Does Anybody See A Problem With This?

[Bob Crockett]

The Constitution is founded on limited central government and federalism: the power of the individual states supersedes that of the central government in nearly all aspects of government. It was the creation of the states (not of the people: notice the processes of writing it and of its ratification, see how the President is elected—especially in the case of no majority vote in the Electoral College); which is why we had a Senate (originally chosen directly by the states, not the people of the states) that ratifies treaties, ratifies judges and justices, ambassadors, general officers, and cabinet appointments: all actions of sovereign states. The federal government was designed to represent the united States of America (the original capitalization) to the outside world. It was to resolve conflicts between states. It was not designed to control citizens except in the most remote instance.

This was the view of the Jeffersonian republicans. Not the view of the Hamilton crowd. The quasi-war drug the U.S. into becoming a national power. The Jeffersonian republicans (remember, they wanted strong state power to maintain the institution of slavery) in the end lost.

[Deborah]

So, zernius, are you saying those who support stronger states' rights and powers as opposed to federal powers don't support the Constitution? I always thought that's why the Constitution was written: to enumerate the few rights of the federal government while assigning all other rights to the states.

[blarsen]

It is your attitudes that I have a problem with. Here is a typical quote from Lehi that demonstrates it:

If this sentiment was put into effect it would destroy the Constitution. Basically he doesn't want a Constitution at all. His "constitution" is a no-constitution. The way he defines a "nation" is also an indicator of his attitude. He basically doesn't want a nation or a constitution. The Constitution creates a nation. It creates a sovereign state in which the sovereignty rests with the people of all the states, united into a nation. He is opposed to that. He wants a complete free for all for the individual states. They do not even have a "nationhood" collectively, hence no constitution. He may be taking it to the extreme; but it is a sentiment that basically all of you guys support; and if it was put into practice it would destroy the constitution faster than you would know it. He pays lip service to the Constitution; but essentially wants to destroy it. And I think you would agree with him, otherwise you would have opposed him.

What attitudes? You mean the importance I put on the 10th Ammendment? But that WAS part of the original Constitution. Why would going back to the original intent of the 10th Ammendment destroy the Constitution? It might destroy the misuse of the Constitution, you're right. Which in my view is agood thing. But that is actually strengthening the Constitution.

I highly recommend you reconsider reading the original documents having to do with the adoption of the Constitution, which encapsule original intent (that phrase again). But from your previous statement about not being willing to do so, I won't hold my breath.

Yes, I do largely agree w/LaSellers and others here. He has a good understanding of the issues. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say.

[blarsen]

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

Actually, you’re right. Your assumption was that the Founders, not you, put these items in order of importance.

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!

All I said was that America (the US) had fallen off considerably from its pinnacle of greatness because of many reasons that could be enumerated here, but which have primarily to do with the diminution of its functional status as a democratic Republic, whose primary purpose should be to protect the legitimate rights of its people.

Being the greatest military power doesn’t hold much weight with me if that power isn’t used correctly. Being the greatest economic power doesn’t mean that much to me if it is undergirded by such things as corporate welfare, or exporting our inflation by selling our debt to foreign governments (which is rapidly coming to a halt), or moving much of our basic manufacturing off shore. And coupled with the rapid increase in unConstitutional serveillance activities, etc., etc., Wow, are we taking a tumble.

The potential is there to regain some of the losses, but personally, I don’t hold out much hope this will happen unless a lot more people wake up and get active.

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

Define extreme. In my opinion this statement tends to put you squarely in the camp of those who “don’t know how off the track we are” . Thanks for letting us know.

I hope you are right; but I have my doubts

I don’t because I know of many LDS individuals who are playing this role already, some more indirectly than directly.

I don’t know about that; [my statement about McKay givinig Cleon his walking orders] 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.

I do know about this and can bring in quite a few more witnesses to back me up. Remember, “in the mouth of three or more witnesses . . . . .” I can well imagine you are no fan of Cleon Skousen. But just why does he set your teeth on edge so much? He was a preeminent fan of the Constitution himself, so what are the issues where you disagree with him??

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!

Zerinus, here is their mission statement:

The Mormon Chronicle is dedicated to promoting truth and correct principles based on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Though the truth is often times uncomfortable, the Savior said it will set us free. The truth, no matter how uncomfortable, leads to Christ.

