Did Joseph Smith believe that the US Constitution was divinely inspired?

[rpn]

http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/09/09/the-mormon-council-of-fifty-what-joseph-smiths-secret-records-reveal/

Quote

Although the council oversaw a number of projects and petitions, a special focus was given to creating a new, perfect constitution. Two years earlier, Smith had published an editorial in the church’s newspaper, Times and Seasons, that declared that the earth was “rent from center to circumference, with party strife, political intrigue, and sectional interest” because no nation or kingdom acknowledged the role of divine rule. The solution, according to the Council of Fifty’s minutes, was to “amend that constitution & make it the voice of Jehovah and shame the U.S.” They “resolved to draft a constitution which should be perfect, and embrace those principles which the constitution of the United States lacked.”

The above link is one person's discussion of the contents of the Council of Fifty minutes that have been published recently as part of the joseph smith papers project.

How is this idea of a new constitution consistent with LDS current belief that the US Constitution was divinely inspired?    And although there is a lot of controversy about the "white horse" prophecy, was it referring to the US Constitution, or the one the council of fifty was working on?

[mapman]

I'm pretty sure that he would have thought the Constitution was inspired, but not perfect. He believed that even scripture could be improved.

[JLHPROF]

I don't see this as an inconsistency.
One can believe the Constitution was divinely inspired without believing it to be incomplete or in need of adjustment.
The drafters recognized this - that's why they put the ability to amend and add if needed.

God prepared America too and calls it a choice land.  Doesn't mean he's particularly happy with it right now.
I think Joseph believed it inspired but not 100% correct. 

 

[rpn]

Well the minutes include a quite different draft Constitution than the US version.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rpn said:

http://religionandpolitics.org/2016/09/09/the-mormon-council-of-fifty-what-joseph-smiths-secret-records-reveal/

The above link is one person's discussion of the contents of the Council of Fifty minutes that have been published recently as part of the joseph smith papers project.

How is this idea of a new constitution consistent with LDS current belief that the US Constitution was divinely inspired?    And although there is a lot of controversy about the "white horse" prophecy, was it referring to the US Constitution, or the one the council of fifty was working on?

The principle is called "continuing revelation."

[The Nehor]

Yes, but divinely inspired does not mean perfect. Unless you think the 3/5ths of a person clause is the divine command of God.

[BCSpace]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, but divinely inspired does not mean perfect. Unless you think the 3/5ths of a person clause is the divine command of God.

One might hypothesize that the Three-Fifths Compromise was divinely inspired in order to get the ball rolling with all thirteen states together, ensuring a better chance of survival.

[Bernard Gui]

D&C 101

 77 According to the laws and ^aconstitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the ^brights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

 78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral ^aagency which I have given unto him, that every man may be ^baccountable for his own sins in the day of ^cjudgment.

 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in ^abondageone to another.

 80 And for this purpose have I established the ^aConstitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the ^bshedding of blood.

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, BCSpace said:

One might hypothesize that the Three-Fifths Compromise was divinely inspired in order to get the ball rolling with all thirteen states together, ensuring a better chance of survival.

Not really. It was a political compromise on slavery to get the South to join. Which at the time was Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

[notHagoth7]

2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Not really. It was a political compromise on slavery to get the South to join. Which at the time was Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Which is essentially also what BCSpace said.

A temporary compromise can be both political, as you assert, and inspired, as BCSpace asserts. The (?needed?) compromise launched things into motion.

It's not necessarily *either* political *or* inspired. So you may be setting up a false dichotomy.

That's not saying I endorse the idea that someone shouldn't get a full vote (and that's coming from someone who doesn't have the right to vote here at all). 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, BCSpace said:

One might hypothesize that the Three-Fifths Compromise was divinely inspired in order to get the ball rolling with all thirteen states together, ensuring a better chance of survival.

That does not make that (however necessary) repugnant compromise divine.

[notHagoth7]

49 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That does not make that (however necessary) repugnant compromise divine.

If we agree that (i) a 3/5 vote wasn't fair representation,

what of (ii) women who had no vote at all?  

And what of (iii) men who owned no land?

That said, without that initial compromise, would any of those three groups have [the illusion of] a vote today?

