Jump to content

Let's try this again. President oaks nailed it imo.


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I hope when Oaks is President he tours many foreign countries and explains to them the greatness of the US Constitution and how much better the USA is than their countries.

I did like that Oaks addressed the Right wing pro Trump, Pro riot crowd of the church and their horrendous attacks on the capital and constitution.

Oh I’m sure Elder Oaks was only addressing the foolhardy idiots who wandered into the Capital Building that day to start an “insurrection” without any weapons. I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t also have on his mind the violent rioters who caused multiple deaths,  billions of dollars in property damage, and hundreds of ruined lives and livelihoods in the seemingly endless orgies of destruction against the United States that went on for months on end last year. It’s sad but I’m sure there were some pathetic individuals who immediately thought of those ‘other’ riots when Elder Oaks made his remarks. Just goes to show you confirmation bias is alive and well among the knuckle draggers of the Church.

Edited by teddyaware
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Right, but which one was subverting the constitution that President Oaks was defending? The protests that sometimes got out of hand but were based on acquiring justice that has been denied people living in the United States? Or the one where a bunch of nutters fed a diet of lies about a rigged election broke into the halls of Congress, directly attacked police, killed one police officer and wounded dozens more, and the perpetrators were seen and heard plotting the death of political figures in that very building with a gallows set up outside?

Which was an attempt to overturn constitutional government? I will give you some time to think it over.

 

And I was right. We still can’t have nice things. Countdown to shutdown in 3....2....

Honestly, I often don't agree with Teddy on much, but I do on this one thing: how we react on it shows our bias and that runs both ways. Or rather that runs a lot of ways because of the things that go on outside of the US as well.   

I think if I am just seeing the other guy in his talk I may be missing a whole lot of things where I, personally, need to work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Honestly, I often don't agree with Teddy on much, but I do on this one thing: how we react on it shows our bias and that runs both ways. Or rather that runs a lot of ways because of the things that go on outside of the US as well.   

I think if I am just seeing the other guy in his talk I may be missing a whole lot of things where I, personally, need to work.

The talk’s main message to me was that we are not inevitably doomed on a downward spiral. At least I think that is what it was. Not sure if I believe it yet but......I am working on it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Oh I’m sure Elder Oaks was only addressing the foolhardy idiots who wandered into the Capital Building that day to start an “insurrection” without any weapons. I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t also have on his mind the violent rioters who caused multiple deaths,  billions of dollars in property damage, and hundreds of ruined lives and livelihoods in the seemingly endless orgies of destruction against the United States that went on for months on end last year. It’s sad but I’m sure there were some pathetic individuals who immediately thought of those ‘other’ riots when Elder Oaks made his remarks. Just goes to show you confirmation bias is alive and well among the knuckle draggers of the Church.

Why resort to name-calling? ( knuckle draggers) This is why we can’t have nice things. 

Edited by Peacefully
  • Like 1
Link to post
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Right, but which one was subverting the constitution that President Oaks was defending? The protests that sometimes got out of hand but were based on acquiring justice that has been denied people living in the United States? Or the one where a bunch of nutters fed a diet of lies about a rigged election broke into the halls of Congress, directly attacked police, killed one police officer and wounded dozens more, and the perpetrators were seen and heard plotting the death of political figures in that very building with a gallows set up outside?

Which was an attempt to overturn constitutional government? I will give you some time to think it over.

 

And I was right. We still can’t have nice things. Countdown to shutdown in 3....2....

Both sides were subverting the constitution.  Both sides were rioting based on a lie.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Oh I’m sure Elder Oaks was only addressing the foolhardy idiots who wandered into the Capital Building that day to start an “insurrection” without any weapons. I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t also have on his mind the violent rioters who caused multiple deaths,  billions of dollars in property damage, and hundreds of ruined lives and livelihoods in the seemingly endless orgies of destruction against the United States that went on for months on end last year. It’s sad but I’m sure there were some pathetic individuals who immediately thought of those ‘other’ riots when Elder Oaks made his remarks. Just goes to show you confirmation bias is alive and well among the knuckle draggers of the Church.

