Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

[Ezra]

I wonder if a big part of the problem is that so many LDS voters do not realize that Mitt Romney and other LDS politicians have promoted and supported actions that are egregious violations of the Constitution. [According to lundbaek]. Take just one issue as an example. How many LDS voters realize the long term damage that is done by corporate bailouts? How many realize that corporate bailouts involve theft (legal plunder, as Bastiat was quoted as calling it) of our money? This is a good example of something you that are just assuming as cut and dried is an unconstitutional activity. Why is it unconstitutional? Might be bad, yes, but unconstitutional? What did the Courts say?

On another matter, I have come to realize that the LDS Church, if it were to stress constitutional principles as it did years ago, the powers in near full control of our government would exact retribution against the Church such that its missionary and building programs would be seriously crippled. It is not that the Lord approves of the trashing of the US Constitution; it is that if the Prophet or any Church authority were to speak now about freedom and the Constitution like Presidents Grant, G.A. Smith, McKay, Clark, and Benson did, there would be serious retribution that the Lord apparently does not want the Church to have to deal with. I do believe this is correct. I believe the 12th Article of Faith is more influential than people realize and influences much of the church activities.

But this strict adherence to "The Constitution as Only I See It", and the belief that anything that you disagree with "undermines the Constitution" ignores the contradiction which I pointed out earlier--if you are going to be arbitrarily enforcing only your strictest interpretations onto the Constitution, then you also need to admit that by that same level of strict scrutiny the US Constitution illegally replaced a lawfully enacted form of democratic government that actually respected personal liberty and principles of Federalism more strongly that the replacement did.

Romney respects the principles espoused in the US Constitution in a way that you (and I, sometimes) disagree with, but that doesn't make him wrong or evil or undermining the Constutution. Doing something differently isn't undermining. There is no "right" way to interpret Constitutions, or else you'd be forced to admit that our current Constitution is in fact unconstitutional.

Marbury vs. Madison was more than 50 years old when Joseph Smith wrote the 12th Article of Faith FWIW.

There is a “right” way to interpret the constitution. And it’s principles
God being the author (d&c 101:80) knows exactly how it’s to be interpreted. All we have to do is ask him or listen to what our prophets have instructed us as to the way it’s supposed to be interpreted.

[Fiannan]

He did make the vote interesting in Utah but that was because people don't like Trump's moral / Twitter dynamics.

What morals was he breaking on Twitter? Got some examples?

Oh, and have you had a chance to check into Evan McMullin yet? I really would like to know if he is a good man according to you.

[Arenera]

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

[Fiannan]

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Is this describing Romney or McMullin or both?

[Vgbnd]

Romney respects the principles espoused in the US Constitution in a way that you (and I, sometimes) disagree with, but that doesn't make him wrong or evil or undermining the Constutution. Doing something differently isn't undermining.

I remember learning about this giant caucus meeting (not on this planet) where a very large number of the attendees agreed with this relativist form of reasoning.

Thank you for slaying that giant straw man that was about to get us all.

[Vgbnd]

I wonder if a big part of the problem is that so many LDS voters do not realize that Mitt Romney and other LDS politicians have promoted and supported actions that are egregious violations of the Constitution. [According to lundbaek]. Take just one issue as an example. How many LDS voters realize the long term damage that is done by corporate bailouts? How many realize that corporate bailouts involve theft (legal plunder, as Bastiat was quoted as calling it) of our money? This is a good example of something you that are just assuming as cut and dried is an unconstitutional activity. Why is it unconstitutional? Might be bad, yes, but unconstitutional? What did the Courts say?

On another matter, I have come to realize that the LDS Church, if it were to stress constitutional principles as it did years ago, the powers in near full control of our government would exact retribution against the Church such that its missionary and building programs would be seriously crippled. It is not that the Lord approves of the trashing of the US Constitution; it is that if the Prophet or any Church authority were to speak now about freedom and the Constitution like Presidents Grant, G.A. Smith, McKay, Clark, and Benson did, there would be serious retribution that the Lord apparently does not want the Church to have to deal with. I do believe this is correct. I believe the 12th Article of Faith is more influential than people realize and influences much of the church activities.