 

Something relevant and timely:

The 21st-century Illusion of Democracy

1) The Netherlands outlawed electronic voting years ago when it was proven in 2006 that within minutes, someone dishonest could change with the tally leaving zero trace. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/election-worries-court-to-examine-security-of-electronic-voting-a-587001.html (most mentions of this have been scrubbed from the internet in previous weeks).

2) A few years ago, when Arizona outsourced the election to a 3rd-party electronics company and the outcome of the elecdtion was subsequently challenged in court, the defense argument stated that since the election was outsourced, it was therefore a "private" election, not a public one, supposedly not subject to voter protection laws. 

3) As such, my inability to vote in this country carries as much weight in the outcome of a national electronic election as those of you who *do* vote  - but only *IF* you surrender your right to vote to a corporate-controlled machine. As Cicero once said, "Cui bono?" Or "To whose benefit?"   Follow. The. Money. 

4) There were, for example, quite a number of districts in the Romney/Obama race where Romney *didn't get a single vote.* Unprecedented? Statistically not viable.

5) Finally, this election is where one literally needs to think, step, and vote OUTSIDE the [electronic voting] BOX. And, if you actually give a damn about preserving this republic, do that, and also make sure your candidate receives legal proof of your vote...as a check and balance. Some won't leave a store without a viable receipt. Why leave a voting event without some proof of what vote you actually cast?

(This public service message brought to you by your neighbor...and former National Guardsman. Fulfilling one final promise.)

If you guys don't fix this, I might pack up and wish you all adieu.

Edited September 10, 2016 by notHagoth7

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, notHagoth7 said:

If we agree that (i) a 3/5 vote wasn't fair representation,

what of (ii) women who had no vote at all?  

And what of (iii) men who owned no land?

That said, without that initial compromise, would any of those three groups have [the illusion of] a vote today?

Don't know. Maybe....maybe not.

1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said:

The 21st-century Illusion of Democracy

1) The Netherlands outlawed electronic voting years ago when it was proven in 2006 that within minutes, someone dishonest could change with the tally leaving zero trace. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/election-worries-court-to-examine-security-of-electronic-voting-a-587001.html (most mentions of this have been scrubbed from the internet in previous weeks).

2) A few years ago, when Arizona outsourced the election to a 3rd-party electronics company and the outcome of the elecdtion was subsequently challenged in court, the defense argument stated that since the election was outsourced, it was therefore a "private" election, not a public one, supposedly not subject to voter protection laws. 

3) As such, my inability to vote in this country carries as much weight in the outcome of a national electronic election as those of you who *do* vote  - but only *IF* you surrender your right to vote to a corporate-controlled machine. As Cicero once said, "Cui bono?" Or "To whose benefit?"   Follow. The. Money. 

4) There were, for example, quite a number of districts in the Romney/Obama race where Romney *didn't get a single vote.* Unprecedented? Statistically not viable.

5) Finally, this election is where one literally needs to think, step, and vote OUTSIDE the [electronic voting] BOX. And, if you actually give a damn about preserving this republic, do that, and also make sure your candidate receives legal proof of your vote...as a check and balance. Some won't leave a store without a viable receipt. Why leave a voting event without some proof of what vote you actually cast?

(This public service message brought to you by your neighbor...and former National Guardsman. Fulfilling one final promise.)

If you guys don't fix this, I might pack up and wish you all adieu.

1. Sounds conspiracy nutty. You cannot wipe the internet of something that easily.

2. Lawyers with stupid arguments? Am I supposed to be shocked?

3. Well, we could go with the Roman system where bribery is legal....although reneging on a bribery deal was immoral.

4. Not really that improbable. One area in Philadelphia where that happened literally had 7 white residents and 12 registered Republicans (none of whom voted). McCain had similar results in 2008 and so did Bush in 2004. Non-story.

5. Conspiracy mongering.

[notHagoth7]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Don't know. Maybe....maybe not.

1. Sounds conspiracy nutty. You cannot wipe the internet of something that easily.

2. Lawyers with stupid arguments? Am I supposed to be shocked?

3. Well, we could go with the Roman system where bribery is legal....although reneging on a bribery deal was immoral.

4. Not really that improbable. One area in Philadelphia where that happened literally had 7 white residents and 12 registered Republicans (none of whom voted). McCain had similar results in 2008 and so did Bush in 2004. Non-story.