 

Picard What.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you think discussion of the Constitution only has relevance to U.S. citizens, I think perhaps you didn’t pay very close attention to President Oaks’s talk. 

A quick question (and NOT to nitpick) - - -

Do you think it might be simpler to write Oaks'  instead of Oaks's?   When I write Jesus' (instead of Jesus's) it feels more respectful.

Link to post
4 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Oh I’m sure Elder Oaks was only addressing the foolhardy idiots who wandered into the Capital Building that day to start an “insurrection” without any weapons. I’m glad Elder Oaks didn’t also have on his mind the violent rioters who caused multiple deaths,  billions of dollars in property damage, and hundreds of ruined lives and livelihoods in the seemingly endless orgies of destruction against the United States that went on for months on end last year. It’s sad but I’m sure there were some pathetic individuals who immediately thought of those ‘other’ riots when Elder Oaks made his remarks. Just goes to show you confirmation bias is alive and well among the knuckle draggers of the Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_controversies_during_the_George_Floyd_protests#:~:text=According to Forbes%2C as of,people died during the protests.

If you read through the 19 deaths you'll see that the majority were killed by shop owners, or police, and then some vehicles aimed at protesters and scuffles within the protests. 

The capital riot was a different ball game. It was terrorism from our own people and aimed at law enforcement and those within the capitol during a major process that takes place every four years. And which could have created a civil war and damage our constitution. 

It reminded me of other countries that the people that vote are stripped of their rights to vote their choice. And our flag, as I witnessed a person taking it in hand and using it as a weapon among many other weapons being hurled.

I'll never forget the images of that day, in only a span of a few hours vs. many days and thousands of marches. Compare that will you, 19 in many months vs. 5 in one day.

I will never forget that day at the capitol. There were racists there that boldly walked in to display the confederate flag or t-shirts that had "Camp Auschwitz" and other symbols of antisemitism. And at the BLM protest the majority were non racists or a pro race that hasn't been treated equally for eons of years.

As I witnessed the capitol riot I felt like I did when I witnessed 911. But both protests and riot should have been handled much differently and as US citizens I hope this is a lesson for all.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I would think it means the CHURCH requires the freedom to operate that we have under the US Constitution.
That's very different from the gospel existing.  The gospel exists with or without the legally constituted Church corporation.

I think the Restored Gospel cannot exist in its fulness "without the the legally constituted Church corporation."  The Church has to have the legal means to hold and maintain properties (most notably the temples and chapels).  It must also have the legal means to receive and manage tithes and offerings.  It must also be able to manage its financial investments and assets.  It must also be able to supervise and oversee the missionary and family history programs.  It must also be able to participate in humanitarian efforts and service projects.  It must also be able to obtain insurance.  It must also be situated so as to comply with various taxation and other legally-imposed requirements. 

Most of these things must be in place both in the U.S. and in every country in which the Church operates.  So while the "Gospel" can exist in an abstract sense without the Church, the Church cannot function in its various mandates (temple worship and ordinances, weekly Sabbath observances and other local activities, missionary work, family history work, humanitarian work, managing finances, etc.) without the legal entities and mechanisms that are presently in place.

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

And I really don't get the controversy.  The talk was perfectly fine.  It probably went too far for the globalists who dislike America.  And not far enough for the constitutionalists who think the document is literally the constitution of God's kingdom.

The Salt Lake Tribune characterized Pres. Oaks' talk as "disputing belief that Latter-day Saints should be Republicans."

Jana Riess sort of did likewise ("Mormon leader blasts some right-wing US extremists..."), but then went on to note that some of his remarks were directed at "{politically} liberal and moderate Mormons" and/or for "everyone."  One thing she did not acknowledge was the apparent application of Pres. Oaks' remarks to the considerable number of violent protests/demonstrations/riots that have riven the United States for quite some time.  Instead, she focuses solely on "the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol."  Ah, well.  "Forget it, Jake.  It's Jana Riess."

