The White Horse prophecy

[california boy]

8 hours ago, Maidservant said:

To the degree that it means that the Constitution isn't being followed as originally created (with an agreement that it was always meant to be malleable), nevertheless, that was tossed somewheres along the time of Andrew Jackson and we haven't seen it since.

I have to admit I'm not stuck on us being a nation, as such.  I'd like to think that as wonderful as the caterpillar and larval stage is, we have a butterfly ahead of us that is Zion, and it cannot be nation based, but will have all people of all nations and every true and beautiful thing they bring to the table, and the falling away and dissolution of whatever is not.

I'm also seeing that organically we will have completely new forms of governance i.e. internet and small organization based, and I'm not against nor afraid of the next disruption in human society's format.

“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”  Joseph Smith

"When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." Disraeli

That being said, my young self who was a committed Constitutionalist (although not committed enough to still be one!) is really disappointed that people don't understand the Electoral College, have never used it properly, and absolutely you do not get rid of it as long as you are using the Constitution.

To get rid of the Electoral College, whouldn't it require a Constitutional Amendment?  And wouldn't that be using the Constitution?

[tkv]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The irony is that those who now tout American Exceptionalism tend to be exclusionary and hyperprotective of a certain cultural state and live in paranoia of foreign cultural infection.

Any exceptionalism derives from the D of I and the U.S. Constitution. Lesser governing principles damage the exceptionalism. Right now we're seeing a breakdown of one of the constitutional protections: separation of powers. This has always been there in order to keep the central government in check, by the branches maintaining their separate but equal power. But a single-party press makes it hard to check governmental power, because it contributes to the breakdown of separation of powers. Of course a single-party press tends to hide any corruption by a favored party and attack a disfavored party, even when it is not acting corruptly. The public is left bewildered and adrift.

Also, there is no problem with legal immigration at rates that permit assimilation to founding principles and the constitutional governing system. People fleeing home countries for the U.S. do so, without most of them even knowing it, because of the exceptionalism which flows from the founding principles and the framing document. Immigrants implicitly want to come because of the exceptionalism, but they dilute that by coming at very high rates illegally, with slower assimilation—a Catch-22. When the inflow rate is very high and largely illegal, as it is now, then the law is flouted, the founding principles and the governing system begin to be misunderstood, and the exceptionalism begins to diminish.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, tkv said:

Any exceptionalism derives from the D of I and the U.S. Constitution. Lesser governing principles damage the exceptionalism. Right now we're seeing a breakdown of one of the constitutional protections: separation of powers. This has always been there in order to keep the central government in check, by the branches maintaining their separate but equal power. But a single-party press makes it hard to check governmental power, because it contributes to the breakdown of separation of powers. Of course a single-party press tends to hide any corruption by a favored party and attack a disfavored party, even when it is not acting corruptly. The public is left bewildered and adrift.

Also, there is no problem with legal immigration at rates that permit assimilation to founding principles and the constitutional governing system. People fleeing home countries for the U.S. do so, without most of them even knowing it, because of the exceptionalism which flows from the founding principles and the framing document. Immigrants implicitly want to come because of the exceptionalism, but they dilute that by coming at very high rates illegally, with slower assimilation—a Catch-22. When the inflow rate is very high and largely illegal, as it is now, then the law is flouted, the founding principles and the governing system begin to be misunderstood, and the exceptionalism begins to diminish.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.
From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

 

Oh, but we have a strict quota at the Golden door and will turn you away if we have to. Too much too fast would dilute our ideological purity. It was not always so but we decided it was the case recently and our historical principles are obviously behind the times. We apologize for any inconvenience.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Maidservant said:

To the degree that it means that the Constitution isn't being followed as originally created (with an agreement that it was always meant to be malleable), nevertheless, that was tossed somewheres along the time of Andrew Jackson and we haven't seen it since.

I have to admit I'm not stuck on us being a nation, as such.  I'd like to think that as wonderful as the caterpillar and larval stage is, we have a butterfly ahead of us that is Zion, and it cannot be nation based, but will have all people of all nations and every true and beautiful thing they bring to the table, and the falling away and dissolution of whatever is not.

I'm also seeing that organically we will have completely new forms of governance i.e. internet and small organization based, and I'm not against nor afraid of the next disruption in human society's format.

“I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”  Joseph Smith

"When men are pure, laws are useless; when men are corrupt, laws are broken." Disraeli

That being said, my young self who was a committed Constitutionalist (although not committed enough to still be one!) is really disappointed that people don't understand the Electoral College, have never used it properly, and absolutely you do not get rid of it as long as you are using the Constitution.

The Electoral College never worked like it was supposed to.

[Avatar4321]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The Electoral College never worked like it was supposed to.

