Zion and the Constitution

[Matthew.B]

Playing devil's advocate here. :ymdevil:

It's clear that calls to return to the Constitutional Republic of our fathers are falling on deaf ears. Talk about returning to Original Intent usually centers around what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al felt and wrote- from what (little) I've seen, relatively few people seem to regard a return to a Puritanist culture as a good idea (after all, isn't it the Christians who are historically infamous for the oppression of others?). Even should we all return to a more moral way of doing things, the First Amendment prevents the establishment or endorsement of any kind of religion at the Federal level- and without it,, things are bound to decay again, probably much faster than before. From the various visions and prophecies and teachings about the coming Cleansing, it's clear that the remnants won't all be united in even the most basic of aspects- religion, culture, etc.

So what good is returning to the original Constitutional Republic now, anyway? Is there even a way that the Constitution, as it is currently written and amended, could help us move forward when things go to pot?

[lundbaek]

D&C 98:4-6 requires LDSs to befriend law only if it is constitutional, but further limited to the condition that it not only meest constitutional muster, but that it support the principles of fundamental rights of all---an important caveat against accepting modern legal interpretations, which include, for example, allowing for socialism in the welfare clause of the Constitution.

Verse 4 states the basic premise of the Lord that our foremost obligation is to obey him, not laws per se.

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

Verse 6 justifies us befriending the law but only if it is constitutional. So, even though these verses do not directly endorse the constitution itself the Lord sets it up as a higher standard in law that any allegiance to law must meet! Hope that helps.

IMO there will be no return to the principles of the original Constitution and the first 12 amendments and the fundamental rights of all until enough people are educated and prepared to abide by those principles. I cannot see that happening this side of the "cleansing of America".

[Jason]

D&C 98:4-6 requires LDSs to befriend law only if it is constitutional, but further limited to the condition that it not only meest constitutional muster, but that it support the principles of fundamental rights of all---an important caveat against accepting modern legal interpretations, which include, for example, allowing for socialism in the welfare clause of the Constitution.

Verse 4 states the basic premise of the Lord that our foremost obligation is to obey him, not laws per se.

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

Verse 6 justifies us befriending the law but only if it is constitutional. So, even though these verses do not directly endorse the constitution itself the Lord sets it up as a higher standard in law that any allegiance to law must meet! Hope that helps.

IMO there will be no return to the principles of the original Constitution and the first 12 amendments and the fundamental rights of all until enough people are educated and prepared to abide by those principles. I cannot see that happening this side of the "cleansing of America".

Amen!!! So we wait for the cleansing (and prepare).....

[Matthew.B]

lundbaek-

I agree with everything you've written, and want to hone the discussion using the following quote:

IMO there will be no return to the principles of the original Constitution and the first 12 amendments and the fundamental rights of all until enough people are educated and prepared to abide by those principles. I cannot see that happening this side of the "cleansing of America".

My big question- and the title of this thread does't accurately reflect that (hey, I was tired...)- is whether the First Amendment will be able to survive the Cleansing as is, or whether the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" will have to be stricken.

I'm trying to do what Jefferson and the other founders did and study the history of the English Common Law (and the Anglo/Saxon culture) and I'm learning about the ways the people were divided, similar to the way that Moses organized Israel, into groups of families of 10's, 50's, 100s, 1,000's, etc. If we keep going up to the Great Law that united the entire state of Israel (and I'm trying to find if there are parallels amongst the various Anglo/Saxon tribes), we see that it was founded not upon freedom of religion, but upon freedom of man founded upon religion- namely, the Gospel of Christ. That seems to be one of major differences between the Constitution and its predecessors.

I wonder if, when it's the Elders of Israel that are the ones doing the organizing and writing the Great Law of the land, that adherance to the Gospel will be one of the key differences between the Constitution v. I and v. II.

[lundbaek]

i may be misunderstanding Matthew.B's question, but it is my understanding that, in America at least, following the "cleansing", the LDS religion will not be the only religion practiced. I cannot document that without extensive searching, but I do recall reading a statement to that effect by an earlier prophet or two.