19 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

As a Conference talk it was gospel based, connecting Constitutional principles to the gospel.
All this fuss over basic stuff.

Yeah.  The political violence we have seen for the last several years has had a real impact on the members of the Church in the United States.  I see no problem with Pres. Oaks addressing such a serious issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
23 minutes ago, longview said:

A quick question (and NOT to nitpick) - - -

Do you think it might be simpler to write Oaks'  instead of Oaks's?   When I write Jesus' (instead of Jesus's) it feels more respectful.

It’s a matter of personal preference. While punctuation rules allow for the dropping of the final s on possessives where the noun ends in s, it’s also permissible to retain the s. For the sake of simplicity and plainness, I prefer to keep my possessives standard, both written and spoken. It can be confusing if one pronounces “Oaks’ “ without adding the ‘s, as his name ends in s. 
 

One thing I can’t abide (and I’ve already seen it here on this board in recent days) is the possessive written as “Oak’s”. That is plainly wrong. His name is Oaks, not Oak. 
 

In keeping with my preference I would without hesitation write (and say) “Jesus’s” I don’t at all agree that it is disrespectful to do so. 
 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:
Quote

Facebook has destroyed many relationships IMO and has resulted in many hard feelings.  

I just wanna comment on this part.

In large part, I think FB has merely exposed viewpoints that have been easier to avoid or ignore in the past.

That's a pretty big societal change, though.  In two respects.

First, Facebook has greatly facilitated the "Online Disinhibition Effect," the tendency for people to say things online that they would not say IRL.  I think that is a big part of the "many hard feelings" that are being created.

Second, Facebook has greatly magnified the ability for a statement to be published far and wide.  In years past a person's sphere of influence was necessarily constrained.  Joe Blow could talk to family and friends, and perhaps write a letter to the editor of the local newspaper.  But in the main Joe's voice was small and limited in its propagation, as was the influence of his words on others.  Facebook and other Internet-based media and and resources have changed all that.  

20 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Of course it is also influential, as is any transfer of information.  But when people start expressing their opinions, it takes work to have productive conversations, and lots of people are expressing themselves without putting in that effort.

And we also often neglect basic minimal expectations of decorum and civility in our online communications.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
20 hours ago, Rain said:

After really thinking about it and reading President Oak’s talk on the thread I have come to the conclusion it was an important talk to give.  The 2 problems I found with the talk were:

1. The placement of it.  Instead of coming after all the international talks it might have been better placed in a different session prior to them.

Okay.

20 hours ago, Rain said:

2. Instead of coming out as "America was the first" it would have been better to share a little about our constitution and good things in the constitutions of other countries.

I'm not sure what "America was the first" means.

20 hours ago, Rain said:

It may be true that most are built on the US constitution, but coming from a US apostle in a church that has struggled to be global it does, as someone else said, came across as tone deaf to me.

I don't think members of the Church outside the U.S. will construe Pres. Oaks's talk as "aggrandizing" the United States.

20 hours ago, Rain said:

Many have mentioned the timing - being on Easter, but really there wasn't much you can do about that.  You have a lot of stuff in the US that happened since the last conference and another 6 months before we have another conference.  You have the problems in Myranmar and other countries. Six months is a long time to wait for a talk on the topic just so we can distance from Easter.

The scriptures are replete with stories and prophetic commentary that address a specific event or development at a specific time and place.  And General Conference talks are often focused on particular demographics within the Church (men, youth, women, divorced, never married, people with illnesses, people who are struggling in their faith, people who have family members struggling in their faith, etc.).

20 hours ago, Rain said:

Honestly, with everything going on in the world saying President Oaks was tone deaf may show how deaf we, myself included, are.

