Does Anybody See A Problem With This?

[zerinus]

It appears to me that they are guilty of what they are accusing others of doing. And the comment about "truth" seems a bit high and mightyish if they think they are the only ones who can discern it.

I understand that there are some posters here who know Brian and are fond of him. But even our friends can be led astray - it isn't the first time, and won't be the last. I have a bad feeling about this website. I'm even seeing that Church leaders may not like what is being done there.

I'm also having trouble understanding some of the things they are saying - they just aren't making much sense to me. But this could be just me; I'm not the brightest person on the block. I just don't see much real light being shared there.

my two cents....

jo

Thank you, I think that is exactly right. I think that those folks have a problem with the Church. The reason why they don't like the "apologists" is because they don't like anybody defending the Church! Well, they know what they can do with that, don't they!

But on a more serious note, how can LDS avoid being deceived by this kind of false pretence and deceptive appearance? What is the antidote to this kind of deception? How can LDS vaccinate themselves against wolves appearing in sheep's clothing? I don't think that the majority of them would be deceived; but there may be a few who might. What advice can they follow to avoid that kind of deception? The scriptures seem to suggest a way: "Wherefore, beware lest ye are deceived; and that ye may not be deceived seek ye earnestly the best gifts, always remembering for what they are given" (D&C 46:8 ). So what are those spiritual gifts that can vaccinate us against that kind of deception? How about the gift of the "discerning of spirits" (1 Corinthians 12:10; D&C 46:23)? Is that the right gift to have for that? Are there any other spiritual gifts that can be useful for that purpose? D&C 46:8 suggests that more than one gift could be useful. What might some of the others be?

[zerinus]

Okay, I did a search on the Church’s website, and found a couple of relevant articles. Although neither of them answers that question directly, they both go some way in answering it indirectly. The first one is an article by Elder Robert D. Hales, titled “Gifts of the Spirit”. Here are some highlights from that article:

We can have the gift of discerning of spirits. George Q. Cannon has called the gift of discerning of spirits “a gift that is of exceeding value and one that should be enjoyed by every Latter-day Saint. … No Latter-day Saint should be without this gift, because there is such a variety of spirits in the world which seek to deceive and lead astray” (

Gospel Truth,

sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols. in 1 [1987], 156–57).

Some may mean well but are listening to the wrong influence. Some people operate in a spirit of contention—clever with words from much practice, but not focused on correcting their own imperfections. They focus on the imperfections of others.

* * *

We can develop the ability to discern what spirit is influencing others and ourselves. We should seek and pray for this gift lest we be deceived.

* * *

Remember that the reason we want to have the stability and strength of the gifts of the Spirit is that we want to weather the storms when they come. We will be tried in this mortal probation. We don’t want to decide to learn how to swim when the boat is already sinking.

The second is by by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, called “Spiritual Gifts”. Here are some highlights from that article, which I particularly liked:

This power of discernment is essential if we are to distinguish between genuine spiritual gifts and the counterfeits Satan seeks to use to deceive men and women and thwart the work of God. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God.” (

Teachings,

p. 205.) He also taught that “no man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood and discerning of spirits, can tell true from false spirits.” (

Teachings,

p. 213.)

* * *

Early in the second year of the Church, the Lord revealed that “there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world.” (D&C 50:2.) The revelation on spiritual gifts tells the elders who were going forth on missions to be righteous and prayerful “that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.” (D&C 46:7.)

Other revelations give instructions that help priesthood leaders discern the spirits and avoid being deceived. Thus, in section 52 of the Doctrine and Covenants we read that “he that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.” (D&C 52:16.) In contrast, “he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.” (D&C 52:18.)

* * *

I have spoken of many different spiritual gifts. I have pointed out that these gifts come by the power of the Holy Ghost and that they are available to every member of the Church, male and female.

We should seek after spiritual gifts. They can lead us to God. They can shield us from the power of the adversary. They can compensate for our inadequacies and repair our imperfections.

Are these good suggestions do you thing, to help us avoid being deceived?

[jo1952]

Okay, I did a search on the Church’s website, and found a couple of relevant articles. Although neither of them answers that question directly, they both go some way in answering it indirectly. The first one is an article by Elder Robert D. Hales, titled “Gifts of the Spirit”. Here are some highlights from that article:

We can have the gift of discerning of spirits. George Q. Cannon has called the gift of discerning of spirits “a gift that is of exceeding value and one that should be enjoyed by every Latter-day Saint. … No Latter-day Saint should be without this gift, because there is such a variety of spirits in the world which seek to deceive and lead astray” (

Gospel Truth,

sel. Jerreld L. Newquist, 2 vols. in 1 [1987], 156–57).

Some may mean well but are listening to the wrong influence. Some people operate in a spirit of contention—clever with words from much practice, but not focused on correcting their own imperfections. They focus on the imperfections of others.

* * *

We can develop the ability to discern what spirit is influencing others and ourselves. We should seek and pray for this gift lest we be deceived.

* * *

Remember that the reason we want to have the stability and strength of the gifts of the Spirit is that we want to weather the storms when they come. We will be tried in this mortal probation. We don’t want to decide to learn how to swim when the boat is already sinking.

The second is by By Elder Dallin H. Oaks, called “Spiritual Gifts”. Here are some highlights from that article, which I particularly liked:

This power of discernment is essential if we are to distinguish between genuine spiritual gifts and the counterfeits Satan seeks to use to deceive men and women and thwart the work of God. The Prophet Joseph Smith said, “Nothing is a greater injury to the children of men than to be under the influence of a false spirit when they think they have the spirit of God.” (

Teachings,

p. 205.) He also taught that “no man nor sect of men without the regular constituted authorities, the Priesthood and discerning of spirits, can tell true from false spirits.” (

Teachings,

p. 213.)