5. Conspiracy mongering.

A. Let see. So you opted to start off replying with "conspiracy nutty" and "stupid", and rounded home with "conspiracy mongering". No comments about elderberries and/or hamsters? Perhaps you're one who believes the Constitution would never be in jeopardy, and/or that the Nephite record didn't intentionally provide parallels for our day? 

Either way, I don't know if this response will sway/benefit you. Perhaps for others: 

1.Nutty? Less interested in how you subjectively interpret what I offered, while much more interested in how technology actually works, and how power is known to corrupt most people - and am especially interested in the checks and balances that should be in place against such threats - both foreign and [especially] domestic. (While I yet have much to learn about such things, I've earned a few web-related tech certs over the years, so am not a complete Luddite.) Are you saying that search engines can't be set to filter out such articles and key words for an entire nation, and that some countries aren't known to do exactly that? (Just as Facebook admitted to wiping a popular and timely news item just *yesterday*?) Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship "...control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government..." Also: "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons..."  Powers that be *can* and do remove such things from the radar. But, you're opting to go with: "nothing to see here folks? Reminds me of a certain passage. 

2. Yet those lawyers, whose argument you called stupid, nonetheless prevailed.  And? Listening intently.

3. Or, simply insist/arrange on your vote being counted in some means (with a check and balance) other than a closed black box for which there is zero legal accountability/transparency. For example, on the rare occasions when I go to a restaurant, I write a tip into the charge, and generally keep a receipt. Dishonest servers have been known to write in whatever tips they wanted (I know a restaurant manager who fired a server where there was evidence that they had done precisely that), knowing that most customers never check the cleared charges in their bank, just as most don't keep a receipt up to the point that the final charge clears.

4. I appreciate the response.  And I am quite willing to stand corrected on the matter of a few precincts, if a closer look at the data behind your response pans out. Even if so, what of item #3? and what of demonstrated items #2, and #5? What of the items in A and in  #1? 

5. ?!! Everyone has the option of weighing evidence, arriving at a balanced conclusion, and deciding actions accordingly. As to the broader issue beyond a few precincts, as a starting point: http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

You can do something. Or nothing.

Consequences follow either.

Edited September 10, 2016 by notHagoth7

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That does not make that (however necessary) repugnant compromise divine.

Sure it can.  The founders were inspired to set the issue aside at the time so the the country could get get off the launch pad and allow the issue to be addressed at another time when the country was more mature.

[strappinglad]

I get the feeling that God is a pragmatist when it comes to political unions and most other human endeavors. Do I hear an ' amen ' mfb? On a related note, Wells Fargo just got hit with a huge fine ( $ 185million ? ) and fired 5000 + of its employees, for them creating several 100,000 fake accounts and charging subtle fees to others. The fuu hit the fan when a bunch of folks noticed these odd fees on their accounts. Massive electronic fraud is not all that uncommon. Beware o voters!!

Edited September 11, 2016 by strappinglad

[thesometimesaint]

7 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

Which is essentially also what BCSpace said.

A temporary compromise can be both political, as you assert, and inspired, as BCSpace asserts. The (?needed?) compromise launched things into motion.

It's not necessarily *either* political *or* inspired. So you may be setting up a false dichotomy.

That's not saying I endorse the idea that someone shouldn't get a full vote (and that's coming from someone who doesn't have the right to vote here at all). 

No it is not.

It was about putting politics above "inspired" policy, and neither one succeeded for more than the 20 years required. I agree that it was a political necessity as without the South the Union couldn't hold together. We paid dearly for it as it encouraged blacks to support and enlist in the British army. It came back to bite us in the War of 1812 and of course in the US Civil War with 600,000+ dead. 

It wasn't about the vote. Blacks didn't have that until the 14th Amendment. It was about the number of Representatives each state had. Which was supposed to be proportion to population. 

If you want to vote here become a US citizens. It isn't all that hard really.                                 

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Sure it can.  The founders were inspired to set the issue aside at the time so the the country could get get off the launch pad and allow the issue to be addressed at another time when the country was more mature.