The Mormon Chronicle addresses sacred cows, news and events with analysis from a uniquely Mormon perspective. We promote, through articles and essays, the principles of liberty as found in the Standard works and teachings of the leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

DISCLAIMER: The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein. All of the contributors to The Mormon Chronicle are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and support its mission as Christ’s Church.

What problems do you have with that? In their view, this is what they are doing, which they admit reflects their own opinions and teachings. I don’t see any claim to infallibility here. I just see them trying to set a high standard for themselves. As I’ve mentioned, if you take issue with them, go to their web site and argue your position, or to one of Brian’s other web sites. I really don’t see Brian as doctrinaire as you may think he is. I know nothing about the other fellow.

Where you say: “The only way to fix that is to shut it down altogether, not try to mend it somehow!”, do you mean you would like to have someone force them to shut down? If so, wow again, we really are in different camps!

Yes, I had a look at that [ Benson, Fall 1988 and Ether 8], 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; . . .

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?

Excellent! Thanks for posting. Regarding these quotes, I have some comments/questions.

First, notice that President Benson says “secret combinations [ ] are flourishing”. Relevant to this, an older sister of mine and her husband went into the MTC in February pursuant to a couple-mission. She told me one of the presenters in their training said that ‘secret combinations were rampant, all around us”, reinforcing what Pres. Benson has said.

Next, he goes on to say: “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.” Notice he is identifying ‘A’ secret combination, which is saying one of these secret combinations is increasing its already existing influence and control over America and the entire world. He is identifying a single secret combination that ALREADY had influence AND control in America and elsewhere way back in 1988. He didn’t say these secret combinations are . . . He says ‘A’ secret combination is . . .. This should narrow the search down to just one secret combination involved in this process.

Lastly, where Moroni says: “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;”, notice that we are commanded to “awake to a sense of [our] awful situation”.

This raises a couple of questions: 1) are you keeping the Lord’s commandment with this regard? and, as a result 2) have you awakened to a sense of our awful situation? And if the answer to the first question is no, is it because you haven’t seen evidence of these things come among us? If this is true, doesn’t it make sense that it would behoove you to investigate any evidence for the existence of this single secret combination President Benson is talking about?

I for one, am one of those who believes he has awakened to our awful situation, and I think it’s a lot worse than many of you have imagined. Why would I say such a thing (last clause, previous sentence)? Primarily because of my awareness of and involvement in the search for truth regarding the events of 9/11.

I’m writing this for anyone who may be reading it, not just for zerinus.

But I know many reading this last statement will automatically turn off at this point. Before you do, however, here’s something to consider (which is also relevant to Article of Faith 13 in my view, which could be elaborated on):

Where did you get your information about 9/11? Probably mostly from the main stream media. Period. For those of you who are generational Mormons/LDS, do you think if your ancestor got his/her information about the Mormons from the mains stream media of the day that you, as their beneficiary, would be in the Church today? Probably not. They were probably converted by missionaries for the cause, maybe even including direct contact with Joseph Smith. See the point?

How many of you are aware of the multiple, shifting stories regarding the so-called killing of Osama bin Laden; or the shifting stores about Jessica Lynch (the acclaimed 'war hero' of a firefight in Iraq); or the shifting stories of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan; or more immediate for me, a Vietnam veteran), the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam war? How many of you are even aware of the collapse of WTC 7, a 47 story skyscraper at about 5:30 pm on 9/11, in near free-fall time (6.5 sec)? Point is, are you putting your trust in the right sources and media that promulgates information from these sources and basically ignores (except for ridicule, disdain and misrepresentation) highly pertinent information from other sources?? If so, lots of luck!

There is no contradiction between the future US being identified as a great nation and then falling from this position due to being overtaken by secret combinations. The latter is a gradual usurpation. Lately, however, it’s on an accelerated upswing, in my strongly held view.

And “the fact that there are secret combinations”, means you are commanded to wake up to our awful situation. What do you plan to do about it??

And yes, I have a pretty good idea who many of the players are; mainly through their own statements, actions, writings (which normally aren’t promulgated via the MSM, or even in major journalistic outlets). The fact that they are secret has nothing to do with their not becoming known in some fashion. Nice red herring. An analogy would be a pair of bank robbers robbing a bank. It would be no secret what they did and how they did it. Two people engaging in secret planning to do a criminal act is a conspiracy and they constitute a ‘secret combination’. Kind of a ‘unit’ secret combination. Their plans could even be leaked in some fashion by an undercover cop or snitch, etc.

