Preach the Constitution

[Doc Jensen]

Y'all ginxed me I got a call from the Bishop's secretary asking to give a talk about daily prayer.

[lundbaek]

Good opportunity to suggest in your talk that members pray for divine assistance in awakening to our "awful situation" and in restoring princples of the US Constitution to government.

[Tribunal]

For me the Constitution is modern-day Scripture, inspired of God, to be administered by us as a sacred document. The more I study it, the more I research all that went into it, the most I realize God does have an interest in us today - in these latter days.

Those of the freedom-loving movement, are by their very nature, people who allow others to be themselves. We allow people to express their opinions even if we disagree with them. We allow people to make mistakes knowing they will learn from those mistakes. We allow people to be free. We are the quiet ones!

My concern is we have been quiet for too long and those who believe in 'making change' have the upper hand. They don't want to hear anyone's opinion other than their own. They prohibit growth by imposing strict consequences for making mistakes. They don't want people to be free. They are the loud ones!

We can no longer be quiet. We have to speak up. We have to bear testimony that God lives, that the Constitution is inspired, that those behind the Constitution had faults but the fruit of their labor was almost perfection.

I am very concerned with the ignorance expressed by those in positions to teach and lead. I am also concerned that those who know don't or won't argue the truth. We can no longer be quiet.

I believe we should take very opportunity to bear testimony of the truth. Time is short. Very short. Too short.

[lundbaek]

Coming up in a few weeks is the 224th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States, which the Lord himself told us He established by the hands of wise men whom He raised up unto that very purpose. I took the liberty of suggesting to a member of our high council that mention of this anniversary be made in our stake conference or in sacrament meetings on 18 Sept.

[wiser2]

I am very concerned with the ignorance expressed by those in positions to teach and lead. I am also concerned that those who know don't or won't argue the truth. We can no longer be quiet.

Good point. You should be concerned:

I agree with you that the role of government should not be to define a social institution. But, the Constitution seems to disagree with you, at least partially, concerning its intent. Consider, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." You will notice that "Union", "domestic Tranquility", and "general welfare", are all related to a social institution.

Wrong! You are using modern definitions for "union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare". You seem to be associating union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare to social(ist) programs when, according to the Founding Fathers, those terms meant united, peace, and the common good of the people. The Founding Fathers were not socialists and did not even concieve of social programs. Their plan was for us to be free, not slaves. When applying definitions to words and terms in our Constitution read what the Founders actually said and do some research into the context of their statements.

Actually, you used the words "social institution" in the present time, to which I responded. You have confused a social institution, like a government or a school or a church, with a socialist organization. Social and socialist are not the same thing, although they are spelled similarly. Social has to do with associating with other people, while socialist/socialism has to do with government or economic systems that have the goal of benefiting the people as a whole, rather than the individual.

I agree that in general, the founding fathers were not overly socialist. But, I suspect that if you examine things very carefully, that you will find much evidence of some socialism in their philosophy. I believe one example is the existence of the United States, as a united set of states.

[Tribunal]

I am very concerned with the ignorance expressed by those in positions to teach and lead. I am also concerned that those who know don't or won't argue the truth. We can no longer be quiet.

Good point. You should be concerned:

I agree with you that the role of government should not be to define a social institution. But, the Constitution seems to disagree with you, at least partially, concerning its intent. Consider, "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution..." You will notice that "Union", "domestic Tranquility", and "general welfare", are all related to a social institution.

Wrong! You are using modern definitions for "union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare". You seem to be associating union, domestic tranquility, and general welfare to social(ist) programs when, according to the Founding Fathers, those terms meant united, peace, and the common good of the people. The Founding Fathers were not socialists and did not even concieve of social programs. Their plan was for us to be free, not slaves. When applying definitions to words and terms in our Constitution read what the Founders actually said and do some research into the context of their statements.

Actually, you used the words "social institution" in the present time, to which I responded. You have confused a social institution, like a government or a school or a church, with a socialist organization. Social and socialist are not the same thing, although they are spelled similarly. Social has to do with associating with other people, while socialist/socialism has to do with government or economic systems that have the goal of benefiting the people as a whole, rather than the individual.

Yes, I use the words "social institutuion" with "socialist organizations" because in the context of this thread they are one and the same. Any enterprise or organization that can be established and sustained by the people, freely and without funding or control by government, I consider a free enterprise. Once government funds or controls that enterprise or organization I believe we have a social(ist) institution. Public education has become a social(ist) institution. Health care has become a social(ist) institution. Building and maintaining roads has become a social(ist) institution. Charity of all things has become a social(ist) institution. Marriage has even become a social(ist) institution. And, in many ways law enforcement and the military are social(ist) institutions. If government were to stay out of these institutitions then I believe we as a nation will be free and prosperous. I believe this is what 'most' of our Founding Fathers were trying to create. I will agree that some disagreed with this philosophy but that is what the debate was all about.