More mature?

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

More mature?

Yeah, South Carolina is still flying the Confederate Battle Flag over their capital so I am not sure we are maturing. They use the sad little excuse that the war was about state's rights and not slavery when it was about a state's right to say it was okay to have slavery. A petty nit-picking distinction of little consequence.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

A. Let see. So you opted to start off replying with "conspiracy nutty" and "stupid", and rounded home with "conspiracy mongering". No comments about elderberries and/or hamsters? Perhaps you're one who believes the Constitution would never be in jeopardy, and/or that the Nephite record didn't intentionally provide parallels for our day? 

I believe that the Book of Mormon does contain multiple parallels for our day. We all remember the great election fraud manifested in the Pahoran/Paanchi/Pacumeni election and how that was the beginning of the end or how Alma stole the election and thwarted poor Amlici's desire for a fair election so he could become king. Indeed, the Book of Mormon insisted on stringent voter ID laws and we should go and do likewise.

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

1.Nutty? Less interested in how you subjectively interpret what I offered, while much more interested in how technology actually works, and how power is known to corrupt most people - and am especially interested in the checks and balances that should be in place against such threats - both foreign and [especially] domestic. (While I yet have much to learn about such things, I've earned a few web-related tech certs over the years, so am not a complete Luddite.) Are you saying that search engines can't be set to filter out such articles and key words for an entire nation, and that some countries aren't known to do exactly that? (Just as Facebook admitted to wiping a popular and timely news item just *yesterday*?) Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship "...control or suppression of what can be accessed, published, or viewed on the Internet. It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations at the behest of government..." Also: "Google may temporarily or permanently remove sites from its index and search results if it believes it is obligated to do so by law, if the sites do not meet Google's quality guidelines, or for other reasons..."  Powers that be *can* and do remove such things from the radar. But, you're opting to go with: "nothing to see here folks? Reminds me of a certain passage. 

So Google is now one of the "powers that be"?

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

2. Yet those lawyers, whose argument you called stupid, nonetheless prevailed.  And? Listening intently.

Welcome to the legal system, sanity optional. If you are suggesting this is a change from the norm I think you need to read up on legal history. It is a barrel of laughs.

Have you seen the legal wrangling over who owns this monkey selfie?

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

3. Or, simply insist/arrange on your vote being counted in some means (with a check and balance) other than a closed black box for which there is zero legal accountability/transparency. For example, on the rare occasions when I go to a restaurant, I write a tip into the charge, and generally keep a receipt. Dishonest servers have been known to write in whatever tips they wanted (I know a restaurant manager who fired a server where there was evidence that they had done precisely that), knowing that most customers never check the cleared charges in their bank, just as most don't keep a receipt up to the point that the final charge clears.

The logistics of this are ridiculous. You are saying that in a close election we would encourage everyone to bring in their vouchers to check to see if their vote was counted correctly? How would this be managed? How would this correct a problem? Who is going to keep their voting receipt instead of throwing it in the garbage can outside?

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

5. ?!! Everyone has the option of weighing evidence, arriving at a balanced conclusion, and deciding actions accordingly. As to the broader issue beyond a few precincts, as a starting point: http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

Yeah, very skeptical. Exit polls have been found to be systematically unhelpful and a bad indication of voter fraud.

8 hours ago, notHagoth7 said:

You can do something. Or nothing.

Consequences follow either.

I would love a standardized nationwide voting system vetted and well-monitored to administer all elections in the country more quickly with a higher degree of transparency. That would probably require an end to federalism as the United States knows it. Each state has its own voting standards and regulations and sometimes each county and city have their own. It is ridiculous it is the price of that competition between state and federal government our founding fathers wanted.

Just out of curiosity though what should I do? Put it on my Facebook feed? Vote Trump or Clinton? Stand for or against voter ID laws? Smile like that adorable monkey?

[Calm]

On September 9, 2016 at 7:55 PM, rpn said:

Well the minutes include a quite different draft Constitution than the US version.

They were going for a constitution of a theodemocracy, not a democratic republic.  That latter's constitution wouldn't work very well, imo

[thesometimesaint]

Iran comes to mind for those that want any God in the running of a country.