I’ve been active in Republican politics since 2000, having been a State delegate, county delegate, precinct co-chair and have been active in a few political action groups. The problem is one of education. I have also helped quite a number of people see what I see. They in turn are waking other people up. Generally, once people get it; they CAN’T go back to their former placid view of things.

Regarding my activity in the 9/11 truth movement, I am a co-author on the paper: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe, along with Dr. Steve Jones et al. (link: http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf ) This may give you some inkling of how serious I am about the things I talk about.

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.

Quite a blanket condemnation. Care to elaborate??

No thank you [refering to my invitation to read Cleon Skousen's book: The Making of America]. I prefer to stick with the scriptures, and what the Spirit teaches me though them.

But, as I’m sure you know, reading this book and as well as sticking to the scriptures and guidance by the Spirit are not mutually exclusive Remember, most of the time, you have to do the work before you are entitled to direction from the Spirit. Truth is truth, where ever you find it. The Spirit doesn’t just confirm truth from the scriptures, to my understanding.

[Jeff K.]

The Emancipation Proclamation was mainly written to keep England and France from recognizing the Confederacy. Had they done so, England and France would have resolved to keep the sea trade lanes open (one of Great Britain's self imposed policies at the time) and thus broken the union blockade. Even Lincoln's first inaugural address held the reassurance for the South that slavery would still be allowed in those states.

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

Lincoln was brilliant. His proclamation freed no slaves in and of themselves. Those with slaves in the North, still had them. The border states with legal slavery which included Maryland (thus surrounding DC) maintained their rights to slavery and slave holding. The states in rebellion certainly weren't going to free their slaves based on the proclamation of a nation they no longer recognized. Lincoln knew this.

So what was accomplished. Tactically, it kept Europe out of the war, this would have resulted in a game changer he could not afford. But it also gave slaves in the south a dog in the hunt. The proclamation provided them with a reason to undermine the south, to work slower, to escape, to act as spies, to cause havoc if they could. Prior to the emancipation proclamation, it was a white man's fight with slaves remaining slaves regardless of who won.

The proclamation along with the draft caused quite a number of riots in the North (New York and Chicago), no one wanted to fight to "free the negro". A number of black men and women were hung in the process.

In conclusion the reasons for the war evolved during the course of events and so we see and often study it, not from the events and motivations of the time, but from the spyglass of what it eventually evolved into.

[zerinus]

So, zernius, are you saying those who support stronger states' rights and powers as opposed to federal powers don't support the Constitution? I always thought that's why the Constitution was written: to enumerate the few rights of the federal government while assigning all other rights to the states.

I can turn that question around to you: So, Deborah, do you think that the Founding Fathers made a mistake in the balance of powers they achieved in the constitution between the States and the Federal Government, that it should need to be "readjusted" by a bunch of ignoramuses who have an oversized opinion of their own wisdom and importance, but in reality haven't a clue what they are talking about?

[Jeff K.]

The Constitution was written to reflect the needs of the times. The Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states to be soveriegn in all ways had so weakened the "federation" of "these" united states, that the confederation was falling apart and the UK was simply waiting to pick up the pieces. Shay's rebellion was such that they could not defend themselves from domestic chaos an violence.

The much stronger central government with rights enumerated for the federal government answered those needs. But they certainly saw mankind as being full of ignoramuses. Consider that the Senate was not a directly elected body (elected by the people directly), the president was under the electorate, and only the House of Representatives. And the were specifically "property" owners, male, and white. Thus ensuring like minded thinkers.

It was and has been readjusted to include more people over time. Does that make the founding fathers ignoramuses or do we consider the changes good. Should only white property owners make the decisions in America?

Also consider the role of the Supreme Court. As part of the Constitution and the acceptance of Marbury vs Madison. Do we consider such things acceptable? It is all kind of confusing since it goes both ways. The centralized federal government has, however grown bigger, and more powerful on a consistent basis. It was considered important in our republic to have the people attempt to slow the federal power down from time to time.

[Deborah]

I can turn that question around to you: So, Deborah, do you think that the Founding Fathers made a mistake in the balance of powers they achieved in the constitution between the States and the Federal Government, that it should need to be "readjusted" by a bunch of ignoramuses who have an oversized opinion of their own wisdom and importance, but in reality haven't a clue what they are talking about?

I seriously don't get your question. Who are the ignoramuses you are talking about? The Founding Fathers were fearful of too much power in the hands of the federal government and to the extent that politicians have usurped that purpose I suppose they are the ignoramuses.