I also believe that members of other religions will participate, even in leadeership positions, in the restoration of constitutional principles to government. I cannot imagine the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, etc. taking a back to seat to the likes of Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, etc.

[Jason]

i may be misunderstanding Matthew.B's question, but it is my understanding that, in America at least, following the "cleansing", the LDS religion will not be the only religion practiced. I cannot document that without extensive searching, but I do recall reading a statement to that effect by an earlier prophet or two.

I also believe that members of other religions will participate, even in leadeership positions, in the restoration of constitutional principles to government. I cannot imagine the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, etc. taking a back to seat to the likes of Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, etc.

Cleon gave a lot of references to that effect.....even well after Zion is established (the government by Christ).....in the Cleansing of America.

[Matthew.B]

i may be misunderstanding Matthew.B's question, but it is my understanding that, in America at least, following the "cleansing", the LDS religion will not be the only religion practiced. I cannot document that without extensive searching, but I do recall reading a statement to that effect by an earlier prophet or two.

No, you're right. But, if I'm understanding my history and scriptures and Eternal Principles correctly, the "religious" differences themselves will be much different in Zion than in America- more akin to what we understand as "denominational" differences amongst modern-day Protestantism. After the Cleansing, return of Christ, destruction of the wicked, etc. the only things that will remain are things that cannot "be shaken"- in other words, things that testify of Christ and use Him as the 'chief cornerstone'. Therefore, there will be no men of any religious sect that denies the Christ as Messiah living in Zion- although there will be men at all stages of Eternal Understanding and Progression who have a clouded understanding of what His role is.

There will be no Muslims in Zion, unless they accept the Christ. Therefore, there will be no Muslims who hold to the current Islamic doctrine that the Great Savior is yet to come and that Jesus was 'just another prophet'. There undoubtedly will be converted Muslims and descendants of modern Muslims living there who love Liberty (the correct use of Agency) and accept Christ as King.

There will most definitely not be any atheists or agnostics, unless the accept the Christ- who is the Light-Bringer. At that time, those former atheists and agnostics abandon their old, false precepts and adopt the Zion understanding of Eternal Truth.

When Christ promises that all temporal things 'wax old as a garment', He means it!

We know that Zion has never been established except by the Elders of Zion (Elders of Israel; God's covenant people) acting according to the knowledge that they have in the Gospel ('good news' or 'God-story') of Jesus Christ. He is the King and ruler; the chief corner-stone. The entire system will be built around the Light of Christ!

The beginning, continuation (each Sunday the people will still gather in small groups ('communes') and take the Sacrament ('Communion') in rememberance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ), and end (the purpose) of Zion wiill all be centered on Christ. There will be no rational being there who could or would deny Him as Lord!

I also believe that members of other religions will participate, even in leadeership positions, in the restoration of constitutional principles to government.

I think you're right, but the "leadership" will be formed of the leaders (representatives) of each type of family group (5's, 10's, 50's, et al). If I understand correctly, the roles of president and judges will be replaced with Christ (the great Ruler) and 12-man juries. So just and honorable men may be chosen by the people to be their representatives and serve on the juries, but the basic structure is different than it is now and the 'leadership' is more unified (less glory to one single person except for Christ).

I cannot imagine the likes of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, etc. taking a back to seat to the likes of Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, Jon Huntsman, etc.

Me neither.

[Matthew.B]

I hadn't even thought about the differences in the Sepration of Powers between known Zion formats and America's current one...

I need to study more.

By the way, if a mod reads this could you change the thread's title from "What's so great about the Constitution?" to "Zion and the Constitution" I hadn't thought about how disparaging the former title sounds to the Constitution...

[davedan]

Constitutional Government does several things:

Monarchy or Oligarchy:
1. King or ruling class have all rights, People have privileges.
2. Different rules apply to different classes (no rule of law).
3. Getting rid of a wicked king requires bloodshed.

By making opportunity artificially scarce, a king maintains his position by dealing out "privileges" to certain ruling elite who sware allegiance to him. Stingent Rules and regulations are put in place on the common man who will tend to report and enforce these laws on each other as children do. Friends get exemptions to the rules.