* * *

Early in the second year of the Church, the Lord revealed that “there are many spirits which are false spirits, which have gone forth in the earth, deceiving the world.” (D&C 50:2.) The revelation on spiritual gifts tells the elders who were going forth on missions to be righteous and prayerful “that ye may not be seduced by evil spirits, or doctrines of devils, or the commandments of men; for some are of men, and others of devils.” (D&C 46:7.)

Other revelations give instructions that help priesthood leaders discern the spirits and avoid being deceived. Thus, in section 52 of the Doctrine and Covenants we read that “he that speaketh, whose spirit is contrite, whose language is meek and edifieth, the same is of God if he obey mine ordinances.” (D&C 52:16.) In contrast, “he that is overcome and bringeth not forth fruits, even according to this pattern, is not of me.” (D&C 52:18.)

* * *

I have spoken of many different spiritual gifts. I have pointed out that these gifts come by the power of the Holy Ghost and that they are available to every member of the Church, male and female.

We should seek after spiritual gifts. They can lead us to God. They can shield us from the power of the adversary. They can compensate for our inadequacies and repair our imperfections.

Are these good suggestions do you thing, to help us avoid being deceived?

I think that you have pretty well answered your own questions. Now, I do believe that when a person becomes involved in apologetics that a learning process takes place. How one starts out at the beginning soon evolves even with the types of tactics that are used. If someone does not already have a strong testimony, they can be easily persuaded by the many arguments which have been crafted and perfected ever since Joseph Smith was still a boy. It certainly will teach you about the methods and types of arguments which are used. However, in getting down to the nitty gritty of what our beliefs look like, I have found that the teachings of the Church remain constant and well integrated as ideas and doctrines cross over one another. No adjustments or twisting of scriptures are required. It's pretty awesome!

It seems like most questions eventually get answered in some way which will include the Holy Ghost; the very standard of Truth, as it is His calling to lead man to all Truth while we are in the flesh. The Church is wonderful about teaching us HOW to become in-tuned with the Spirit - how to pray constantly for His guidance so that we are not led astray.

I know that all of us slip and fall once in awhile. We find that one moment we are serving our Father; and the very next moment we have stepped into satan's camp. This is why we are here; to make choices which will be both for good or for evil. It is how we learn. I would like to think that those who started the website in question, did so with the best of intentions. However, the adversary loves to use this very excuse on us as we are so easily fooled if we are not contantly making sure that we have all of the armor of God on us.

In these latter days, like no other time in the history of mankind, the discernment of the Holy Ghost is most paramount. This is the very power which Christians are denying that we are listening to. Meanwhile, they have been taught to be fearful of seeking guidance from the Holy Ghost lest a false spirit wind up influencing them. How clever of the adversary to create the very catch 22 in our minds which will prevent us from seeking and obtaining the very gift which Father provided to prevent this from happening.

One of the aspects I have recently added to personal prayer, is to remember that even those who persecute us (whether they are an anti-LDS, or now, even those who number themselves among us), have a spirit inside their physical body which is loved by Heavely Father. It helps me to see past their words as I strive to learn to love others. If I do not receive a sense from someone else that they are sincerely and in humility trying to keep this second greatest commandment, then I am inclined not to give their words much credibility and will still ask for help in trying to love them. These are the times which try us to the point that our hearts will fail us; when even the very elect can be caused to stray. If we are not uplifting each other in our joy and rejoicing and edification, then likely we need to refocus our thoughts and our actions.

Love,

jo

[Biz]

I have followed the website in question for a few days now. The best I can say about it is that it is unproductive. I even identify myself as a "Fiscal Conservative" which essentially seems to be related to one of the websites significant issues they are trying to address. The fact they have done everything to make it look like one of the Church's official websites is a little disturbing. Also, the way he responds to peoples thoughts/comments on the articles makes me conclude at least for myself that he is out to pick a fight. If he wants to set bait out there for people to disagree with so that he can respond by attacking them then he should simply spend his time in a forum which is open for debate. That is if he thinks he is doing the Church any favors, which I conclude he is not, the site is rather disturbing.

Biz

[zerinus]

I think that you have pretty well answered your own questions. Now, I do believe that when a person becomes involved in apologetics that a learning process takes place. How one starts out at the beginning soon evolves even with the types of tactics that are used. If someone does not already have a strong testimony, they can be easily persuaded by the many arguments which have been crafted and perfected ever since Joseph Smith was still a boy. It certainly will teach you about the methods and types of arguments which are used. However, in getting down to the nitty gritty of what our beliefs look like, I have found that the teachings of the Church remain constant and well integrated as ideas and doctrines cross over one another. No adjustments or twisting of scriptures are required. It's pretty awesome!

It seems like most questions eventually get answered in some way which will include the Holy Ghost; the very standard of Truth, as it is His calling to lead man to all Truth while we are in the flesh. The Church is wonderful about teaching us HOW to become in-tuned with the Spirit - how to pray constantly for His guidance so that we are not led astray.

I know that all of us slip and fall once in awhile. We find that one moment we are serving our Father; and the very next moment we have stepped into satan's camp. This is why we are here; to make choices which will be both for good or for evil. It is how we learn. I would like to think that those who started the website in question, did so with the best of intentions. However, the adversary loves to use this very excuse on us as we are so easily fooled if we are not contantly making sure that we have all of the armor of God on us.

In these latter days, like no other time in the history of mankind, the discernment of the Holy Ghost is most paramount. This is the very power which Christians are denying that we are listening to. Meanwhile, they have been taught to be fearful of seeking guidance from the Holy Ghost lest a false spirit wind up influencing them. How clever of the adversary to create the very catch 22 in our minds which will prevent us from seeking and obtaining the very gift which Father provided to prevent this from happening.