[zerinus]

What attitudes? You mean the importance I put on the 10th Ammendment? But that WAS part of the original Constitution. Why would going back to the original intent of the 10th Ammendment destroy the Constitution? It might destroy the misuse of the Constitution, you're right. Which in my view is agood thing. But that is actually strengthening the Constitution.

And why are you beating the drum of the 10th Amendment? I don't think the 10th Amendment needs any protection from you guys. Why are you crying wolf over the 10th Amendment?

Yes, I do largely agree w/LaSellers and others here. He has a good understanding of the issues. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as they say.

I figured you would agree with him; and I guess you are right that debating it with you guys would most likely be a waste of time.

[zerinus]

The Constitution was written to reflect the needs of the times. The Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states to be soveriegn in all ways had so weakened the "federation" of "these" united states, that the confederation was falling apart and the UK was simply waiting to pick up the pieces. Shay's rebellion was such that they could not defend themselves from domestic chaos an violence.

The much stronger central government with rights enumerated for the federal government answered those needs. But they certainly saw mankind as being full of ignoramuses. Consider that the Senate was not a directly elected body (elected by the people directly), the president was under the electorate, and only the House of Representatives. And the were specifically "property" owners, male, and white. Thus ensuring like minded thinkers.

It was and has been readjusted to include more people over time. Does that make the founding fathers ignoramuses or do we consider the changes good. Should only white property owners make the decisions in America?

Also consider the role of the Supreme Court. As part of the Constitution and the acceptance of Marbury vs Madison. Do we consider such things acceptable? It is all kind of confusing since it goes both ways. The centralized federal government has, however grown bigger, and more powerful on a consistent basis. It was considered important in our republic to have the people attempt to slow the federal power down from time to time.

That may be a valid point; but such "adjustments" would require a lot more wisdom than many "Mormon ignoramuses" have to offer!

[volgadon]

I think it it should be obvious from the description underneath my picture that I don't see eye-to-eye with the politics of Mormon Chronicle or with the attempt to make a certain branch of conservative US politics central to being a faithful member of the church. I haven't even been in the US long enough to view myself as anything but a foreigner. That being said, I see nothing in that blog from which to conclude that its creators are apostates.

[LeSellers]

This was the view of the Jeffersonian republicans. Not the view of the Hamilton crowd.

Yes, Hamilton was an elitist, and he trusted "the people" less than others. However, we note who won, and that Hamilton wrote much of the Federalist that repudiated his own position.

The quasi-war drug the U.S. into becoming a national power. The Jeffersonian republicans (remember, they wanted strong state power to maintain the institution of slavery) in the end lost.

CFR that the reason Jeffersonian Republicans "wanted strong state governwents [was] to maintin the institution of slavery". Jefferson opposed slavery, and was more-or-less compelled to live it. He, like Washington and many of the other slaver-holding Founders continued to own their slaves much less because they benefited from it than that they could not devise a method of getting rid of them.

You will recall, I am sure, that the Document itself included a cut-off date for importing additional slaves, which was much more than a mere sop to the abolitionist movement: it was the death knell of slavery, and all knew it. Delayed much less than you or I would have prefered, I am certain, but we suffer from 20/20 hindsight—a plague with which they were not afflicted.

Lehi

[zerinus]

Zerinus, here is their mission statement:

What problems do you have with that? . . .

Because it is a hypocritical one, and does not reflect their true intent (as shown in the earlier part of this thread).

Excellent! Thanks for posting. Regarding these quotes, I have some comments/questions.

First, notice that President Benson says “secret combinations [ ] are flourishing”. Relevant to this, an older sister of mine and her husband went into the MTC in February pursuant to a couple-mission. She told me one of the presenters in their training said that ‘secret combinations were rampant, all around us”, reinforcing what Pres. Benson has said.

I wouldn’t lay too much store by “MTC presenters”. I taught at the MTC once upon a time!

Next, he goes on to say: “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.” Notice he is identifying ‘A’ secret combination, which is saying one of these secret combinations is increasing its already existing influence and control over America and the entire world.

He is not saying that at all. He is not saying that the “secret combination” has already taken control over the government. He is saying that they exist, and that is what they are trying to do. He is not saying that they have already achieved their goal.

He is identifying a single secret combination that ALREADY had influence AND control in America and elsewhere way back in 1988.

No he is not. See above.