Years of violent protests/demonstrations/riots in the United States deserve clear attention and guidance from the Brethren.  I see the talk as Pres. Oaks listening and responding to recent difficulties that are having a significant adverse effect on the United States and its members.  And much of what he said (such as his condemnation of violence) is nevertheless applicable to members of the Church throughout the world.

20 hours ago, Rain said:

He may have been tone deaf in some of his wording, but I may be deaf to the troubles in the world. I may have to think on that more.

Ultimately the core message needed to be said and I can give President Oaks the same grace that I give to those in the Book of Mormon who spoke with imperfect words.

Well put.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
19 hours ago, Freedom said:
Quote

D&C 101: 77, 80 are probably what people refer to the most:

"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;.... And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."

I think too much is read into this. If may be allowed to be, and whose who wrote it were very cleaver, but it is not scripture.

Agreed.  But it was apparently inspired.

19 hours ago, Freedom said:

The system of common law established in British law which we enjoy here is also inspired and allowed to be established by God.

I see some real distinctions between common law (which developed over centuries, and has some very good things to say about itself) and constitutional law.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

To make the point clear, as Justice Scalia did years ago, it’s important to appreciate the distinction between the judging of “common law judges” and the judging required by the Constitution.

In a common law system, the judge’s task is to “discover” the law—meaning that he develops rules from certain principles and precedents, extrapolating the factual circumstances of a given case into broader notions of sound public policy (“the law”). From this view of proper adjudication, it’s perfectly appropriate to rely on what Professor Stoner suggests, “natural law or the law of reason,” in order to “discover” the right result. Professor McGinnis’s quoted observation sums up the common law quest succinctly: to “discover good social norms.”

Our Constitution, however, does not task our judges with “discovering” the law or crafting the right result in accordance with “natural law or the law of reason.” Unlike the English common law system from which America derived, the U.S. Constitution confines the power to make (or “discover,” if you will) law, and the power to interpret it to the legislative and judicial branches, respectively. This separation is intentional. In Federalist #47, James Madison emphasized the centrality of separating legislative and judicial power in preserving self-rule when he quoted Montesquieu as saying: “Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator .”

The Constitution’s separation of powers is also distinct from our English common law heritage in that this requirement is itself codified by the democratic process—the American people voted to approve a fundamental law, the Constitution, that in turn provides them and their representatives the sole power to continue to make law via statutes. This does not completely preclude the common law concept of judging, but it certainly foreshadows a broader nineteenth century (and continuing) effort to make what was once done by judges—the development of law—done by legislatures. Resulting from this development is the legislative codification of previously judge-made rules in the areas of criminal law, property law, contract law, and other fields.

The implications of our Constitution’s separated powers scheme—and the fact that the Constitution is itself a statute similar to other legislative codifications except in that it is our country’s fundamental law—are significant when it comes to constitutional interpretation.

Yep.

19 hours ago, Freedom said:

The US constitution has its values for sure but it is a man made document in the end. 

Not purely "man-made" though.  It was crafted "by the hands of wise mean whom I {the Lord} raised up unto this very purpose..."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
21 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Same, and this is coming from a registered opposite

I was thinking the same thing. Where I live, one does not dare to use the "r" word

Link to post
18 hours ago, ttribe said:
Quote

I doubt her thoughts stem from the White Horse prophecy, since she's not at all interesting or involved in those kinds of discussions.  I guess there's always a chance though.  I think she is believes that, as we get closer to the second coming, our liberties will become less and less secure and that members of the church (and others who also value it) will have to step up (in whatever ways they can, legal, activism, etc.) and work to protect it.  

Is there something other than the White Horse Prophecy that those things would be rooted in?

The so-called "White Horse Prophecy" was addressed by the Church in 2009:

Quote

The LDS Church has issued a statement regarding the church's stance on Idaho gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell's "elders only" meetings.

Kim Farah, spokeswomen for the LDS church, issued this statement:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is politically neutral and does not endorse or promote any candidate, party or platform. Accordingly, we hope that the campaign practices of political candidates would not suggest that their candidacy is supported by or connected to the church.