The King also uses force to maintain his power. The king maintains his position by his cunning, strength of will, and ruthlessness. A King will beg, bargain, lie, cheat, steal, kill, threaten, blackmail, and bribe to keep his position. However, a king will try and use the power of his carisma and public persona to gain favor in the sight of the average person. He will try and appear just, equitable, fair, strong, merciful, and generous.

Kings tend to use the church to support their claim to power. The doctrine of "divine right" says that the king's position is God given. Therefore, good God-fearing people would never question the king's authority. The church also tends to teach people the nobility of being a "worker." (Calvinism).

Pyramid hierarchy is used so that those working to the top are blinded by their ambition to the corruptness of the system and that those at the top maintain the system because of the work that they have put into the system that now benefits them. Casino psychology is used to make the lower classes believe they have the same "chance" as anyone else to become one the privileged ruling class. Stockholm syndrome psychology predicts that some captives will identify with, aid, and defend captors.

Constitutional Government:
1. People retain all rights, Rulers have privileges that can be taken away..
2. People and rulers are under same laws.
3. New rulers can be elected.
4. Separation of powers and checks and balances

Constitutional goverment is based on the principle of self-government. Self-government is based on the "Golden Rule". Habias Corpus and Due Process means that someone who has been accused of a crime has the chance to appear before a jury of his peers, face his accuser, have the evidence presented, and be judged according to "natural law" which is the "Golden Rule". The accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately, invididuals and corporations are often judged according to the letter of the law. Unless there is a specific law written that prohibits such-and-such, there is no violation of the law. This misinterpretation has led to a complication and failure of our legal system in many cases.

[tmac]

Great discussion. Matt, I think you can change the title yourself with edit function. I know I've done it before on my own threads. My son and I were having a discussion about this today. I have developed a somewhat unique view of the Constitution. One thing I have come to understand is that the Constitution is/was a product of the Federalist Agenda. While a balance between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Agendas was obviously required to found and develop this nation into the great country it has become. BUT, I have also come to understand that much of the reason we're in the position we presently are as a country is a direct result of the Federalist Agenda, which evolved, strengthened and morphed over time to the point that we have the Federal Government that we do today, and huge imbalance of power between the Federal Government and the States.

[Matthew.B]

Great discussion. Matt, I think you can change the title yourself with edit function. I know I've done it before on my own threads.

Thanks!!! I was able to get it done.

My son and I were having a discussion about this today. I have developed a somewhat unique view of the Constitution. One thing I have come to understand is that the Constitution is/was a product of the Federalist Agenda. While a balance between the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Agendas was obviously required to found and develop this nation into the great country it has become. BUT, I have also come to understand that much of the reason we're in the position we presently are as a country is a direct result of the Federalist Agenda, which evolved, strengthened and morphed over time to the point that we have the Federal Government that we do today, and huge imbalance of power between the Federal Government and the States.

Yes... I think you're right. I dont know much about the history or characters of the Revolution (trying to fill that gap in my knowledge) but it is apparent that, besides fighting enemies abroad and traitors within, the Founders were fighting confusion (evil spirits) within themselves. Even the most noble and wise men of the Earth at that time made some serious lapses in judgment, IMO (but hindsight is 20/20... I probably would have done worse).

When we talk about the Constitution in the scriptures it is praised entirely for its ability to maintain the rights of all men and administer justice (which ability is based on the rights of all men). Samuel Adams seemed to be the torch-bearer for Natural Rights as understood by the Common Law of England, and was satisfied only when the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. Adams saw the Gospel and Natural Law as going hand-in-hand and saw the strongest possibility for preserving men's rights was to tie, in the minds of the people, the rights of men into the Gospel. Even Thomas Jefferson correctly saw that the teaching of religion (particularly Christianity) as the best way to perpetuate the rights of man- I guess his reasoning was that freedom from forced religion was more important, as that alone could halt the tactics of the wicked in times past of claiming "divine right" for their dictatorships and imperialism. Unfortunately, I think that's putting the cart before the horse.

Hope that's an accurate summary.. Still learning.

[Matthew.B]

davedan-

I agree with what you stated. I think you make a good point re: the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. I think that's what I'm trying to figure out here.