He didn’t say these secret combinations are . . . He says ‘A’ secret combination is . . .. This should narrow the search down to just one secret combination involved in this process.

Okay, so what? Can you identify them? Do you know who they are? If you can’t, what is the point of shooting in the dark?

Lastly, where Moroni says: “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;”, notice that we are commanded to “awake to a sense of [our] awful situation”.

This raises a couple of questions: 1) are you keeping the Lord’s commandment with this regard? and, as a result 2) have you awakened to a sense of our awful situation? And if the answer to the first question is no, is it because you haven’t seen evidence of these things come among us? If this is true, doesn’t it make sense that it would behoove you to investigate any evidence for the existence of this single secret combination President Benson is talking about?

The Book of Mormon teaches that what destroys great nations is the wickedness of the people. What preserves them is their righteousness. The “secret combinations” gain power and influence only according to the wickedness of the people. The only way to fight against “secret combinations” is to spread the restored gospel, and to exhort the people to remain true to the Christian principles on which the Unites States was originally founded. That is the only protection that the people of the United States (or any other nation for that matter) have against “secret combinations”.

I for one, am one of those who believes he has awakened to our awful situation, and I think it’s a lot worse than many of you have imagined. Why would I say such a thing (last clause, previous sentence)? Primarily because of my awareness of and involvement in the search for truth regarding the events of 9/11.

I’m writing this for anyone who may be reading it, not just for zerinus.

But I know many reading this last statement will automatically turn off at this point. Before you do, however, here’s something to consider (which is also relevant to Article of Faith 13 in my view, which could be elaborated on):

Where did you get your information about 9/11? Probably mostly from the main stream media. Period. For those of you who are generational Mormons/LDS, do you think if your ancestor got his/her information about the Mormons from the mains stream media of the day that you, as their beneficiary, would be in the Church today? Probably not. They were probably converted by missionaries for the cause, maybe even including direct contact with Joseph Smith. See the point?

How many of you are aware of the multiple, shifting stories regarding the so-called killing of Osama bin Laden; or the shifting stores about Jessica Lynch (the acclaimed 'war hero' of a firefight in Iraq); or the shifting stories of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan; or more immediate for me, a Vietnam veteran), the lies about the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam war? How many of you are even aware of the collapse of WTC 7, a 47 story skyscraper at about 5:30 pm on 9/11, in near free-fall time (6.5 sec)? Point is, are you putting your trust in the right sources and media that promulgates information from these sources and basically ignores (except for ridicule, disdain and misrepresentation) highly pertinent information from other sources?? If so, lots of luck!

There is no contradiction between the future US being identified as a great nation and then falling from this position due to being overtaken by secret combinations. The latter is a gradual usurpation. Lately, however, it’s on an accelerated upswing, in my strongly held view.

And “the fact that there are secret combinations”, means you are commanded to wake up to our awful situation. What do you plan to do about it??

And yes, I have a pretty good idea who many of the players are; mainly through their own statements, actions, writings (which normally aren’t promulgated via the MSM, or even in major journalistic outlets). The fact that they are secret has nothing to do with their not becoming known in some fashion. Nice red herring. An analogy would be a pair of bank robbers robbing a bank. It would be no secret what they did and how they did it. Two people engaging in secret planning to do a criminal act is a conspiracy and they constitute a ‘secret combination’. Kind of a ‘unit’ secret combination. Their plans could even be leaked in some fashion by an undercover cop or snitch, etc.

I’ve been active in Republican politics since 2000, having been a State delegate, county delegate, precinct co-chair and have been active in a few political action groups. The problem is one of education. I have also helped quite a number of people see what I see. They in turn are waking other people up. Generally, once people get it; they CAN’T go back to their former placid view of things.

Regarding my activity in the 9/11 truth movement, I am a co-author on the paper: Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 WTC Catastrophe, along with Dr. Steve Jones et al. (link: http://www.diexx88blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/activethermitic_911.pdf ) This may give you some inkling of how serious I am about the things I talk about.

LOL! Those are “conspiracy theories” not “secret combinations” You are confusing the two. You are deceiving yourself or have been deceived, big time!

[Bob Crockett]

CFR that the reason Jeffersonian Republicans "wanted strong state governwents [was] to maintin the institution of slavery". Jefferson opposed slavery, and was more-or-less compelled to live it. He, like Washington and many of the other slaver-holding Founders continued to own their slaves much less because they benefited from it than that they could not devise a method of getting rid of them.