 

"The so-called 'White Horse Prophecy' is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine."

The White Horse Prophecy was allegedly given by LDS church founder Joseph Smith. According to accounts, Smith states that "the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread" and that the elders of the LDS church will step up and save it.

In a press conference on Wednesday, Rammell reaffirmed his belief of the prophecy based on his own personal research of alleged statements by former LDS President Ezra Taft Benson.

 

He issued this statement to the press:

"In order to motivate my fellow elders in the LDS church, I have invited many to attend meetings to discuss Joseph's prophecy and how we can help save the Constitution. Some people, LDS and non-LDS, think it is inappropriate for me to hold such meetings. I think that is ridiculous.

"I have and will hold meetings with all kinds of groups in Idaho. I will speak to each group on matters that are of interest to and directly affect them individually. As such, it would only be appropriate for me to address Joseph Smith's prophecy with people who believe he was a prophet."

Rammell's first meeting will held at the Hampton Inn in Idaho Falls between 7 and 8 p.m. on Jan. 19. Subsequent meetings will be held in Rexburg, Blackfoot, Pocatello, Twin Falls and Boise.

See also Pres. Joseph F. Smith's comments in 1918:

Quote

In 1918, LDS president Joseph F. Smith dismissed the White Horse Prophecy as a "ridiculous story... and a lot of trash that has been circulated about... by two of our brethren who put together some broken sentences from [Joseph Smith] that they may have heard from time to time." In his 1966 book Mormon Doctrine, LDS theologian (and later apostle) Bruce R. McConkie wrote, "From time to time, accounts of various supposed visions, revelations, and prophecies are spread forth by and among the Latter-day Saints, who should know better than to believe or spread such false information. One of these false and deceptive documents that has cropped up again and again for over a century is the so-called White Horse Prophecy."

However, there have been other comments made by various General Authorities through the years that, while not properly associated with the "White Horse Prophecy," nevertheless speak to the need to defend the Constitution:

Quote

Several sources attribute to Smith the idea that the US Constitution would one day hang by a thread, and LDS Church leaders have issued similar warnings about the Constitution.[9][19]

Brigham Young

 

In 1855, Brigham Young reportedly wrote that "when the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the 'Mormon' Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it."

Orson Hyde

In 1858, Orson Hyde, another contemporary of Smith, wrote that Smith believed "the time would come when the Constitution and the country would be in danger of an overthrow; and... if the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the elders of [the LDS] Church."

Charles W. Nibley

In 1922, the LDS Church's fifth presiding bishop, Charles W. Nibley, stated that "the day would come when there would be so much of disorder, of secret combinations taking the law into their own hands, tramping upon Constitutional rights and the liberties of the people, that the Constitution would hang as by a thread. Yes, but it will still hang, and there will be enough of good people, many who may not belong to our Church at all, people who have respect for law and for order, and for Constitutional rights, who will rally around with us and save the Constitution."

Melvin J. Ballard

In 1928, the LDS apostle Melvin J. Ballard remarked that "the prophet Joseph Smith said the time will come when, through secret organizations taking the law into their own hands... the Constitution of the United States would be so torn and rent asunder, and life and property and peace and security would be held of so little value, that the Constitution would, as it were, hang by a thread. This Constitution will be preserved, but it will be preserved very largely in consequence of what the Lord has revealed and what [the Mormons], through listening to the Lord and being obedient, will help to bring about, to stabilize and give permanency and effect to the Constitution itself. That also is our mission."

J. Reuben Clark

In 1942, J. Reuben Clark, an LDS apostle and a member of the church's First Presidency, said that "You and I have heard all our lives that the time may come when the Constitution may hang by a thread.... I do know that whether it shall live or die is now in the balance." On the Constitution, Clark went on to cite its "free institutions," separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights. He added that "if we are to live as a Church, and progress, and have the right to worship... we must have the great guarantees that are set up by our Constitution."