Because it's never been used as it was supposed to

[longview]

20 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Yes USU78, but only here with longview, who ironically talks about how the ¨thread can easily be over politicized¨, do we actually start derailing the thread. Up until longview´s comment the thread was actually staying on topic and dealing with the topic in a respectable manner.

Particularly glaring is his juxtaposition of ¨history is being ... distorted.¨ and ¨historic statues are being pulled down. Western Civilization is being disparaged.¨ Bringing up the removal of those statues, let alone while speaking of distorting history, seems to only possibly be antagonistic. It's rich to close with a reference to the OP's request to keep politics out, let alone say the thread could easily be over politicized.

We can discuss the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) without resorting to petty partisan bickering.  We can search for reasons of why the American Revolution was so successful in bringing about the amazing flowering of Constitutional Republic in enabling rule by the people (at the same time preventing the pitfalls of democratic excesses that can lead to tyranny).  In contrast with the French Revolution which descended into brutality and terror (despite its high minded sloganeering).

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

My contention is the Constitution is STILL worth keeping and more vigorously upheld.  I would rather the Justices of the Supreme Court walk on egg shells in at least pretending to support our magnificent Constitution!   God save us from ourselves.

[longview]

20 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Yes USU78, but only here with longview, who ironically talks about how the ¨thread can easily be over politicized¨, do we actually start derailing the thread. Up until longview´s comment the thread was actually staying on topic and dealing with the topic in a respectable manner.

Particularly glaring is his juxtaposition of ¨history is being ... distorted.¨ and ¨historic statues are being pulled down. Western Civilization is being disparaged.¨ Bringing up the removal of those statues, let alone while speaking of distorting history, seems to only possibly be antagonistic. It's rich to close with a reference to the OP's request to keep politics out, let alone say the thread could easily be over politicized.

We can discuss the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) without resorting to petty partisan bickering.  We can search for reasons of why the American Revolution was so successful in bringing about the amazing flowering of Constitutional Republic in enabling rule by the people (at the same time preventing the pitfalls of democratic excesses that can lead to tyranny).  In contrast with the French Revolution which descended into brutality and terror (despite its high minded sloganeering).

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

My contention is the Constitution is STILL worth keeping and more vigorously upheld.  I would rather the Justices of the Supreme Court walk on egg shells in at least pretending to support our magnificent Constitution!   God save us from ourselves.

[longview]

20 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

Yes USU78, but only here with longview, who ironically talks about how the ¨thread can easily be over politicized¨, do we actually start derailing the thread. Up until longview´s comment the thread was actually staying on topic and dealing with the topic in a respectable manner.

Particularly glaring is his juxtaposition of ¨history is being ... distorted.¨ and ¨historic statues are being pulled down. Western Civilization is being disparaged.¨ Bringing up the removal of those statues, let alone while speaking of distorting history, seems to only possibly be antagonistic. It's rich to close with a reference to the OP's request to keep politics out, let alone say the thread could easily be over politicized.

We can discuss the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) without resorting to petty partisan bickering.  We can search for reasons of why the American Revolution was so successful in bringing about the amazing flowering of Constitutional Republic in enabling rule by the people (at the same time preventing the pitfalls of democratic excesses that can lead to tyranny).  In contrast with the French Revolution which descended into brutality and terror (despite its high minded sloganeering).

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

My contention is the Constitution is STILL worth keeping and more vigorously upheld.  I would rather the Justices of the Supreme Court walk on egg shells in at least pretending to support our magnificent Constitution!   God save us from ourselves.

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, longview said:

We can discuss the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) without resorting to petty partisan bickering.  We can search for reasons of why the American Revolution was so successful in bringing about the amazing flowering of Constitutional Republic in enabling rule by the people (at the same time preventing the pitfalls of democratic excesses that can lead to tyranny).  In contrast with the French Revolution which descended into brutality and terror (despite its high minded sloganeering).

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

My contention is the Constitution is STILL worth keeping and more vigorously upheld.  I would rather the Justices of the Supreme Court walk on egg shells in at least pretending to support our magnificent Constitution!   God save us from ourselves.

A post so nice, it's posted thrice!

[The Nehor]

41 minutes ago, longview said:

We can discuss the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC) without resorting to petty partisan bickering.  We can search for reasons of why the American Revolution was so successful in bringing about the amazing flowering of Constitutional Republic in enabling rule by the people (at the same time preventing the pitfalls of democratic excesses that can lead to tyranny).  In contrast with the French Revolution which descended into brutality and terror (despite its high minded sloganeering).

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

My contention is the Constitution is STILL worth keeping and more vigorously upheld.  I would rather the Justices of the Supreme Court walk on egg shells in at least pretending to support our magnificent Constitution!   God save us from ourselves.