I guess I don't believe that the Constitution can save us at this point, even by returning 100% to the letter of the law, as we've so completely lost the spirit of the law (which is true freedom for all men). Hence the need for a Cleansing, etc. to get us back on track. I'm wondering what situations will surrond such a return, and the logical arguments made in favor of setting up a government based on Truth and Natural Law.

Perhaps the non-LDS will be so grateful to the Elders of Israel for being the uniting and driving force behind the gathering and protection of the remnants of America that they'll see the wisdom of rule by Pure Religion. Or maybe the actual establishment of Zion as a political entity will be only among the LDS and when non-LDS see how well it works, they will willingly join.

But where do the Native Americans (Lamanites/Nephites) fit in? Surely, because this land is given to them and their fathers, they will also be a key factor in the reclamation and Cleansing.

My head hurts... Trying to predict how new wine will fit into old bottles is giving me a headache. Time to call it a night.

[tmac]

What I have found is that even many of those who claim to be Constitutionalists, etc., really have just a superficial understanding of how we got the Constitution, what it represents, and the entire basis for it. For those who truly understand what was going on, it did come with an agenda that was not entirely healthy, and has now fully matured. I'll throw this in for consideration.

The Constitutional Convention took place from May to September of 1787. After four long months of sweltering heat and humidity—and even more heated debate and deliberation—the delegates at last approved a final draft of the new Constitution on September 17, 1787. It had not been an easy task. Diverse agendas, personality conflicts, and regional differences all played a part. But in the end, compromises were reached, scores were settled, and the ultimate debate boiled down to the fundamental differences between two political camps: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.

Before the new Constitution could become law, it had to be ratified by at least nine of the thirteen states. Any state that voted not to ratify the Constitution would not be part of the new union and would remain an independent sovereign nation. Once the Constitution was adopted by the Philadelphia Convention, the campaign for ratification by the states continued, the debate among the people began in earnest, and the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate intensified.

Ratification of the Constitution by the states was by no means certain in 1787. Indeed, many people at that time opposed the creation of a federal, or national, government that would have power over the states. These people were called Anti-Federalists. They included, primarily, members of the middle class who were less likely to be a part of the wealthy, aristocratic elite than were members of their opposition, who called themselves Federalists. Anti-Federalist leaders included some of our most revered Founding Fathers, including leading national figures during the Revolutionary War period. Other Anti-Federalists were local politicians who feared losing power should the Constitution be ratified.

The Anti-Federalists believed that government generally should be founded on principles of self-government and self-sufficiency. They believed in a sustainable and self-sufficient society of productive, self-governing citizens, including farmers, tradesmen, and businessmen, who would participate as citizen lawmakers in representative government at all levels. Although the states would be part of a sovereign union, they believed each state should have a sovereign, independent government. Anti-Federalists also felt that increasing urbanization, commercialization, and centralization of power would lead to a number of problems in society, including eventual tyranny and oppression.

Federalists, on the other hand, came primarily from the wealthy, aristocratic class of merchants and plantation owners. They favored a centralized federal government that would govern the states as one large, continental nation. They supported government intervention in economic affairs and the creation of a national banking system.

Although ultimately compromises were made and some degree of balance was struck between the two sides, it was the Federalists who were most successful in having their goals met in the new Constitution. Between September 1787, when the Constitution was signed at the Philadelphia Convention, and May 1790, when Rhode Island became the last state to ratify the Constitution, the debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists raged on. The Federalists argued that the new Constitution was a much-needed improvement upon the Articles of Confederation, the country’s first attempt at unification, but the Anti-Federalists feared that the new, national government would seize the power of the states and the people, and they saw no sense in abolishing the existing administration for an entirely new and untested form of government.

In making their arguments, Anti-Federalists claimed that the Constitution represented a departure from the goals of the American Revolution and a move toward the twin evils of monarchy and aristocracy. In the new Constitution, they feared that the president was given too much power and the Congress had too few representatives for too many people. They also protested the lack of a Bill of Rights enumerating and protecting certain basic, inalienable rights that existed in the laws of nature and preexisted and preempted the Constitution or any other man-made legislation or entity.