Ezra Taft Benson

In a 1986 Brigham Young University speech, LDS president Ezra Taft Benson stated, "I have faith that the Constitution will be saved as prophesied by Joseph Smith. But it will not be saved in Washington. It will be saved by the citizens of this nation who love and cherish freedom. It will be saved by enlightened members of this Church – men and women who will subscribe to and abide by the principles of the Constitution."

Dallin H. Oaks

In 2010, Elder Dallin H. Oaks spoke at a Constitution Day Celebration and warned about the importance of preserving the US Constitution. To that end, he claimed that "all citizens—whatever their religious or philosophical persuasion" should maintain several responsibilities regarding the Constitution: understand it, support the law, practice civic virtue, maintain civility in political discourse, and promote patriotism.

FAIR has published a long article written by George Cobabe about the White Horse Prophecy, see here, and has also published a FAQ about it here.

The Church published an "I Have a Question" comment about the Constitution "hanging by a thread" here in 1976.  It makes no mention of the White Horse Prophecy.

Rex Lee, then president of BYU (in 1991), said this:

Quote

A final area of constitutional interest unique to Latter-day Saints finds its source in the well-known “hanging by a thread” statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith. Similar statements have been reiterated by no fewer than six of his successors, including the current prophet. In a forthcoming book to be published by the Religious Studies Center, Professor Donald Cannon lists over forty instances in which these seven presidents have either used the “thread” metaphor or something like it. But in none of those quotations cited by Professor Cannon has any Church leader ever been very specific as to the metaphor’s meaning.

Unfortunately, some members of the Church have been all too ready to offer their own explanations. The only thing consistent about these explanations is that in each instance, it was the Church member’s own unresolved, often very private, grievance that supplied evidence that the thread was beginning to fray, sometimes beyond repair. Among some people, any problem from a tax increase to a failure to collect the garbage on time to a boundary dispute with one’s neighbor is likely to call forth the observation that it is certainly easy to see how the Constitution is hanging by a thread. A companion assertion is that the election or appointment of certain persons, often the person making the assertion, to designated positions provides the key to preventing the demise of our constitutional system.

In my view, this is another instance in which going beyond what our leaders have said can be misleading at best, and potentially fraught with mischief. Even though we have not been given the exact meaning of the prophets’ statements about the Constitution hanging by a thread, the scriptures do define the conditions on which freedom in the land of America ultimately depends. I am satisfied that whatever else may eventually hang in the constitutional balance, this much is clear: The continuation of the blessings of liberty depends finally on our spiritual righteousness. As the Lord told the Jaredites in the Book of Ether, this is a “land of promise.” And “whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, . . . if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ.” If the people fail to keep this covenant, they “shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity” (Ether 2:9–12).

Good comments, these.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Protesting is not subverting the constitution. Even rioting is not subverting the constitution. It is unlawful but it is not a threat to the constitution. Attempting to overthrow a constitutional election because you argue that someone cheated (when you lost by a large margin and have no evidence of a cheat) is subverting the constitution. It also normalizes refusing to accept the results of an obviously decided election. This is one reason we may be doomed. If this becomes the norm it is going to be very bad.

Before someone stops me by talking about Bush-Gore that election was actually close and the loser respected the decision when the court challenges were over.

You subvert the constitution by infringing on others’ rights with mob activity.  The constitution was created to protect rights and freedoms.  Mob rule and government leaders condoning it is unconstitutional.  President Oaks talked about this in his October address.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Rivers said:

You subvert the constitution by infringing on others’ rights with mob activity.  The constitution was created to protect rights and freedoms.  Mob rule and government leaders condoning it is unconstitutional.  President Oaks talked about this in his October address.

 

That is not subversion. It is unlawful. It is against the constitution but it is not an attempt to destroy it. Protests and riots are not “mob rule”. If you want “mob rule” review the history of the KKK. For it to be “mob rule” the mobs have to actually rule.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not subversion. It is unlawful. It is against the constitution but it is not an attempt to destroy it. Protests and riots are not “mob rule”. 