Please tell me that that complaint is about Confederate statues and how the veneration of literal traitors is such an important cultural tradition that destroying or moving them would be covering up our history.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Please tell me that that complaint is about Confederate statues and how the veneration of literal traitors is such an important cultural tradition that destroying or moving them would be covering up our history.

You are taking us down a rathole.  I suggest a separate thread discussing where precisely in the Constitution in existence in 1860 where it is written that a state cannot leave.  That would be a good starting point.  Analysis of this reconstruction era legal opinion would be paramount in such a discussion:  

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0022.f.cas/0022.f.cas.0020.2.pdf

[Maidservant]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

Because it's never been used as it was supposed to

 

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Electoral College never worked like it was supposed to.

Yes.  Ha ha.  My point.

8 hours ago, california boy said:

To get rid of the Electoral College, whouldn't it require a Constitutional Amendment?  And wouldn't that be using the Constitution?

Of course.  But it's my opinion (or would be, if I wasn't an anarchist) that we need to USE the electoral college properly NOT get rid of it.  That would be my vote in the civil discourse regarding any potential amendment.

The President of the United States is NEVER to be campaigning and voted upon (my opinion).  If anyone is to run and campaign, it would be the members of the Electoral College themselves.  Which they are, sham-wise.  But lets make it real and upfront.  Then the Electoral College convenes, and hopefully they are wise people, and they discuss and choose a president from out of other wise people in the nation.  My opinion.

[The Nehor]

Just now, USU78 said:

You are taking us down a rathole.  I suggest a separate thread discussing where precisely in the Constitution in existence in 1860 where it is written that a state cannot leave.  That would be a good starting point.  Analysis of this reconstruction era legal opinion would be paramount in such a discussion:  

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0022.f.cas/0022.f.cas.0020.2.pdf

So we are going to venerate the constitution by venerating those who tried to abandon it? Even leaving out the idea that they wanted to leave because they thought that while it is self-evident that all men are created equal it was also self-evident that some people should be allowed to own other people.

 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Maidservant said:

 

Yes.  Ha ha.  My point.

Of course.  But it's my opinion (or would be, if I wasn't an anarchist) that we need to USE the electoral college properly NOT get rid of it.  That would be my vote in the civil discourse regarding any potential amendment.

The President of the United States is NEVER to be campaigning and voted upon (my opinion).  If anyone is to run and campaign, it would be the members of the Electoral College themselves.  Which they are, sham-wise.  But lets make it real and upfront.  Then the Electoral College convenes, and hopefully they are wise people, and they discuss and choose a president from out of other wise people in the nation.  My opinion.

Sounds like a good idea but we are in theory voting for wise people to be in Congress. How would you choose these wise people who are not campaigning? The local Mensa club (shudders)? Find some sages?

[Joshua Valentine]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Joshua needs to understand that our discussions in this thread need to be at the high level historical overview and at the same time take care to avoid wallowing in low level partisan head-butting.  I would hope Joshua will understand that ALL of us should be deeply concerned about history being distorted (there are numerous examples that can be shown), statues being pulled down (reminds us of Mao's Cultural Revolution "The Great Leap Forward" to erase much of the cultural heritage of Chinese Civilization) and Western Civilization (what is the point of demonizing "European White Men" when many other empires and dynasties throughout history have been even more brutal).

Thanks for letting me know what I need. Again strange how you point out what I need while quoting me enacting the very thing you claim I need. 

 

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

You are taking us down a rathole.  I suggest a separate thread discussing where precisely in the Constitution in existence in 1860 where it is written that a state cannot leave.  That would be a good starting point.  Analysis of this reconstruction era legal opinion would be paramount in such a discussion:  

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0022.f.cas/0022.f.cas.0020.2.pdf

It´s not The Nehor´s fault, as his profile pic implies, he is just a subterranean creature who has been baited with a rathole presented to him by longview.

Back to the OP:
Can we all agree, given the history of its use by others and the short (on topic) discussion here, that the White Horse Prophecy is one of those so vague statements that anyone can find a way to discover its fruition? Perhaps, doesn´t necessarily mean it´s not a true prophecy, just a nearly useless one.

 

[Joshua Valentine]

The above is a best case scenario. 

With the little I know about the context of the White Horse statement and Joseph´s other statements of flare having to do with the U.S. government perhaps we could determine that he literally meant the LDS leadership swooping in on horses from the west to fight back whatever threat (quite possibly the government itself) and take over the federal government.

[tkv]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Oh, but we have a strict quota at the Golden door and will turn you away if we have to. Too much too fast would dilute our ideological purity. It was not always so but we decided it was the case recently and our historical principles are obviously behind the times. We apologize for any inconvenience.