But this strict adherence to "The Constitution as Only I See It", and the belief that anything that you disagree with "undermines the Constitution" ignores the contradiction which I pointed out earlier--if you are going to be arbitrarily enforcing only your strictest interpretations onto the Constitution, then you also need to admit that by that same level of strict scrutiny the US Constitution illegally replaced a lawfully enacted form of democratic government that actually respected personal liberty and principles of Federalism more strongly that the replacement did.

Romney respects the principles espoused in the US Constitution in a way that you (and I, sometimes) disagree with, but that doesn't make him wrong or evil or undermining the Constutution. Doing something differently isn't undermining. There is no "right" way to interpret Constitutions, or else you'd be forced to admit that our current Constitution is in fact unconstitutional.

Marbury vs. Madison was more than 50 years old when Joseph Smith wrote the 12th Article of Faith FWIW.

There is a “right” way to interpret the constitution. And it’s principles
God being the author (d&c 101:80) knows exactly how it’s to be interpreted. All we have to do is ask him or listen to what our prophets have instructed us as to the way it’s supposed to be interpreted. And its pretty clear that their words don’t treat the Constitution as canonized scripture or embrace interpretations that paint Mitt Romney as undermining the Constitution

Literally no one is saying that the principles in the Constitution are not divinely inspired. What’s in dispute is a small number of people claiming the right to interpret what is and isn’t Constitutional for LDS voters and pretend that their interpretation, and only their interpretations are blessed and correct. Its a fallacy built on the assumption that there is political and governmental questions have only one “correct” answer, and/or that “Constitutional” = doctrinally correct.

Let’s suppose that the Constitution is canonized scripture, like the Word of Wisdom, cause that seems to be what your implying even though it hurts your argument. Just because one person who has a “word of wisdom hobby” and says, “I have received revelation that eating meat or cheese is against the word of wisdom” doesn’t entitled that person to claim that those things are against the word of wisdom. I think that point has been argued on this board many times.

I believe its against the Word of Wisdom for the entire church when the prophet says so. “Random people” don’t interpret the Word of Wisdom for church members. But by that same token, people whose hobby is “The Constitution” don’t get to claim that something Mitt Romney supports is against the Constitution either, especially when the prophet hasn’t spoken.

[lundbaek]

The Constitution is not canonized scripture, but:
"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

If you want to know what a Prophet has spoken about the US Constitution I recommend THE CONSTITUTION - A Heavenly Banner by President Benson in 1986.

[Vgbnd]

I believe that God established the Constitution of the land. But that quote also demonstrates a perfect example of a prophet, seer and revelator giving his personal opinion, and clearly qualifying it as such. The sentiment though is accurate—and I don’t think anyone here doesn’t believe that God established the Constitution. The disagreement stems from who gets to interpret “Constitutional” principles, interpret them and apply them publicly and definitively to figures such as Mitt Romney to the extent that it is implied to be sinning or not righteous to vote for Mitt Romney.

For the sake of argument, which version of the Constitution should be written in the D&C? The original text? The original text with the first ten amendments? The text with amendments up until 1935 when that statement was made?

To me it seems like the whole concept of there being only one “right” way to answer each political question is a second cousin to wanting to be instructed in all things. Its pretty clear from the Book of Mormon that there isn’t a “right” government and a “wrong” government, there are shades of “good, better and best”. Political questions aren’t the same as doctrinal questions...there isn’t always a right and a wrong answer.

I have read President Benson’s book, although I’ll admit its been quite some time ago, when I was more directly involved in politics.

The Constitution is not canonized scripture, but:
"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

If you want to know what a Prophet has spoken about the US Constitution I recommend THE CONSTITUTION - A Heavenly Banner by President Benson in 1986.

[Silver]

I believe that God established the Constitution of the land. But that quote also demonstrates a perfect example of a prophet, seer and revelator giving his personal opinion, and clearly qualifying it as such. The sentiment though is accurate—and I don’t think anyone here doesn’t believe that God established the Constitution. The disagreement stems from who gets to interpret “Constitutional” principles, interpret them and apply them publicly and definitively to figures such as Mitt Romney to the extent that it is implied to be sinning or not righteous to vote for Mitt Romney.