Except for that “autonomous zone” in Seattle. What was it called again? CHAZ or something like that. Something similar happened recently in Minneapolis.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, Duncan said:
Quote

If you think discussion of the Constitution only has relevance to U.S. citizens, I think perhaps you didn’t pay very close attention to President Oaks’s talk. 

What advice would you give to someone in Bolivia or Nigeria about the US Constitution?

I think Pres. Oaks made a number of comments in his talk that have relevance to people in Bolivia or Nigeria:

Quote

Oaks said he was not speaking for any political group but emphasized the importance of the Constitution as it relates to the restoration of the Church's gospel. Although Church members believe that the Constitution was divinely inspired, “when exercised by imperfect mortals their intended effects have not always been achieved.”

A member of the Church in Bolivia or Nigeria could likewise find that their respective constitutions (see here for Bolivia's and here for Nigeria's) may likewise contain elements that are inspired, but that they nevertheless are documents that are "exercised by imperfect mortals" and "their intended effects have not always been achieved."

Quote

He elaborated by pointing out five divinely inspired principles. First, the source of government power is the people, he said.  “The Constitution established a constitutional democratic republic, where the people exercise their power through their elected representatives," he said.

The Bolivian Constitution was passed in 2009 includes this statement in its Preamble:

Quote

We, the Bolivian people, of plural composition, from the depths of history, inspired by the struggles of the past, by the anti-colonial indigenous uprising, and in independence, by the popular struggles of liberation, by the indigenous, social and labor marches, by the water and October wars, by the struggles for land and territory, construct a new State in memory of our martyrs.

The Nigerian Constitution was passed in 1999 and "restored democratic rule to Nigeria."  From the Preamble:

Quote

We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria ... DO HEREBY make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution.

So "the source of government power" being "the people" is as relevant to Bolivians and Nigerians as it is to Americans.

Quote

Oaks continued by saying, second, is the division of delegated power between the nation and its subsidiary states.

Bolivia is a unitary state (not a federation, as is the U.S.), but is nevertheless divided into nine "departments" that are "represented in the Plurinational Legislative Assembly—a bicameral legislature consisting of the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies."

Nigeria is a federal state, comprised of 36 states and 1 territory, with some delegation of powers between the states and the federal government.

Quote

Third, is the separation of powers, or the delegation of “independent executive, legislative and judicial powers so these three branches could exercise checks upon one another.”

Here's how Wikipedia summarizes the Bolivian government:

Quote

The politics of Bolivia takes place in a framework of a presidential representative democratic republic, whereby the president is head of state, head of government and head of a diverse multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of parliament. Both the Judiciary and the electoral branch are independent of the executive and the legislature.

The Nigerian federal government "is composed of five distinct branches: legislative, executive, and judicial, whose powers are vested by the Constitution of Nigeria in the National Assembly, the President, and the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, respectively."

Quote

Fourth, is the cluster of guarantees of individual rights and specific limits on government authority in the Bill of Rights.

Title II in the Bolivian Constitution itemizes "Fundamental Rights and Guarantees."

Chapter 4 of the Nigerian Constitution does the same.

Quote

Fifth, is “the vital purpose of the entire Constitution. We are to be governed by law and not by individuals, and our loyalty is to the Constitution and its principles and processes, not to any officeholder.”

That seems to be the purpose of the Bolivian and Nigerian constitutions as well.  To let the people be "governed by law and not by individuals."

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1
Link to post
34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Protesting is not subverting the constitution. Even rioting is not subverting the constitution. It is unlawful but it is not a threat to the constitution. Attempting to overthrow a constitutional election because you argue that someone cheated (when you lost by a large margin and have no evidence of a cheat) is subverting the constitution. It also normalizes refusing to accept the results of an obviously decided election. This is one reason we may be doomed. If this becomes the norm it is going to be very bad.

Before someone stops me by talking about Bush-Gore that election was actually close and the loser respected the decision when the court challenges were over.