The Anti-Federalists also asserted that a country as large and diverse as the United States could not possibly be effectively governed by one national government and that the new Constitution would ultimately spell an end to all forms of self-rule by the states. One Pennsylvania Anti-Federalist, who signed his articles “Centinel,” declared,
“It is the opinion of the greatest writers, that a very extensive country cannot be governed on democratic principles, on any other plan than a confederation of a number of small republics, possessing all the powers of internal government, but united in the management of their foreign and general concerns. . . . [A]nything short of despotism could not bind so great a country under one government.”

The Federalists focused their arguments on the inadequacies of national government under the Articles of Confederation and the benefits of national government as formed by the Constitution. Their wealth and prominence gave them the advantage of influence, and following the signing of the Constitution, Federalist delegates quickly returned to their states to organize state ratification conventions. They also began penning works like the Federalist Papers and collaborating with the press to publish them at such a dizzying pace that the Anti-Federalists found it impossible to keep up.

The majority of these Federalist arguments are notable for their vocal opposition to what later became the Bill of Rights. The addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. Rather, it listed the limited powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. Some prominent Federalists argued that any such enumeration, once written down explicitly, could later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. In response to this assertion, in so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, “Brutus” argued that government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the bill argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; that these rights were merely examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion.

Lacking the affluence and dominion of the Federalist movement, the Anti-Federalists were not able to mobilize as quickly. In addition to getting the jump in delegate seats, the Federalists also got a clear and overwhelming advantage in the written debate waged in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers. Consequently, though their influence was felt in many states, the Anti-Federalists were not able to sufficiently impact the ratification debate and muster enough votes to defeat ratification. The Anti-Federalist outcry, however, was not ultimately without its effects. The lack of a bill of rights proved to be a very thorny issue, and several states refused to ratify the new Constitution without it. As a result, before the ratification process was complete, the Bill of Rights was added to specifically address and protect certain inalienable rights bestowed by the irrefutable laws of nature as part of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, and those rights have become an important part of the United States Constitution and its heritage of liberty.

[Mr Lonely]

Playing devil's advocate here. :ymdevil:

It's clear that calls to return to the Constitutional Republic of our fathers are falling on deaf ears. Talk about returning to Original Intent usually centers around what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al felt and wrote- from what (little) I've seen, relatively few people seem to regard a return to a Puritanist culture as a good idea (after all, isn't it the Christians who are historically infamous for the oppression of others?). Even should we all return to a more moral way of doing things, the First Amendment prevents the establishment or endorsement of any kind of religion at the Federal level- and without it,, things are bound to decay again, probably much faster than before. From the various visions and prophecies and teachings about the coming Cleansing, it's clear that the remnants won't all be united in even the most basic of aspects- religion, culture, etc.

So what good is returning to the original Constitutional Republic now, anyway? Is there even a way that the Constitution, as it is currently written and amended, could help us move forward when things go to pot?

I think it was a 2 step process. The Declaration of Independence established the reasons for seceding from Britain. It defined the Natural Rights of the citizens, and listed the things the King did that oppressed and destroyed those rights. After the Revolutionary War and the Confederation, The Lord inspired he Constitution to establish a government that was designed to further define and protect those rights. There were men there who saw it as an opportunity to advance their own agendas and profit from it in power and greed. Without a compromise, they would still be meeting. So, the Constitution is not perfect, but the principles it is based on are. I think it is acceptable to the Lord, for now.

I believe the First Amendment not only was intended to prevent the establishment of a particular religion, but also to prevent the prohibition of a particular religion.

I can't document it, but I think it was Brigham Young that taught that there would be, in the Millennium, many that would not members of the Church or Kingdom. They would be protected from being interfered with in exercising their rights to worship as they pleased. I also understand that the political rule in the Kingdom will be by a council of people, both members and non-members, under the direction of Christ. But I am probably confusing a number of things. It would not be the first time, and won't be the last.

I guess that I see the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as being based on the principles that the Kingdom is based on, adapted to our capacity at the time.

[Matthew.B]

What I have found is that even many of those who claim to be Constitutionalists, etc., really have just a superficial understanding of how we got the Constitution, what it represents, and the entire basis for it. For those who truly understand what was going on, it did come with an agenda that was not entirely healthy, and has now fully matured.

