistakes as to how the Constitutions was penned. I want those errors rectified. Instead of having people govern themselves I want new laws that will force people to do right. Instead of people repenting and having increased charity, I want them to be coerced into submission for the good of everyone."
Then we can toss out the scriptures.

freedomforall
Gnolaum ∞
Posts: 16479
Location: WEST OF THE NEW JERUSALEM

Re: The Fundamental Principles of Liberty

Post by freedomforall »

LoveIsTruth wrote:
freedomforall wrote:Since you do acknowledge that God did put his stamp of approval on the Constitution, then you also should know that it was written exactly the way he wanted it or he wouldn't have put his stamp of approval on it. Only man would come up with such an idea of changing it to read something else.
God also put a stamp of approval on the amendment process, that he put into the Constitution. He also put his stamp of approval on the 13th amendment, which squares perfectly with his word. He also put his stamp of approval upon the principles I propose to be added to the Constitution. Why do I say so? Because they are his principles, and square perfectly with his words in the scriptures.
freedomforall wrote:Does any one man know more, understand more or think at a higher level than God? See: 2 Nephi 9:28
A very simple "yes" or "no" will suffice. Yes or no!
No. And you should respect the wisdom of Him who made the Constitution amendable, and revealed more light and knowledge to be added to it, which if you reject, even that which you have received will be taken away from you, according to his own words.
Tell us, did you get it straight from God's mouth that the Constitution is amendable, to be changed according to man's whims? And where are the sources that even come close to this notion. Man had more to do with the amendments 11 on up. 1-10 are the Bill of Rights.

Post Reply