It was more than actual people expressing concerns about treatment of minorities at the hands of the police.  The "peaceful" protests were escalated into riots by paid thugs and those that were willing to take advantage of "early Christmas shopping" (looting and vandalism).  Then the dominant media would later have the audacity to either deny riots happened or gloss over them by calling them "peaceful" protests (and to downplay the existence of Antifa/bLM/etc agitators in a frightful Orwellian narrative).

It was not an obviously decided election.  Nov 3 was strongly trending to a massive Trump landslide when leftist counties panicked and stopped the counting process late in the evening.  They went to "Plan B" in the early hours of Nov 4 and committed overwhelming FRAUD.

The "loser" of the 2000 election did NOT respect the decision.  Gore and his supporters kept up the lies and the hatred for years after and claiming that Bush stole the election.  When all the Supreme Court did was to affirm that leftist Florida counties had to abide by the rules that were set BEFORE the election (in other words they could NOT change the rules in the middle of the election).  Besides, it were democrats that created those ballots and were responsible for the "hanging chads".

Did those agitators work hard to subvert the Constitution?  Yes, very much so.

Did democrat mayors and governors order the police to stand down (or at least soft peddle) from stopping obvious agitators?  Sadly YES.  Was it an assault on the middle class small business owners?  Disturbingly YES.  Did the government abdicate their obligation to defend the property owners (even those that are also minorities)?  Shockingly YES.  Was the Constitution violated?  Of course.  Were the rights of 80 million citizens who voted for Trump violated?  YES.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, longview said:

It was more than actual people expressing concerns about treatment of minorities at the hands of the police.  The "peaceful" protests were escalated into riots by paid thugs and those that were willing to take advantage of "early Christmas shopping" (looting and vandalism).  Then the dominant media would later have the audacity to either deny riots happened or gloss over them by calling them "peaceful" protests (and to downplay the existence of Antifa/bLM/etc agitators in a frightful Orwellian narrative).

It was not an obviously decided election.  Nov 3 was strongly trending to a massive Trump landslide when leftist counties panicked and stopped the counting process late in the evening.  They went to "Plan B" in the early hours of Nov 4 and committed overwhelming FRAUD.

The "loser" of the 2000 election did NOT respect the decision.  Gore and his supporters kept up the lies and the hatred for years after and claiming that Bush stole the election.  When all the Supreme Court did was to affirm that leftist Florida counties had to abide by the rules that were set BEFORE the election (in other words they could NOT change the rules in the middle of the election).  Besides, it were democrats that created those ballots and were responsible for the "hanging chads".

Did those agitators work hard to subvert the Constitution?  Yes, very much so.

Did democrat mayors and governors order the police to stand down (or at least soft peddle) from stopping obvious agitators?  Sadly YES.  Was it an assault on the middle class small business owners?  Disturbingly YES.  Did the government abdicate their obligation to defend the property owners (even those that are also minorities)?  Shockingly YES.  Was the Constitution violated?  Of course.  Were the rights of 80 million citizens who voted for Trump violated?  YES.

That post will likely get this thread shutdown.

For the record, as someone who has extensively audited internal controls, and who is an actual Certified Fraud Examiner, I find the allegations of "overwhelming FRAUD" to be utterly laughable.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s a matter of personal preference. While punctuation rules allow for the dropping of the final s on possessives where the noun ends in s, it’s also permissible to retain the s. For the sake of simplicity and plainness, I prefer to keep my possessives standard, both written and spoken. It can be confusing if one pronounces “Oaks’ “ without adding the ‘s, as his name ends in s. 
 

One thing I can’t abide (and I’ve already seen it here on this board in recent days) is the possessive written as “Oak’s”. That is plainly wrong. His name is Oaks, not Oak. 
 

In keeping with my preference I would without hesitation write (and say) “Jesus’s” I don’t at all agree that it is disrespectful to do so. 
 

As someone whose name ends with "S" I hate seeing the double s.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...