Even if there was a secret agenda in the hearts of some men- which I'm 100% sure there was (with the hypocrisy of the entire Slavery South being a major sticking point)- we have two witnesses that its ratification had the Lord's approbation- the "wisest men on earth" at the time (the Founders) all finally agreed on it, and the Lord stated His approval (as did the Prophet Joseph). I think this is another great example of the 'wheats and tares' doctrine- the conspirings of wicked men are allowed to continue alongside the gathering of the righteousness, until the LORD'S hand is no longer stayed.

I can see the merit in the arguments of both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, and the Constitution + Bill of Rights was enough for the LORD to establish the Church.

Someone help me out here- in the 5,000 Year Leap, Brother Skousen bemoans the fact that the Federalists never got a National Bank set up, right? I wonder how the financial history of this country would have gone had a national bank been firmly established.

[tmac]

I think potentially a national bank might have made a big difference -- and potentially changed the whole course of events re: the Fed. But, one has to also remember whose hands the bank would have been in, and who would have been the driving force behind it -- i.e., the Federalists, particularly including Alexander Hamilton. Ultimately, though, I have found reconciliation and peace with respect to the Constitution and its embodiment of the Federalist Agenda, etc., based on my conclusion that in the end everything is just as the Lord wanted it to be -- if things had been more perfect it might have lasted forever, but that wasn't the plan. Some say that ultimate financial collapse was baked in the cake with the Federal Reserve. My own position is that ultimate collapse of the Federal Government was baked in the cake with the Constitution and the Federalist Agenda, and how the Federal Government would evolve to the point that it becomes unsustainable and collapse of that government becomes inevitable -- which is the point we are fast approaching. It's just a matter of time. That in no way denigrates Constitutional principles, based on the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, certainly including the Bill of Rights, as well as references and reflections in the Declaration of Independence. Again, my conclusion is that everything is on course, and just exactly as God intended.

But I'll also throw in this additional commentary for good measure:

Although most of the Federalist/Anti-federalist debate focused on governmental and political issues, as is often the case, many of the core philosophies and motives behind the broader political issues had as much to do with money, economics, and, indeed, economic vision as anything. Not as much is commonly known about that because it is not as clearly reflected in the Constitution or stated in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. But the reality is that, just as other core governmental issues are still with us today, so are the economic issues. And after being essentially buried to some extent off and on for the past two hundred years, in the current financial state we find ourselves in this country, those economic issues have slowly but surely again nosed their way to the fore.

As previously stated, the Anti-Federalists, who tended to come from a more middle-class background, essentially shared a vision of a sustainable, self-sufficient, and self-governing provincial society of farmers, craftsmen, and business owners. They were particularly concerned about the possibility of governmental tyranny and the prospect of infringement of individual inalienable rights. Consequently, the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment were their main focus.

The Federalists, on the other hand, tended to come from the wealthier, more aristocratic and elite class of merchants and plantation owners. Because of the contrast in their economic backgrounds, it is really no surprise that the Federalists had grander visions—economic visions—and saw the need for a much more powerful national government to carry out that vision. The Federalists were much more favorably disposed toward growth, including both national and international growth and expansion as well as continually increasing commerce, including the borrowing and lending of money. They argued that a strong central government would foster the commercial growth of the new country.

Moreover, the Federalist vision of society was more pluralistic than the Anti-Federalist vision. That is, the Federalists did not envision a society that would always be made up principally of self-sufficient farmers but instead viewed it as comprising many different and competing interests and groups, none of which would be dominant in a federalist system of government. The Anti-Federalists maintained that the framers of the Constitution as drafted—the Federalists—had met as an elitist group under a veil of secrecy and had violated the provisions of the Articles of Confederation in the means selected for ratifying the Constitution. For this and other reasons, many later scholars have argued that the Federalists were more aware of and were even the driving force behind social and economic changes that were already beginning to transform American society as well as the rest of the world.