One of the aspects I have recently added to personal prayer, is to remember that even those who persecute us (whether they are an anti-LDS, or now, even those who number themselves among us), have a spirit inside their physical body which is loved by Heavely Father. It helps me to see past their words as I strive to learn to love others. If I do not receive a sense from someone else that they are sincerely and in humility trying to keep this second greatest commandment, then I am inclined not to give their words much credibility and will still ask for help in trying to love them. These are the times which try us to the point that our hearts will fail us; when even the very elect can be caused to stray. If we are not uplifting each other in our joy and rejoicing and edification, then likely we need to refocus our thoughts and our actions.

Love,

jo

Thank you, I agree. I also feel uncomfortable with people who constantly beat the "liberty" drum, and use the "Bensonian" rhetoric as an excuse to set up sites etc. to promote the "anti-conspiracy" agenda, and pretend to save the world from "Communism" and "defend the Constitution" etc. Brian appears to be one of those kinds of people. They may mean well, but they get the wrong end of the stick, and leave themselves open to Satan's deception.

[zerinus]

I have followed the website in question for a few days now. The best I can say about it is that it is unproductive. I even identify myself as a "Fiscal Conservative" which essentially seems to be related to one of the websites significant issues they are trying to address. The fact they have done everything to make it look like one of the Church's official websites is a little disturbing. Also, the way he responds to peoples thoughts/comments on the articles makes me conclude at least for myself that he is out to pick a fight. If he wants to set bait out there for people to disagree with so that he can respond by attacking them then he should simply spend his time in a forum which is open for debate. That is if he thinks he is doing the Church any favors, which I conclude he is not, the site is rather disturbing.

Biz

Don't worry, the Mormon "apologists" will sort him out!

[blarsen]

Thank you, I agree. I also feel uncomfortable with people who constantly beat the "liberty" drum, and use the "Bensonian" rhetoric as an excuse to set up sites etc. to promote the "anti-conspiracy" agenda, and pretend to save the world from "Communism" and "defend the Constitution" etc. Brian appears to be one of those kinds of people. They may mean well, but they get the wrong end of the stick, and leave themselves open to Satan's deception.

But zerinus, you do realize that by this comment you are simply implying that the issues you mention (surrounded by quotes) are not important enough for YOU to "constantly" beat the drum about. I detect a 'faint' whiff of disdain for people who do take these issues seriously. Furthermore, your use of the word 'constantly' implies that you have inside information on how the people setting up such web sites may spend the rest of their time, or that they don't have other very compelling interests. Could this be construed as maybe just a little bit presumptuous??

Different people have different awareness levels and interests. This should be evident. I personally am astonished at people who aren't greatly exercised (especially at the present time) by the accelerating pace of our liberties being stripped away and the increase in governmental actions by-passing the Constitution, with unConstitutional foreign preemptive wars and military action leading the charge. If you don't think this type of thing is directly impacting you now, it soon will be, in my strongly held view.

President Benson (and others of the Brethren) took the issues of liberty very seriously. He likened this battle to a continuation of the War in Heaven, which was largely centered around free-agency. He also said we were obligated to keep up the fight for free-agency in this existence, and that those who aren't valiant doing so, will discover this inaction will not redound to their good. His strong implication was that activity in this arena is an essential part of our salvation.

So I'm not sure being active politically in the defense of liberty is the wrong end of the stick, as long as you don't neglect the other weighty matters of the Gospel.

[LeSellers]

I'm not sure being active politically in the defense of liberty is the wrong end of the stick, as long as you don't neglect the other weighty matters of the Gospel.

While I have to agree that "mercy, justice, etc.", are weightier matters of the Gospel, it is not so clear that the on-going battle to proect our agency (there's nothing "free" about it) is not among them, as one could (falsely conclude on a brief scan of the 'graf above).

It was important enough that President M^cKay spoke on it while presding over conference, that Elders Dyer, Clark, and Benson, and a host of others spoke about it there, too. Elder Dyer was called as an Apostle of Jesus Christ outside the Quorum of the Twelve, and given the title "Watchman on the Tower" (as I recall) to warn us of this very kind of thing.

Lehi

[HiJolly]

I listened to the 3 minute clip and generally agree with what was said.

No problem with it.

HJ

[blarsen]

While I have to agree that "mercy, justice, etc.", are weightier matters of the Gospel, it is not so clear that the on-going battle to proect our agency (there's nothing "free" about it) is not among them, as one could (falsely conclude on a brief can of the 'graf above).

It was important enough that President M^cKay spoke on it while presding over conference, that Elders Dyer, Clark, and Benson, and a host of others spoke about it there, too. Elder Dyer was called as an Apostle of Jesus Christ outside the Quorum of the Twelve, and given the title "Watchman on the Tower" (as I recall) to warn us of this very kind of thing.

Lehi

I like the quotes you included.

I think the issue of 'free agency' is core to the gospel. If we don't do what is necessary in this life to preserve it and the institutions set up to support it, we are under condemnation, in my view.

Incidentally, As you can see, I very much like the couplet, "free agency". You can have agency under the authority of any number of outside, compelling entities; the army comes to mind. The army can give me the agency to act for them in ways they deem important, but in taking on this obligation, I am very much limited in exercising my individual free agency. For me, the use of 'free' along with agency just emphasizes my indiviual right to make decisions for myself. I very much like that emphasis; dropping it waters the whole subject down, in my view. You, of course, are particularly free to disagree with this stance.

[Biz]

I understand this is not a political forum so I will leave my analysis and opinion to a very limited stance.

