Defending Our Divinely Inspired Constitution

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was my understanding that the destruction of private property was illegal. No? (Not saying it was a capital offense regardless)

I would think destruction of private property is legal if the property is being used for illegal/dangerous activities.
For example, the burning of marijuana plants or demolition of a meth lab.

Now for the printing press in question it was declared a public nuisance as I understand it.
Does that rise to the level of illegal or dangerous?
What do our resident lawyers say?

[bOObOO]

On 9/18/2021 at 9:47 AM, theplains said:

I apologize if this violates the board's policy of "no politics" but I think its ok since I don't
focus on specific political parties and their beliefs.

I read this article in the recent General Conference talk.

Without a Bill of Rights, America could not have served as the host nation for the
Restoration of the gospel, which began just three decades later.

How so?  How does the gospel spread in communist countries where there is no Bill
of Rights?

How so?  The Restoration of the gospel required the Restoration of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and the Restoration of his church, and even with the Bill of Rights it was not easy to restore all of that in the United States of America as they were in those days.  But at least with a Bill of Rights there was a formal declaration that people had some particular rights, if not in America then in some other place where people were acknowledged to have those rights.  

The gospel is spread from the base of the Church with missionaries assigned to go to where they are sent to proclaim the gospel, and then as people join with the church of Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ, stakes and branches are formed and built up. 

On 9/18/2021 at 9:47 AM, theplains said:

What else are faithful Latter-day Saints to do? We must pray for the Lord to guide
and bless all nations and their leaders. This is part of our article of faith. Being
subject to presidents or rulers (7) of course poses no obstacle to our opposing
individual laws or policies.

Point 7 refers to Articles of Faith 1:12 - We believe in being subject to kings, 
presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Is there a difference between law and policy and that is why "policy" is excluded
from the article of faith?

The point is that the Church is not a political organization that seeks to overthrow the government(s) where the members beside.  We believe members of our Lord's church are and should be subject to the rulers of the lands wherever members reside rather than trying to rebel against them or overthrow their government(s).  Unless maybe our Lord were to direct us to try to overthrow other governments by rebelling against the rulers in power, but as of yet in these latter days our Lord hasn't directed us to do that.  

Edited September 21, 2021 by bOObOO

[smac97]

On 9/18/2021 at 2:40 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Quote

There are all sorts of laws we can "obey" and yet oppose.  But I think that opposition generally comes in the form of lawful means.  Repeal the law, rather than flagrantly disobey it.

I appreciate that you said generally. Civil disobedience does have its place. It gave India her independence and helped end Jim Crowe.

I agree.  I think it is helpful to hold in one's heart and mind a presumption that we should obey the law, with the understanding that circumstances may arise wherein wickedness, corruption, injustice, etc. may compel the individual to, in good conscience, disobey the law (or else justify such disobedience).

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

There's an arguable case that the early Christian church was only hanging on by its fingernails until the timely intervention of Constantine.  I think the restored Church has had considerable success even without a God-emperor sheltering it from persecutions or making it the official state religion.  That success could be attributed to the religious pluralism encouraged by the Bill of Rights.

I don’t buy it completely. Christianity was spreading all over. While they were enduring some tough times they weren’t hurting for new members. At least that is what I remember based on the demographic estimates I read a decade or so back. Maybe the conclusions have changed.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  I think it is helpful to hold in one's heart and mind a presumption that we should obey the law, with the understanding that circumstances may arise wherein wickedness, corruption, injustice, etc. may compel the individual to, in good conscience, disobey the law (or else justify such disobedience).

Thanks,

-Smac

And sometimes you just have to punch a Nazi.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was my understanding that the destruction of private property was illegal. No? (Not saying it was a capital offense regardless)

It is?

Well, there go my plans for tonight. Stupid laws.