You will recall, I am sure, that the Document itself included a cut-off date for importing additional slaves, which was much more than a mere sop to the abolitionist movement: it was the death knell of slavery, and all knew it. Delayed much less than you or I would have prefered, I am certain, but we suffer from 20/20 hindsight—a plague with which they were not afflicted.

There are dissertations and books galore which discuss Jeffersonian Republicanism. It is steeped in states' rights, which was wedded to slavery. When the Lincoln Republican party arose, it was filled with the abolitionists (of which Lincoln was not one) and suffragists (of which Lincoln was not one) while the Democrats supported slavery largely. Democrats were for slavery and states' rights; Republicans were for a strong federal government and against slavery (and polygamy). Boy, have times changed. But when I was a little boy growing up and reading about politics, the vestiges of the old Democratic party in the South remained -- southern Democrats most strongly against civil rights for blacks.

There have been many books written about Jefferson's views of slavery. He has his defenders and detractors. On the one hand he made public pronouncements against slavery (the "wolf by the ears") before he became President, but while he was president he continued to own and trade in slaves, permit his sired children to live in slavery and did nothing as President to bring about abolition. Historians seem to agree that his spending habits put him in such debt that he had no choice but to hold onto his wealth -- slavery.

What does this mean to the current discussion? Not much. But I am always amused at folks who talk about the intent of the "founding fathers" and cherry pick from the Federalist Papers to find that intent. In reality, the Constitution was a compromise document formed by men of highly competing views. For every quote you could obtain from the "founding fathers" about a limited government (which I personally favor and approve, being a libertarian) there are competing quotes about a strong national government where the states are subservient.

I agree with Justice Anton Scalia that legislative intent should have almost no role in the interpretation of legislative enactments, because it is too easy to cherry pick what you want -- which is exactly what the Mormon Chronicles site does. Scalia has quoted from Justice Roger Taney (he of the notorious Dred Scott fame):

"In expounding this law, the judgement of the court cannot, in any degree, be influenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself; and we must gather their intention from the language there used, comparing it, when any ambiguity exists, with the laws upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed."

So, when I read a site like Mormon Chronicles, or I read Cleon Skousen, which I have, I just think that gospel hobbyism is a popular sin amongst the members. But forgive me if I stop up my ears to such nonsense. For all I know, posting on a board Mormon apologia is gospel hobbyism.

[Biz]

I agree with Justice Anton Scalia that legislative intent should have almost no role in the interpretation of legislative enactments, because it is too easy to cherry pick what you want -- which is exactly what the Mormon Chronicles site does. Scalia has quoted from Justice Roger Taney (he of the notorious Dred Scott fame):

Exactly!

[LeSellers]

[Jeffersonian Republicanism] is steeped in states' rights, which was wedded to slavery.

States' Rights was far broader than slavery. You make it sound as if that were the only goal. It was not. Taxation was s huge issue. Commerce was a huge issue. There were a host of others.

The point remains that Jefferson (among others) was in a quandary about slavery, both detesting it and being irrevocably tied to it. There was no practical, pain-free way of changing the system. It took two hundred years to establish it in USmerica, and there were not going root it out in two terms of a Jeffersonian presidency. They didn't do it during any of the three Adams terms, either, and JQ was an ardent abolitionist (he even served in the Senate with his primary focus on the matter).

We might curse with all our might against the African kings who sold their neighbors to Arabs and the Dutch slavers, but that will not change the fact that for two centuries, slaves (black, white, red, and yellow) were employed against their wills to the benefit of their masters. And, we must not forget, either, that slavery takes a toll on both sides, more visible on the owned than the owners, but theirs is just as devastating, in my opinion.

And economically, slavery is not all most people think it is. Others here have shown how in some detail, so I won't plow that field again. But slavery was a dead man walking by the late XVIII, and probably sooner.

Jefferson, as you said, did not actively free his own (alleged) slave-born children. But he did not pursue them when they escaped. (Many believe he assisted them in their flights.) As I pointed out, the banks actually owned the salves, his children as well as the others. Jefferson's debt was caused by a severe lack of income (he tried making nails, among a host of other things, and it was a money loser for him, just as his beloved Monticello was: slaves do not make one wealthy). He was away from home too much, and did not tend to his knitting, as the saying goes.