I have followed all of the threads I have seen on the constitution hanging by a thread, liberty, and free agency. With that said I have enjoyed the sensible comments by some who have explained their opinions that the constitution has been extremely close to hanging by a thread on numerous occasions. The fact is while some see the constitution as black and white it really isn't and never has been. If you look back at its creation we are lucky we even came to an agreement to have one. This is very frustrating to me after just completing the law courses, "Constitutional Law" and "Federal Courts" (the most in depth important classes on the constitution) at a conservative law school in which the co-chair of the ABA section on law and religion was my Professor for Con Law. It is frustrating because debating what is Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional is really like debating what are the true colors of the rainbow, there really is for the most part no right or wrong answer. Our government is a give and take system that dances around balancing sensitive issues of both sides on the Separation of Powers between the Federal Government (The Supreme Law of the Land) and the State's as separate sovereign entity's.

If you look at two fundamental modern constitutional issues that would put someone's liberty at issue, immigration, and marriage, the Church is on opposite sides on both issues from a "conservative's" perspective. So which one and which side is constitutional? and which one would be hanging by a thread? That's the problem it is near undefinable because this same argument has been going on since the late 1700's. Our constitution will be hanging by a thread when we are literally at war with each other like we were during the civil war.

I guess I am addressing two different threads:

In conclusion regarding this thread, people who are participating on this thread take issue because they see the web site in question taking a black and white stance when the realty the issues are very colorful. Read The Rise of Modern Mormonism and you will even see our leaders saw these issues as a color spectrum and not as black and white. Not to mention one of the authors directly attacked (helpful) apologist. I am not an apologist, I spend my time learning from them because I find that they are able to answer my questions in an appropriate manner. I do this because these apologist have defined their mission. I understand when I come to this site what I am dealing with. But the site in question seems to want to dictate one color and not accept any other colors. I am fine with that and I am fine with opining that I think the site is at best unproductive and I am a conservative free market economist. Maybe the site should be entitled, The ........ .......... for Latter-Day Saint Conservative American's. Then their mission would be defined. I mean there are more members of the Church outside America than inside.

In conclusion for the constitution hanging by a thread topic. Define for me the constitution? Define what would be blatantly unconstitutional? Who's constitution, Joseph Smith's or the one we have today? Define what hanging by a thread is? The problem is that all of these things are near undefinable. Why should the prophecy be waited for when we are not sure what the prophecy is or how it is even applied. Furthermore, how do we interpret the prophecy or (second hand statements) when the modern Church has said it is not apart of the Doctrine of the LDS Church?

Biz

[Calm]

ut the site in question seems to want to dictate one color and not accept any other colors. I am fine with that and I am fine with opining that I think the site is at best unproductive

I would agree that such sites and conversations are generally unproductive and can lead to even less desirable circumstances.

[zerinus]

But zerinus, you do realize that by this comment you are simply implying that the issues you mention (surrounded by quotes) are not important enough for YOU to "constantly" beat the drum about. I detect a 'faint' whiff of disdain for people who do take these issues seriously. Furthermore, your use of the word 'constantly' implies that you have inside information on how the people setting up such web sites may spend the rest of their time, or that they don't have other very compelling interests. Could this be construed as maybe just a little bit presumptuous??

Different people have different awareness levels and interests. This should be evident. I personally am astonished at people who aren't greatly exercised (especially at the present time) by the accelerating pace of our liberties being stripped away and the increase in governmental actions by-passing the Constitution, with unConstitutional foreign preemptive wars and military action leading the charge. If you don't think this type of thing is directly impacting you now, it soon will be, in my strongly held view.

President Benson (and others of the Brethren) took the issues of liberty very seriously. He likened this battle to a continuation of the War in Heaven, which was largely centered around free-agency. He also said we were obligated to keep up the fight for free-agency in this existence, and that those who aren't valiant doing so, will discover this inaction will not redound to their good. His strong implication was that activity in this arena is an essential part of our salvation.

So I'm not sure being active politically in the defense of liberty is the wrong end of the stick, as long as you don't neglect the other weighty matters of the Gospel.

The problem I have with that is that those promoting that kind of agenda are not really “defending the Constitution” at all, but promoting a very narrow, sectarian view of what they think the Constitution is or should be, and how it should be “defended”—while branding anyone else who may differ from them as somehow “unpatriotic” or “attacking the constitution”. Before the fall of Communism, that was the great bugbear of these self-styled “constitutional defenders”. Now that Communism is dead and buried, it has left a gaping hole in the theology of these folks which they don’t seem to know exactly how to fill. I agree with what Biz said on this issue:

In conclusion for the constitution hanging by a thread topic. Define for me the constitution? Define what would be blatantly unconstitutional? Who's constitution, Joseph Smith's or the one we have today? Define what hanging by a thread is? The problem is that all of these things are near undefinable. Why should the prophecy be waited for when we are not sure what the prophecy is or how it is even applied. Furthermore, how do we interpret the prophecy or (second hand statements) when the modern Church has said it is not apart of the Doctrine of the LDS Church?

The actual purpose of the Constitution is expressed by the Constitution itself in the Preamble as follows (emphasis mine):

We the People of the United States, 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 for the United States of America.

Assuming that these are listed in the order of importance by the Founding Fathers, then the first, “to form a more perfect Union,” would be regarded the most important, followed by establishing “justice,” ensuring domestic “tranquillity,” . . . ending with general “welfare” and securing “liberty”. Most of these can be understood differently by different people. What makes you think that your way of understanding them is the only right one? I think that is where the real “presumption” is coming from.

[LeSellers]

Now that Communism is dead and buried

Communism is neither dead nor buried.

It's alive and well around the world, including here in USmerica.

Lehi

[blarsen]

Communism is neither dead nor buried.

It's alive and well around the world, including here in USmerica.

Lehi

Much truth to that. The totalitarian aspect has ameliorated somewhat; but China retains much of that.