Indeed, some would argue that the Federalists had much bigger visions. Some would argue that in addition to the idea of Manifest Destiny and the expansion of the new nation to fill the entire continent, robust capitalism, involving ever-increasing automation and industrialization; importing and exporting; borrowing and lending of money; development of financial markets; maximizing efficiencies and production through economies of scale as well as the arbitrage of regional advantages based on climate and natural resources; and fostering greater world trade, ultimately leading to global dominance, might have all been part of the Federalist agenda right from the outset.

The reality is, it took both positions – to strike some kind of workable vision to help and eventually create the great continental nation the United States has ultimately become. Looking back now, though, two hundred and twenty years later, long after any meaningful balance of power has disappeard, we can start to see both ends of that vision and have a much better idea of all the various kinds of fruits the original Federalist vision is now producing and will ultimately produce.

Although the Anti-Federalists had a number of concerns, their single biggest concern was that the powerful new federal layer of government that had been created would ultimately evolve into tyranny. Consequently, they were adamant about the need for a bill of rights to help protect fundamental individual, inalienable rights against the kinds of government infringements they had experienced. The addition of a bill of rights to the Constitution was originally controversial because the Constitution, as written, did not specifically enumerate or protect the rights of the people. Rather, it listed the limited powers of the government and left all that remained to the states and the people. A majority of the Federalists, on the other hand, opposed any kind of bill of Rights. They argued that any such enumeration, once written down explicitly, could later be interpreted as a list of the only rights the people had. In response to this assertion, in so-called Anti-Federalist No. 84, “Brutus” argued that government unrestrained by such a bill could easily devolve into tyranny. Other supporters of the bill argued that a list of rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive—that these rights were merely examples of important natural rights bestowed by their Creator that people had—but that other such natural rights existed as well, whether they were enumerated or not. People from this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion.

Although the Anti-Federalists were at a distinct disadvantage in their public relations campaigns, their efforts were not without effect. Ultimately, all thirteen of the original colonies voted to ratify the Constitution but only after a commitment was made to add a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights, constituting the first ten amendments of the Constitution, were ratified effective December 15, 1791. With the exception of the Bill of Rights, however, the Constitution was largely a product of the Federalist agenda.

Much has happened in the roughly 220 years since then. Our governments have evolved. The Civil War was a major turning point. The Great Depression was another. Finally, 9/11, the War on Terror, and the financial situation of the past few years have created new turning points that we need to understand and take into consideration as we continue the debate moving forward.

Today, the average person typically associates the term Federalism with the federal government and therefore thinks that it represents the concept of federal dominion and a strong, centralized federal government. That is the practical definition we used in Bedrock! That was the practical understanding we and essentially everyone else in America grew up with. But historically in this country, even among the original Federalists, it meant just the opposite. Federalism was the concept of divided power. It was the opposite of centralism and consolidated power. It represented the concept of a federation—a union—of separate, individual, autonomous states acting together as a union of united states, with neither any individual state nor the union of states having dominion over any other states. The whole notion was based on the twin concepts of division of power and balance between and among competing entities.
Neither the Federalists nor the Anti-Federalists argued for an all powerful, centralized national government in which the states would be mere branches—subdivisions or departments of the larger federal government. The Anti-Federalists argued for states as completely separate, sovereign nations, loosely joined under an umbrella confederation (much like the Articles of Confederation). The Federalists, on the other hand, argued for two separate layers of government—one consisting of the states acting in their individual capacities and the other with the states acting together as a union of individual but united states. Even according to the Federalists’ vision, this system was intended to have plenty of checks and balances and a healthy balance of power between the two layers of government. It was never intended that the federal layer would become so dominant or that Federalism, as applied, would come to mean what so many people think it means today—which is what makes the concept and its meaning so confusing.

Today, in many people’s minds the applied concept or definition of Federalism has essentially evolved to mean the same as centralism, with essentially all power consolidated in Washington, D.C., and the federal government. Obviously, the roots of this evolution began even before—but blossomed following—the Civil War. Since then it has evolved steadily in one direction to the point that it has now reached full-bloom, centralized federal dominion, which is a completely different concept than Federalism.

Because the popular concept of Federalism is now so confusing, both in terms of theory and how it has evolved in application, although centralism better describes what many people think of when they hear the term today, the popular label that now best describes how the original Federalist agenda has mutated and morphed over time and in application is Progressivism.