As for Sally Hemmings, please do not forget that Jefferson was a widower very young. Sally was his Martha's half sister and, from accounts I have read, looked amazingly like her. (Sally may also have been her cousin and second cousin: the Randolphs were not too careful about impregnating their slaves, even their own daughters and half-sisters. She may have been more Randolph than was Martha.) If (and the question remains open) they had the kinds of relations many insist they did, it would have been unsurprising. Then, too, we should not forget that it was the Commonwealth of Virginia that forbade them marry. Whether Jefferson would have married her, I cannot say, but I believe him to have been an honorable man, and did what he could.

Lehi

[Deborah]

Arguing about slavery as if it were a thing of the past is rather fruitless. Slavery is alive and well today. Slavery has been a part of the world since the beginning of time.

States Rights is about much more than the slavery issue and I believe it would eventually have died out in any case as it became economically and humanely more unfeasible. Even within the slave states there were those who were anti-slavery. Frankly however, I don't know that war could have been avoided given the very hot feelings on both sides of the issue and with pressure being put on the South to stop slavery. The very economy of the Southern States was at risk and unless someone could have shown them a more economical way to pick their cotton it's doubtful they would have changed anything at that time. As it was the South was left destitute after the Civil War and it has taken many generations to regain prosperity once again.

[LeSellers]

I am always amused at folks who talk about the intent of the "founding fathers" and cherry pick from the Federalist Papers to find that intent. In reality, the Constitution was a compromise document formed by men of highly competing views. For every quote you could obtain from the "founding fathers" about a limited government (which I personally favor and approve, being a libertarian) there are competing quotes about a strong national government where the states are subservient.

I agree with Justice Anton Scalia that legislative intent should have almost no role in the interpretation of legislative enactments, because it is too easy to cherry pick what you want -- which is exactly what the Mormon Chronicles site does.

To the extent that the phrase "original intent" means "what the Founders wanted to see as a government", I'd agree with you. There were many sides to the issue.

However, when I use the phrase, I mean what the Founders understood a word or phrase to mean: the words they chose when they wrote it.

A big one is "militia", another is "regulated", and a third "establishment of religion". These words do not mean today what they did when the Founderes penned the Document, and, in fact may currently be rather much the opposite.

I also point out that, whatever an individual among them may have wanted, the compromise was what we have, and what he signed on to. I highly doubt that anyone got everything he wanted. But, as Franklin said (in paraphrase), while it may not be perfect, it is very good. Given what God said half a century later, I belive it was very, very good. What's happened since then is not always of the same quality and much of it has been highly destructive of the work done in the summer of 1787. We are the poorer for it.

Lehi

[BCSpace]

I would like other LDS to listen to this clip, and tell me if they see a problem with it as I do.

EDIT: The attachment didn't seem to work. You can download it form Hotfile, or directly from here.

Listened to the 3 minute clip. I highly disagree with the notion that because (according to some unspecified DNews poll) said that active Mormons want to hear the unvarnished historical truth from the Church but want Sunday School to be devotional and inspirational, it must somehow mean they don't know what they want. I think it does represent what we active Mormons want, but the conclusion is an antiMormon type of conclusion. We can get the unvarnished history from the Church without it beling delivered in Sunday School or any time during the block.

Can we assume that this cast comes from the assumption that the Church is true? If so, then why is it so important that members must be forcefully exposed to the warts, as it were, of Church history? If it's not comming from such a basis, then we can be sure that they are lying to us from the testimony of those of us who have intentionally exposed ourselves to antiMormon propaganda; and yes, please feel free to immerse yourself in the anti stuff as I am supremely confident that intellectually honest people will see it for the yellow journalism it is. The loss of membership due to unprepared exposure is very minute, far less than antiMormons want us to believe.

While learning and countering the methods of the enemy is worthwhile, teaching the correct doctrines and and seeking after and experiencing spiritual and uplifting experiences has been the best innoculation against the wiles of the enemy, by far.

[zerinus]

I seriously don't get your question. Who are the ignoramuses you are talking about? The Founding Fathers were fearful of too much power in the hands of the federal government and to the extent that politicians have usurped that purpose I suppose they are the ignoramuses.

As the Preamble makes clear, the primary objective of the Constitution was to create a “more perfect union” of the States. All the other objectives of the Constitution (Justice, Tranquility, defence, Welfare, and Liberty) were dependent on, and therefore secondary to that objective; because without a central government strong enough to enforce its laws none of those ideals could have been achieved. What these “constitutional fanatics” (as best I can describe them) want to do is to reverse that process. They want to undo what the Founding Fathers set out to achieve—to create a “more perfect Union” of the States. The policies they are advocating would weaken that Union to such an extent that it would amount to the destruction of the Constitution. They are in fact in their ignorance the biggest enemies of the Constitution.