[blarsen]

The problem I have with that is that those promoting that kind of agenda are not really “defending the Constitution” at all, but promoting a very narrow, sectarian view of what they think the Constitution is or should be, and how it should be “defended”—while branding anyone else who may differ from them as somehow “unpatriotic” or “attacking the constitution”. Before the fall of Communism, that was the great bugbear of these self-styled “constitutional defenders”. Now that Communism is dead and buried, it has left a gaping hole in the theology of these folks which they don’t seem to know exactly how to fill. I agree with what Biz said on this issue:

The actual purpose of the Constitution is expressed by the Constitution itself in the Preamble as follows (emphasis mine):

We the People of the United States, 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 for the United States of America.

Assuming that these are listed in the order of importance by the Founding Fathers, then the first, “to form a more perfect Union,” would be regarded the most important, followed by establishing “justice,” ensuring domestic “tranquillity,” . . . ending with general “welfare” and securing “liberty”. Most of these can be understood differently by different people. What makes you think that your way of understanding them is the only right one? I think that is where the real “presumption” is coming from.

Exactly right, you are assuming these are listed in the “order of importance”. I believe this means you are saying the Founders didn’t assign much importance to ‘liberty’, at least in relation to the other categories in the list. Interesting thesis. May be worth exploring further.

If you are addressing my understanding of these issues, all I can say is: more presumption. How could you possibly know what I think about them, or that I think my view about them is “the only right one”. Wow!

I mean everybody develops views on this or that. I always welcome debate and opposing views. But if you can’t convince me to abandon or change mine by good argument and evidence, you can’t. And I’m just as apt to tell you exactly why . . . . in relation to the propositions I generally accept as true through my own personal search, investigation, pondering and experience. And I have no doubt, you feel the same way about yourself.

And why would it surprise anyone that a particular site should be set up to defend a particular view of the Constitution, liberty, conspiracy, or the political ideas and emphasis of Presidents Benson, J. Reuben Clark, and McKay? Or that the site moderators and many participants will defend those ideas? Some people will respond to the ideas presented there positively and have lights go on for them and even start them on their own journey of discovery.

I can only imagine this type of thing being "unproductive and lead[ing] to even less desirable circumstances” to those who disagree with the views espoused on these sites. Interesting, loaded generalizations, but I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

Most people I know who get excited by the Constitution have arrived at that point by digging into the debates pro and con leading to its formation. In other words they become enamored with the original intent. If you, zerinus, regard original intent as " a very narrow, sectarian view of what they think the Constitution is or should be", you are just expressing your bias; you're not actually saying much. Which is OK, but not very productive to any king of understanding.

My guess is that you are quite comfortable hanging out in the Constitutional 'penumbra'. Others aren't.

[blarsen]

Exactly right, you are assuming these are listed in the “order of importance”. I believe this means you are saying the Founders didn’t assign much importance to ‘liberty’, at least in relation to the other categories in the list. Interesting thesis. May be worth exploring further.

If you are addressing my understanding of these issues, all I can say is: more presumption. How could you possibly know what I think about them, or that I think my view about them is “the only right one”. Wow!

I mean everybody develops views on this or that. I always welcome debate and opposing views. But if you can’t convince me to abandon or change mine by good argument and evidence, you can’t. And I’m just as apt to tell you exactly why . . . . in relation to the propositions I generally accept as true through my own personal search, investigation, pondering and experience. And I have no doubt, you feel the same way about yourself.

And why would it surprise anyone that a particular site should be set up to defend a particular view of the Constitution, liberty, conspiracy, or the political ideas and emphasis of Presidents Benson, J. Reuben Clark, and McKay? Or that the site moderators and many participants will defend those ideas? Some people will respond to the ideas presented there positively and have lights go on for them and even start them on their own journey of discovery.

I can only imagine this type of thing being "unproductive and lead[ing] to even less desirable circumstances” to those who disagree with the views espoused on these sites. Interesting, loaded generalizations, but I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

Most people I know who get excited by the Constitution have arrived at that point by digging into the debates pro and con leading to its formation. In other words they become enamored with the original intent. If you, zerinus, regard original intent as " a very narrow, sectarian view of what they think the Constitution is or should be", you are just expressing your bias; you're not actually saying much. Which is OK, but not very productive to any king of understanding.

My guess is that you are quite comfortable hanging out in the Constitutional 'penumbra'. Others aren't.

Original post was copied from a word document, which loaded up double lines on the transfer. If I hang out here long enough to get 'edit' privileges I could correct this type of thing.

[zerinus]

Exactly right, you are assuming these are listed in the “order of importance”. I believe this means you are saying the Founders didn’t assign much importance to ‘liberty’, at least in relation to the other categories in the list. Interesting thesis. May be worth exploring further.

That assumption is not crucial to my argument. The important thing is that the constitution had many important aims and objectives, not just one; and strengthening the Union, establishing the rule of Law, and promoting Welfare were high on the agenda. Preserving the Union was sufficiently important that the country went to war in the 1860s to preserve it; and we are glad that they did. If the secession had succeeded, America would not have become such a great country that it is today; and it is unlikely that the Constitution would have survived either.

If you are addressing my understanding of these issues, all I can say is: more presumption. How could you possibly know what I think about them, or that I think my view about them is “the only right one”. Wow!

I don’t know you personally, and this is the first time that I have interacted with you online; and I don’t claim to know what your personal views are about these things. But I am guessing (and I believe correctly) that you share the opinions of other LDS activists who (in my opinion) have a misguided view of “saving the Constitution”.

I mean everybody develops views on this or that. I always welcome debate and opposing views. But if you can’t convince me to abandon or change mine by good argument and evidence, you can’t. And I’m just as apt to tell you exactly why . . . . in relation to the propositions I generally accept as true through my own personal search, investigation, pondering and experience. And I have no doubt, you feel the same way about yourself.