I agree that in general, the founding fathers were not overly socialist. But, I suspect that if you examine things very carefully, that you will find much evidence of some socialism in their philosophy. I believe one example is the existence of the United States, as a united set of states.

Yes. The existence of the United States, as a united set of states, was a group of united small republics who's purpose was to secure the rights of the citizens of the individual states. These united republics established a secure environment, through another republic (the Federal government), to be free from all threats, foreign and domestic; and to provide a means of commerce among the smaller republics. Where do you see socialism in this?

[wiser2]

Wrong! The Constitution is intended to define and limit the powers on the federal government, not define a social institution.

Once government funds or controls that enterprise or organization I believe we have a social(ist) institution.

I believe that your revisionism has backed you into a nonsensical position. Consider the position that the controlling document of a government (the constitution) should not define a governmental organization (any controlled by government). How much sense does that make? Then what exactly should a constitution do, if not define governmental organizations?

A word like "governmental" would be a more accurate to describe a government controlled organization. I will give you that many governmental organizations are socialist in nature.

Yes, I use the words "social institutuion" with "socialist organizations" because in the context of this thread they are one and the same.

May I suggest that this is symptomatic of low resolution thinking (LRT) - the unwillingness to distinguish between things that are similar, yet quite different (analogous to low resolution graphics). On the face, this problem may appear to be a minor definitional problem. Yet undoubtedly, LRT not only bounds communication capabilities, but also conclusions and actions, leading to associated bad consequences. And there is the obvious benefit of high resolution thinking (like high resolution graphics), where life is much more interesting with so much more depth and detail.

If government were to stay out of these institutitions then I believe we as a nation will be free and prosperous.

I believe that you generally have a good point here.

I agree that in general, the founding fathers were not overly socialist. But, I suspect that if you examine things very carefully, that you will find much evidence of some socialism in their philosophy. I believe one example is the existence of the United States, as a united set of states.

Yes. The existence of the United States, as a united set of states, was a group of united small republics who's purpose was to secure the rights of the citizens of the individual states. These united republics established a secure environment, through another republic (the Federal government), to be free from all threats, foreign and domestic; and to provide a means of commerce among the smaller republics. Where do you see socialism in this?

First, you have many of your facts wrong. I agree that one of many purposes of the United States was to help protect individual rights - hence the Bill of Rights. But, that is not the whole picture. Then consider the entire rest of the Constitution - each piece explicitly limiting individual liberty, for the good of the whole. The Constitution is even very explicit about its purpose ("... in Order to form a more perfect Union, ... insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare ...") - to promote the general good of the people. Do you understand the point of a republic over a democracy? You can't trust the people to make the best decision, so we will allow representatives to make the decision, for the general good of the people, at the loss of the individual right to make the decision. And what about voting at all? Same - we will take what the majority votes, for the general good of the people, at the loss of the individual. Where do I see socialism? In the idea that government and its implications would be helpful to the people, at the necessary loss to a given individual. Also, your definition of socialism (as anything governmental) also sees socialism.


Also, there was no "secure environment" established, especially that was "free from all threats". I agree that could be a goal for some, but not reality. The reality is that the government supported slavery, a very serious moral threat (to name one threat) that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of US people.

So, now about the elephant in the room. Those with LRT often conclude that socialism, as I have defined it (the idea that there is benefit in sacrificing personally for the good of all), is always bad. Well those who use HRT and/or are familiar with Jesus Christ know better. Certainly, socialism is often used as bait to enslave, or exploited as a vulnerability, but its complete avoidance is similarly dangerous to its absolute acceptance. Both extremes are an affront to Jesus Christ who died to free us, sacrificing for the good of the people. Obviously, due to the forceful nature of government, special care should be taken in implementing socialistic programs in government.

You mentioned that our highways are examples of socialism. Good point. Socialistic programs like a federal government, states, schools, highways, cities, traffic lights, currency, the internet, free speech (at the loss of the right to not be spoken to) and even religions have quite negative impacts, yet can we afford not to have them? I believe the struggle is to use moderation enough to get the best of both worlds, rather than the worst of both (as usually implemented today). The other problem, is the people are corrupt, and will corrupt whatever structure there is (free market, capitalism, socialism, fascism, etc.), until we can change, beginning with ourselves. Evil is the real enemy.