For the sake of argument, which version of the Constitution should be written in the D&C? The original text? The original text with the first ten amendments? The text with amendments up until 1935 when that statement was made?

To me it seems like the whole concept of there being only one “right” way to answer each political question is a second cousin to wanting to be instructed in all things. Its pretty clear from the Book of Mormon that there isn’t a “right” government and a “wrong” government, there are shades of “good, better and best”. Political questions aren’t the same as doctrinal questions...there isn’t always a right and a wrong answer.

I have read President Benson’s book, although I’ll admit its been quite some time ago, when I was more directly involved in politics.

The Constitution is not canonized scripture, but:
"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

If you want to know what a Prophet has spoken about the US Constitution I recommend THE CONSTITUTION - A Heavenly Banner by President Benson in 1986.

I can see that you're going to make lots of friends here. Thanks for participating in the forum.

I like how Mosiah allowed for the good in the majority -- the voice of the people -- to create, promulgate and interpret laws (Mosiah 29). So beware, as Mosiah says, when the people choose evil. Then it won't matter what the laws say.

[Ezra]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

[Arenera]

Utah Gov. Herbert says Romney should run for the Senate
‘There’s nobody better,’ says Gary Herbert.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... he-senate/

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah billionaire/philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr. have likewise encouraged Romney to run and Hatch himself earlier had said he would have stepped aside for Romney.

Widespread support for Romney by people in the know.

[Fiannan]

Utah Gov. Herbert says Romney should run for the Senate
‘There’s nobody better,’ says Gary Herbert.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/20 ... he-senate/

Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox and Utah billionaire/philanthropist Jon Huntsman Sr. have likewise encouraged Romney to run and Hatch himself earlier had said he would have stepped aside for Romney.

Widespread support for Romney by people in the know.

Why are you cheerleading for Romney? You do not live in Utah, right?

And McMullin???

[Fiannan]

Political questions aren’t the same as doctrinal questions...there isn’t always a right and a wrong answer.

I would say they can be, as in regards to the US Constitution. Many of our problems today come from both abandoning the laws below and loosely interpreting, to fit what our politically correct desires are, the US Constitution. While most people today support birth control it was the Griswold decision legalizing birth control in the 1960s that was essential to legalizing abortion on demand in 1973.

[Arenera]

Now is the time for Mitt to come to the aid of his party.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... nald-trump

[Vgbnd]

Political questions aren’t the same as doctrinal questions...there isn’t always a right and a wrong answer.

I would say they can be, as in regards to the US Constitution. Many of our problems today come from both abandoning the laws below and loosely interpreting, to fit what our politically correct desires are, the US Constitution. While most people today support birth control it was the Griswold decision legalizing birth control in the 1960s that was essential to legalizing abortion on demand in 1973.

Yes, I think there can be right and wrong answers to political question. But not all political or Constitutional questions are binary, and that's what brought me into this conversation because the implication surrounding Mitt seems to be that it is objectively "wrong" to vote for him based on Constitutional principles.

Regarding your point about birth control--there is some truth there that the one led to the other, but as to fitting that truth into our current conversation regarding the propriety of voting for someone like Mitt Romney--based on their adherence to "Constitutional Principles", I don't think it adds much.

Are you saying that legalizing birth control is an example of a law that runs contrary to the Constitution? If so, what part of the Constitution? Or are you arguing more generally that a bad law later caused us to contravene a Constitutional principle? If so, are you arguing that the US Constitution prohibits abortion?

[Fiannan]

Are you saying that legalizing birth control is an example of a law that runs contrary to the Constitution? If so, what part of the Constitution? Or are you arguing more generally that a bad law later caused us to contravene a Constitutional principle? If so, are you arguing that the US Constitution prohibits abortion?

I am saying that they created the "right to privacy" out of thin air. I doubt the framers of the US Constitution thought about abortion during their discussions. Yet the left says that abortion is a "constitutional right" which it is not.

[Vgbnd]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.