I am sure you have given a lot of thought to what you believe. I have no objection to engaging in a debate with you about the Constitution, if you would like to start a new thread on the subject, and persuade the moderators not to close it down. I believe such a thread should be allowed, because in the LDS view it is part of the gospel. LDS scripture teaches that the Constitution is inspired, and the Founding Fathers were wise men whom God raised up for that purpose (D&C 101:77-80); therefore it is a legitimate part of the gospel discussion and should be allowed in my opinion.

And why would it surprise anyone that a particular site should be set up to defend a particular view of the Constitution, liberty, conspiracy, or the political ideas and emphasis of Presidents Benson, J. Reuben Clark, and McKay? Or that the site moderators and many participants will defend those ideas? Some people will respond to the ideas presented there positively and have lights go on for them and even start them on their own journey of discovery.

I have no objection to anybody doing that either; but they should not tag it to the Church, and try to give the impression that they are doing God a service, or doing the Church any favors, or somehow promoting a line that the Church approves; because they are not.

I can only imagine this type of thing being "unproductive and lead[ing] to even less desirable circumstances” to those who disagree with the views espoused on these sites. Interesting, loaded generalizations, but I don’t think it’s any more complicated than that.

Provided that they don’t try to give the impression that they are somehow promoting a Church approved line or doing the Church any favors, nobody cares what they do. There are plenty of crackpot, nutty sites on the Internet, and these would be more additions on the list!

Most people I know who get excited by the Constitution have arrived at that point by digging into the debates pro and con leading to its formation. In other words they become enamored with the original intent. If you, zerinus, regard original intent as " a very narrow, sectarian view of what they think the Constitution is or should be", you are just expressing your bias; you're not actually saying much. Which is OK, but not very productive to any king of understanding.

I am not sure what you mean by the “original intent”. If you mean the “Bensonian” type rhetoric, then I can assure you that I am not “enamoured” by it; and I am guessing neither are many present day General Authorities of the Church.

My guess is that you are quite comfortable hanging out in the Constitutional 'penumbra'. Others aren't.

I am not sure what you mean by “Constitutional 'penumbra'”. My views of the Constitution is the scriptural one, that it is an inspired document, and God had a hand in its production, and therefore it should be upheld. Beyond that it is not a safe territory to venture. As for the prophecy of its “hanging by a thread,” as Biz pointed out, nobody seems to know that it exactly means, or how it is going to come about, therefore I am not inclined to take it seriously.

[thesometimesaint]

zerinus:

I too believe the US Constitution to be God inspired. I just happened to be more liberal in what I consider inspiration.

[blarsen]

That assumption is not crucial to my argument. The important thing is that the constitution had many important aims and objectives, not just one; and strengthening the Union, establishing the rule of Law, and promoting Welfare were high on the agenda. Preserving the Union was sufficiently important that the country went to war in the 1860s to preserve it; and we are glad that they did. If the secession had succeeded, America would not have become such a great country that it is today; and it is unlikely that the Constitution would have survived either.

I don’t know you personally, and this is the first time that I have interacted with you online; and I don’t claim to know what your personal views are about these things. But I am guessing (and I believe correctly) that you share the opinions of other LDS activists who (in my opinion) have a misguided view of “saving the Constitution”.

I am sure you have given a lot of thought to what you believe. I have no objection to engaging in a debate with you about the Constitution, if you would like to start a new thread on the subject, and persuade the moderators not to close it down. I believe such a thread should be allowed, because in the LDS view it is part of the gospel. LDS scripture teaches that the Constitution is inspired, and the Founding Fathers were wise men whom God raised up for that purpose (D&C 101:77-80); therefore it is a legitimate part of the gospel discussion and should be allowed in my opinion.

I have no objection to anybody doing that either; but they should not tag it to the Church, and try to give the impression that they are doing God a service, or doing the Church any favors, or somehow promoting a line that the Church approves; because they are not.

Provided that they don’t try to give the impression that they are somehow promoting a Church approved line or doing the Church any favors, nobody cares what they do. There are plenty of crackpot, nutty sites on the Internet, and these would be more additions on the list!

I am not sure what you mean by the “original intent”. If you mean the “Bensonian” type rhetoric, then I can assure you that I am not “enamoured” by it; and I am guessing neither are many present day General Authorities of the Church.

I am not sure what you mean by “Constitutional 'penumbra'”. My views of the Constitution is the scriptural one, that it is an inspired document, and God had a hand in its production, and therefore it should be upheld. Beyond that it is not a safe territory to venture. As for the prophecy of its “hanging by a thread,” as Biz pointed out, nobody seems to know that it exactly means, or how it is going to come about, therefore I am not inclined to take it seriously.

But it is clear that in your own mind you are willing to put liberty at the tag-end of this list. I’m not.

Another point you make is that “America [is a] great country [] today”. We would have a real disagreement on this one because my view is that America has fallen off that pinnacle to a great extent; to the point I’m not sure we can recover. From your response here, my judgment is that it would be a great waste of time for both of us to attempt some kind of debate over the Constitution.

Where you say: “ . . . I’m guessing (and I believe correctly) that you share the opinions of other LDS activists who (in my opinion) have a misguided view of “saving the Constitution”. My response is, nope, you’re wrong. My real view is that too many LDS don’t know how off the track we are to get really interested in such a project. That some LDS will play a role in helping restore Constitutional government if it is to be restored, I have no doubt.

One of the things we learned from Cleon Skousen is that the big reason he got into the whole business of writing his books on the Constitution and was sent down to BYU to teach, etc., was because President David O. McKay essentially gave him the assignment to do so. The main purpose he was given was to research the original reasons and sources the founding fathers had and used enabling them to put together the Constitution in the first place. President McKay apparently wanted to gather this information in the eventuality Constitutional government might have to be reconstituted in the future, and even improved upon.