[zerinus]

The very economy of the Southern States was at risk and unless someone could have shown them a more economical way to pick their cotton it's doubtful they would have changed anything at that time.

The South were not threatened with an uncompromising threat of the abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was aware of their economic needs, and was not about to put an end to their slavery by a drastic action from the top. He was doing his best to do it in such a was as to accommodate their needs, including paying them compensation. They brought their misery on themselves by seceding from the Union and then turning on foreign help to fight against it. Their actions was regarded as treason by many, and I think rightly so.

As it was the South was left destitute after the Civil War and it has taken many generations to regain prosperity once again.

They brought that on themselves. It needn't have been like that if they hadn't seceded from the Union and then fought against it.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 06 June 2011 - 07:32 AM, said:

The Constitution was written to reflect the needs of the times. The Articles of Confederation, which allowed the states to be soveriegn in all ways had so weakened the "federation" of "these" united states, that the confederation was falling apart and the UK was simply waiting to pick up the pieces. Shay's rebellion was such that they could not defend themselves from domestic chaos an violence.

The much stronger central government with rights enumerated for the federal government answered those needs. But they certainly saw mankind as being full of ignoramuses. Consider that the Senate was not a directly elected body (elected by the people directly), the president was under the electorate, and only the House of Representatives. And the were specifically "property" owners, male, and white. Thus ensuring like minded thinkers.

It was and has been readjusted to include more people over time. Does that make the founding fathers ignoramuses or do we consider the changes good. Should only white property owners make the decisions in America?

Also consider the role of the Supreme Court. As part of the Constitution and the acceptance of Marbury vs Madison. Do we consider such things acceptable? It is all kind of confusing since it goes both ways. The centralized federal government has, however grown bigger, and more powerful on a consistent basis. It was considered important in our republic to have the people attempt to slow the federal power down from time to time.

That may be a valid point; but such "adjustments" would require a lot more wisdom than many "Mormon ignoramuses" have to offer!

I would disagree. Members of the church tend to seek higher education within the parameters of their society. And the wisdom that exists is derived from trying to do what is best, versus best in one's self interest. I would worry less regarding member participation in the amendment process than you seem to indicate.

[Jeff K.]

Deborah, on 06 June 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

The very economy of the Southern States was at risk and unless someone could have shown them a more economical way to pick their cotton it's doubtful they would have changed anything at that time.

The South were not threatened with an uncompromising threat of the abolition of slavery. Abraham Lincoln was aware of their economic needs, and was not about to put an end to their slavery by a drastic action from the top. He was doing his best to do it in such a was as to accommodate their needs, including paying them compensation. They brought their misery on themselves by seceding from the Union and then turning on foreign help to fight against it. Their actions was regarded as treason by many, and I think rightly so.

The suggested letter would never have flown past Congress which wanted a more radical response, so your reference to Lincoln's proposal offers no real position as to what Lincoln would have done given that it did not make it past the letter writing stage.

Funny how Jefferson's grandson was secretary of state for the Confederacy, Washington's adopted granddaughter the wife of the confederacy's greatest general, Lee the son of a signer and good friend of Washington.... It seems the south held more to the founding fathers and their families than the North did.

As to turning to foriegn aid, the US has often called upon France during their own revolution. Just sayin...

[zerinus]

I would disagree. Members of the church tend to seek higher education within the parameters of their society. And the wisdom that exists is derived from trying to do what is best, versus best in one's self interest. I would worry less regarding member participation in the amendment process than you seem to indicate.

I am sure that is correct when referring to Mormons as a whole, or to the majority of them. What I was referring to was a very small and narrow group, who are most vocal and shout loudest in their self-proclaimed aim of "saving the Constitution". Those who are trying their hardest to "save" it are the ones who are doing their best to destroy it, and that is exactly what they would do if they had it their way.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

As it was the South was left destitute after the Civil War and it has taken many generations to regain prosperity once again.

They brought that on themselves. It needn't have been like that if they hadn't seceded from the Union and then fought against it.

In part they did indeed bring it upon themselves. But the North was just as eager to teach the south a "lesson". Both sides thought the war would end quickly with a few decisive defeats by the other side.