The original Federalist Agenda of Alexander Hamilton has now evolved, mutated and morphed into the Progressive Agenda. In a nutshell, the primary objective of the Progressive agenda is to consolidate and centralize power (does that sound like Alexander Hamilton and parts of his original Federalist vision? ). It is a centralist vision—and not just at the national level in Washington, D.C. Ultimately the Progressive agenda advocates and strives for consolidation and centralization of all power. This agenda has no limitations, geographic or otherwise. And contrary to popular misconception, neither of the two major political parties has been immune to this agenda. In fact, both parties have fully embraced and been full participants in this agenda.

[tmac]

Oops, posted twice.

[tmac]

Make that three times. I can't figure out what is going on. Submit key sticking?

[davedan]

The only thing that can save this country and the Constitution is a return to righteousness.

[linj2fly]

great posts tmac. Thanks for the quotes.

ditto, davedan. The BoM is crystal clear on that point.

[Gideon]

Is there even a way that the Constitution, as it is currently written and amended, could help us move forward when things go to pot?

Only if it is enforced.

We are heading for the time when the saints will return to Missouri and build the city of New Jerusalem. When that day comes, the following will be fulfilled:

66 And it shall be called the New Jerusalem, a land of peace, a city of refuge, a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God;
67 And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion.
68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.
69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.
70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.
(D&C 45:65–70‎)‎

What has to happen to enable the saints to be free to go build up such an exclusive city? What has to happen for the other people in the country to be so wicked that "every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety."

Our society needs to collapse. When that happens, the Constitution will not be followed by many.

[lundbaek]

Righteousness includes becoming familiar with, supporting, abiding by, and working to restore the US Constitution as the Founders intended it to be understood and observed. Righteousness also includes awakening to our "awful situation", doing what we can to oppose the destruction of our Constitution and our nation, learning of history, current events and prophecy, and working to expose "the hidden things of darkness". And that means eschewing socialism, including opposing programs and legislation that force people to pay involuntary charity. Is anybody aware of any change in Church policy on any of this ?

[tmac]

Church policy/priority has changed the same way the Constitution has changed -- by slow, creeping, unwritten amendment(s) and deterioration in some respects, but robust growth in other respects when it comes to the powers of the Federal Government. Which means that in theory there is no formal change of policy, but in practice either the policy has been changed or simply de-prioritized. Either way, for all practical purposes, neither the Church, nor the vast majority of its membership seem to be all that concerned about it.

[Jason]

Ultimately, though, I have found reconciliation and peace with respect to the Constitution and its embodiment of the Federalist Agenda, etc., based on my conclusion that in the end everything is just as the Lord wanted it to be -- if things had been more perfect it might have lasted forever, but that wasn't the plan. Some say that ultimate financial collapse was baked in the cake with the Federal Reserve. My own position is that ultimate collapse of the Federal Government was baked in the cake with the Constitution and the Federalist Agenda, and how the Federal Government would evolve to the point that it becomes unsustainable and collapse of that government becomes inevitable -- which is the point we are fast approaching. It's just a matter of time. That in no way denigrates Constitutional principles, based on the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, certainly including the Bill of Rights, as well as references and reflections in the Declaration of Independence. Again, my conclusion is that everything is on course, and just exactly as God intended.

Of course this isn't the 1st time around (worlds without number)....so it should be a pretty exact science by now....

[mes5464]

Church policy/priority has changed the same way the Constitution has changed -- by slow, creeping, unwritten amendment(s) and deterioration in some respects, but robust growth in other respects when it comes to the powers of the Federal Government. Which means that in theory there is no formal change of policy, but in practice either the policy has been changed or simply de-prioritized. Either way, for all practical purposes, neither the Church, nor the vast majority of its membership seem to be all that concerned about it.

I can think of one example of the Church changing policy. When the federal welfare programs started it was church policy that a member in good standing would not avail themselves of them. Today, the handbook states that a member can and should use these programs. In PEC I can remember the Bishop, and EQ President discussing how individuals seeking help should be directed to program this or program that.