I’ve heard Cleon talk about this on at least 2-3 occasions and had no reason to believe he wasn’t telling the truth.

Your comments about the intent of the Mormon Chronicle web site simply shows your dislike of the web site, in my view. Could they get something wrong, or promulgate a faulty view or views on different issues? Possibly and probably likely. In this case, anybody noticing this would do them a favor to try to politely correct them in the forum of their own web site, or some other web site they would be known to frequent. The LDS Freedom Forum comes to mind.

At least you admit you have a problem with many of the things E. T. Benson has talked about. Let me ask you, though, what do you think of what President Benson said in his “I Testify” conference talk, Fall of 1988? I believe this may have been the last public talk he ever gave. I’m referring specifically to where he talks about secret combinations, dovetailing perfectly with what Moroni in Ether 8 said about these entities being rampant in our day. Remember, Benson said this as the President of the Church. Don’t fail me. Give it a read and then give me some feedback on this.

As far as the meaning of ‘original intent’ goes, I believe it would be generally accepted to mean the collection of original reasons why the founding fathers chose or compromised on various elements that were put in the Constitution. It would include all the swirling debate surrounding these issues found in such books as The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, transcripts and other preserved pronouncements that constituted the actual Constitutional debates and any other relevant commentary from the participants in this debate. If you don’t have a good grasp of these things, you don’t have much to bring to the table in a discussion of whether or not we’ve strayed from the original intent of the Constitution, or whether straying from the original intent is a good, bad or indifferent process.

A very good book that gets into many of the key points of the original Constitutional debate, is Cleons’ book, The Making of America. It’s full of quotes from this debate, with interspersed commentary from Cleon. Excellent book, in my view.

The term ‘penumbra of the Constitution’ is the term used originally by a particular individual (you can probably google it) to describe what he regarded as the really broad tent the Constitution provides, allowing for a great latitude of interpretation. I think the founding fathers would be appalled at such a view.

[zerinus]

But it is clear that in your own mind you are willing to put liberty at the tag-end of this list. I’m not.

That is not true; but I don’t look at it through the same lens that you do.

Another point you make is that “America [is a] great country [] today”. We would have a real disagreement on this one because my view is that America has fallen off that pinnacle to a great extent; to the point I’m not sure we can recover.

Nobody argues that there are no problems with America; but like it or not, it is still a great country. It is still the strongest economic power, the greatest military power, the greatest technological powerhouse, and still the greatest democracy in the world. Even the Book of Mormon testifies that America is (or would be) a great country (1 Nephi 22:7). What more do you want!

From your response here, my judgment is that it would be a great waste of time for both of us to attempt some kind of debate over the Constitution.

I am glad there is something we can both agree on!

Where you say: “ . . . I’m guessing (and I believe correctly) that you share the opinions of other LDS activists who (in my opinion) have a misguided view of “saving the Constitution”. My response is, nope, you’re wrong. My real view is that too many LDS don’t know how off the track we are to get really interested in such a project.

In other words, you are even more extreme in your views than I had anticipated! Thanks for letting us know.

That some LDS will play a role in helping restore Constitutional government if it is to be restored, I have no doubt.

I hope you are right; but I have my doubts.

One of the things we learned from Cleon Skousen is that the big reason he got into the whole business of writing his books on the Constitution and was sent down to BYU to teach, etc., was because President David O. McKay essentially gave him the assignment to do so. The main purpose he was given was to research the original reasons and sources the founding fathers had and used enabling them to put together the Constitution in the first place. President McKay apparently wanted to gather this information in the eventuality Constitutional government might have to be reconstituted in the future, and even improved upon.

I don’t know about that; but I am no fan of Cleon Skousen. I am a fan of the Constitution though, as well as a fan of the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which have something to say about it.

Your comments about the intent of the Mormon Chronicle web site simply shows your dislike of the web site, in my view. Could they get something wrong, or promulgate a faulty view or views on different issues? Possibly and probably likely. In this case, anybody noticing this would do them a favor to try to politely correct them in the forum of their own web site, or some other web site they would be known to frequent. The LDS Freedom Forum comes to mind.

My comments on the Mormon Chronicle website was not related to any constitutionally related material; but the motivation behind the whole thing from the grounds up. The only way to fix that is to shut it down altogether, not try to mend it somehow!

At least you admit you have a problem with many of the things E. T. Benson has talked about. Let me ask you, though, what do you think of what President Benson said in his “I Testify” conference talk, Fall of 1988? I believe this may have been the last public talk he ever gave. I’m referring specifically to where he talks about secret combinations, dovetailing perfectly with what Moroni in Ether 8 said about these entities being rampant in our day. Remember, Benson said this as the President of the Church. Don’t fail me. Give it a read and then give me some feedback on this.

Yes, I had a look at that, and here is the quote:

I testify that America is a choice land. (See 2 Ne. 1:5.) God raised up the founding fathers of the United States of America and established the inspired Constitution. (See D&C 101:77–80.) This was the required prologue for the restoration of the gospel. (See 3 Ne. 21:4.) America will be a blessed land unto the righteous forever and is the base from which God will continue to direct the worldwide latter-day operations of His kingdom. (See 2 Ne. 1:7.)

* * *

I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.) —

Source

.

I have no problem with those quotes. It is what the Book of Mormon teaches. The Book of Mormon teaches that they exist in all nations and countries, not just in the US:

Ether 8

:

23 Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; . . .

And according to the Book of Mormon, they even existed in the US in the days of Joseph Smith:

Mormon 8

:

27 And it [the Book of Mormon] shall come in a day when the blood of saints shall cry unto the Lord, because of

secret combinations and the works of darkness

.