[Vgbnd]

Are you saying that legalizing birth control is an example of a law that runs contrary to the Constitution? If so, what part of the Constitution? Or are you arguing more generally that a bad law later caused us to contravene a Constitutional principle? If so, are you arguing that the US Constitution prohibits abortion?

I am saying that they created the "right to privacy" out of thin air. I doubt the framers of the US Constitution thought about abortion during their discussions. Yet the left says that abortion is a "constitutional right" which it is not.

But this is why Constitutional questions don't have easy right or wrong answers. Because the US Constitution actually DOES include both a "right to privacy" and a "right to abortion" because, since the Constitution lists only positive, enumerated powers, the absence of authority to proscribe those items means that technically they exist and can't be prohibited, EXCEPT by the States. This concept is why George Mason didn't want the Bill of Rights, because he essentially argued that if you list ten rights and say they are Constitutionally guaranteed, then by implication its ONLY those rights that are guaranteed--and he was proven right.

All that doesn't really contradict your point, which although legally inaccurate does communicate what happened more clearly than what actually happened inside the courtroom.

More properly (but still not perfectly said) the Court linked an existing Right to Privacy to the Fourth Amendment and inversely applied it against the States as an prohibition on the States ability, under the 10th Amendment to constrain activities that were delegated to them by the Federal Constitution. Said more clearly, the Federal Constitution says nothing about abortion, therefore we should assume the "Right to abortion" exists, but that States also have the ability to constrain that. The damage to the original intent of the Constitution was not done by expanding the power of the 4th Amendment to include a right of privacy (that DOES exist) but by weakening the power of the 10th amendment to preclude the States from regulating activities clearly delegated to them by the federal government.

[Ezra]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.

Yet our prophets have said to them it is scripture. Can’t find the quote but I know it exists.

I reverence the Constitution as a sacred document. To me it’s words are akin to the revelations of God. I testify that God sent some of His choicest spirits to lay the foundations of the government, AND HE HAS NOW SENT OTHER CHOICE SPIRITS TO HELP PRESERVE IT!
Pres. Ezra Taft Benson — CR Oct 87

[dconrad000]

But this is why Constitutional questions don't have easy right or wrong answers. Because the US Constitution actually DOES include both a "right to privacy" and a "right to abortion" because, since the Constitution lists only positive, enumerated powers, the absence of authority to proscribe those items means that technically they exist and can't be prohibited, EXCEPT by the States.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/


To me, that includes young children -- including those yet residing in their mother's womb. They are living human beings. They have the right to be protected, just as much as the newborn infant, toddler, teenager, or any adult. The states cannot decide that you don't have a right to live, unless you have committed a grievous crime...and that applies to babies, too.

[lundbaek]

Here's one for you, Ezra:

"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

[Ezra]

Here's one for you, Ezra:

"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

That’s the one I was looking for thanks

[Michelle]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.

Interesting choice of words:

There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says

"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)

The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.

[Arenera]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.

Interesting choice of words:

There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says

"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)

The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.

After you have a few people, who is to say what is right and wrong?

For example, should a person of voting age from Utah vote for Romney if he runs for senate? 70% of Utahns would probably vote for Romney.

Some on this board are adamant that voting for Romney is sinful, sinful enough to take you to the Telestial kingdom.

Do you agree with that?

[Michelle]

The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.

Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.

Interesting choice of words:

There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says

"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)

The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.

After you have a few people, who is to say what is right and wrong?

For example, should a person of voting age from Utah vote for Romney if he runs for senate? 70% of Utahns would probably vote for Romney.

Some on this board are adamant that voting for Romney is sinful, sinful enough to take you to the Telestial kingdom.

Do you agree with that?

Arenera,

"Who is to say what is right or wrong?"

I will ask God and expect to receive the answer through study and prayer. I am no fan of moral relativism or private interpretations. You will vote for who you choose and I will vote for who I choose and we will both stand accountable before God. If 70% of Utahns choose to vote for Romney they will do the same. I am not about to make final judgement on anybody based on whether they would vote for Romney or not. I am also not going to be persuaded that something being popular makes it the correct choice.

That being said, I don't expect to vote for Romney.

Edited: I accidentally pushed submit before I finished typing.