You sound like you're historically illiterate and an ideologue. For decades the U.S. reasonably limited immigration.

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, tkv said:

You sound like you're historically illiterate and an ideologue. For decades the U.S. reasonably limited immigration.

Ummmm.....you mean in recent decades. If we are going to venerate the constitution we should follow the original plan where any person of “good character” (which they basically never checked) can come in. In 1819 ships were coming in from Europe with so many people or dying because of overcramped conditions that something had to be done. They passed the Steerage Act limiting immigration setting minimum standards for ships carrying passengers. The first major anti-immigrant act was to ban the Chinese in the late 19th century. Later they banned polygamists and some criminals. The major moves banning immigrants came in the xenophobia and isolationism that followed the First World War. Acting like restricting immigration is normal in US history is insane. It is a relatively recent development.

Please educate me on my historical illiteracy.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Joshua Valentine said:

It´s not The Nehor´s fault, as his profile pic implies, he is just a subterranean creature who has been baited with a rathole presented to him by longview.

That is Elric and he is arboreal and not subterranean. He does sometimes seem to think he can burrow through the carpet and loves running under my shirt to hide or sleep.

The rest is all correct.

Edited May 30, 2019 by The Nehor

[Maidservant]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like a good idea but we are in theory voting for wise people to be in Congress. How would you choose these wise people who are not campaigning? The local Mensa club (shudders)? Find some sages?

Well when you are talking politics and government, the 'wisdom' is always the theory or ideal and in short supply in reality.  So that doesn't matter the format.

But as George Washington was chosen by the convening and discussion and voting of the Electoral College.  As a committee the Electoral College would be capable of putting on the table (nominating) several national leaders, leaders from a variety of disciplines (military, education, law, medicine, diplomacy, whatever).  And then interviewing, discussing, and finally voting.  To the degree that any committee is capable of anything.

Perhaps the 'distance' put between the campaigning and the office served would be a benefit.  The Electoral College members campaign to be a part of the college.  But they themselves will never be the President (at least at that time).  So the campaign would perhaps attract those who truly wish to serve since they would not in the end be the top dog, so they can't get any kudos from that.

Again--ALL theory when it comes to politics of any format.  But I don't think its a bad format to try and persist in. 

Our nation didn't.  We went to the circus campaigns and the choice between dumb and dumberer.

[Metis_LDS]

An outsiders view.  I have been to America many times and have studied it's system of governing.  I have read most of the Constitution.   What I say may be valuable because I am not directly involved in America.  What the Constitution seems to be is a system,  which also encompasses beliefs or statements of beliefs if you like.  Once people lose those beliefs the system can barely function ( hang by a thread ).  If it is one thing members of the Church understand it is the power of beliefs.  Faith in the Constitution must be sustained even if by a minority at times.  The members of the Church could at a critical point propagate faith in the Constitution.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is Elric and he is arboreal and not subterranean. He does sometimes seem to think he can burrow through the carpet and loves running under my shirt to hide or sleep.

The rest is all correct.

Oh, and here is his twin brother Dobby:

And the huntress and warrior of the colony Arwen when I was training her to jump to me:

Elric, Arwen, and Eilonwy (Arwen's twin sister) when I first had them meet up:

And the whole colony snacking:

I will stop now.

[MiserereNobis]

 I do not know Elric, but I fully approve of Arwen and Eilonwy. It is somewhat humorous that they are twins.

Dobby is too low brow for this high fantasy guy 😊

Edited May 31, 2019 by MiserereNobis

[Garden Girl]

Hello Nehor...

Just what type of creatures are they?  Cute, but I don't recognize what they are...  

GG

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 I do not know Elric, but I fully approve of Arwen and Eilonwy. It is somewhat humorous that they are twins.

Dobby is too low brow for this high fantasy guy 😊

I picked one name each from various fantasy series. I let my niece pick a fantasy name for Dobby. Her favorite ended up being Eilonwy. Elric is from the Michael Moorcock books.

32 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello Nehor...

Just what type of creatures are they?  Cute, but I don't recognize what they are...  

GG

Sugar gliders. Think flying squirrels but they are marsupials with pouches. They are not really do,estimated but they can adapt to being around humans and socialized. Kind of like wild cats like tigers except a sugar glider cannot eat you. Mine know me and think of me as either a really large member of the colony or a tree depending on the situation. They are pretty nice to other humans now; we have been working on that.

I would not recommend them as pets to most people but my life fits them in pretty well.

I will stop derailing. If people want to know about them I can start a topic in the Social Hall and tell stories and post pics.

Edited May 31, 2019 by The Nehor