That still doesn’t prevent the Book of Mormon from identifying the (future) United States as a great nation. It has its problems, I agree, and its “secret combinations,” but is still a great country. And the fact that there are such “secret combinations,” proves what exactly? What do you plan to do about it? Do you know who they are? Can you identify them? If you could, then they wouldn’t be “secret” would they! So what do you intend to do about it, or expect anybody else should do?

As far as the meaning of ‘original intent’ goes, I believe it would be generally accepted to mean the collection of original reasons why the founding fathers chose or compromised on various elements that were put in the Constitution. It would include all the swirling debate surrounding these issues found in such books as The Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, transcripts and other preserved pronouncements that constituted the actual Constitutional debates and any other relevant commentary from the participants in this debate. If you don’t have a good grasp of these things, you don’t have much to bring to the table in a discussion of whether or not we’ve strayed from the original intent of the Constitution, or whether straying from the original intent is a good, bad or indifferent process.

I have a good grasp of the Book of Mormon! And I think that you are misguided no matter what grasp you have of whatever you think you have.

A very good book that gets into many of the key points of the original Constitutional debate, is Cleons’ book, The Making of America. It’s full of quotes from this debate, with interspersed commentary from Cleon. Excellent book, in my view.

No thank you. I prefer to stick with the scriptures, and what the Spirit teaches me though them.

[LeSellers]

The important thing is that the constitution had many important aims and objectives, not just one; and strengthening the Union, establishing the rule of Law, and promoting Welfare were high on the agenda.

"Strengthening the union" compared to what?

Their intent was not to create a "nation", but a federation, which is a very different thing.

Establishing the Rule of Law was not on their list, what was on their list was creating a government that was strong enough, but no stronger.

"Promoting welfare" was not on their list at all. What was on their list was promoting the general welfare. "Promoting" is not the same thing as "providing", and "providing for" is also a very different concept. Finally, the "general welfare" is markedly different from "individual welfare".

I leave it as an exercise for the interested student to explore the bases for the Constitution. I caution you, however, that anything written by a politician after about 1850 is suspect, and anything written or promoted by any bureaucrat, ever, is very extremely highly suspect.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

Preserving the Union was sufficiently important that the country went to war in the 1860s to preserve it; and we are glad that they did. If the secession had succeeded, America would not have become such a great country that it is today; and it is unlikely that the Constitution would have survived either.

Not all of us are glad that there is a"once in, never leave" policy. It smacks of slavery.

It is highly doubtful that the Constitution would have failed if the South had succeeded in seceding. It probably would have made the other states more circumspect in how they treated each other, and the federal government more respectful of the X amendment.

And, as I recall, there were none of the Founders who participated in the War Between the States, so using it to establish how important "form[ing] a more perfect union" was to those who wrote and implemented the Constitution is fallacious.

Lehi

[zerinus]

"Strengthening the union" compared to what?

Compared to the weaker union that existed before. That is what the words in the Preamble mean.

Their intent was not to create a "nation", but a federation, which is a very different thing.

Nation and federation is the same thing. Some nations have a federal system of government, some are constitutional monarchies, some are absolute monarchies, some are military dictatorships, some are tribal etc.—and a wide variety of types in each of those categories. It is a silly argument to pit “nation” against “federation”. “Federation” defines a system of government. “Nation” is a declaration of sovereignty. The Constitution created a nation which had a federal system of government. You don’t try to pit nation against federation.

Establishing the Rule of Law was not on their list, what was on their list was creating a government that was strong enough, but no stronger.

The list talks about “establishing Justice,” and justice is established by the rule of law.

"Promoting welfare" was not on their list at all. What was on their list was promoting the general welfare. "Promoting" is not the same thing as "providing", and "providing for" is also a very different concept. Finally, the "general welfare" is markedly different from "individual welfare".

Welfare is welfare. Whether you call it “general” or “particular” is immaterial. How can you establish “general” welfare without being concerned about “particular” welfare? Now exactly how that “welfare” is “promoted” is debatable issue; and I don’t see that you have a monopoly of opinion on that. People may have different opinion on how that should be achieved, and I don’t see why your opinion should be superior to those who might differ from you.

I leave it as an exercise for the interested student to explore the bases for the Constitution. I caution you, however, that anything written by a politician after about 1850 is suspect, and anything written or promoted by any bureaucrat, ever, is very extremely highly suspect.

I don’t buy that. Lots of opinions have been expressed since 1850, and I have no reason to suppose that all of them are necessarily bad. That is just plain silly.

Not all of us are glad that there is a "once in, never leave" policy. It smacks of slavery.

It wasn’t as simple as that. It was the Confederacy who seceded in order to preserve slavery, which had been abolished in the north. The confederacy didn’t just want to preserve slavery for themselves; they wanted to expand it into the other states in which it had been abolished. After they had seceded, they actually started the war by raising an army and attacking a military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina; and the fighting spiralled from there.

It is highly doubtful that the Constitution would have failed if the South had succeeded in seceding. It probably would have made the other states more circumspect in how they treated each other, and the federal government more respectful of the X amendment.

If the Confederacy had won, it certainly wouldn’t have survived; and if the US had not fought back they would have lost! So I let intelligent folks draw their own conclusions from that.

And, as I recall, there were none of the Founders who participated in the War Between the States, so using it to establish how important "form[ing] a more perfect union" was to those who wrote and implemented the Constitution is fallacious.

They created something that was worth defending; and the US acted in good faith and in the right spirit to defend it.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

A house divided against itself can not stand. The US would not have existed for long half free and half slave.

Nice to see you don't believe women, minorities, and citizens over 18 but under 21 should have the right to vote. Are you also in favor of Poll Taxes? They're specifically prohibited by Amendment 24 adopted well after 1850.