DiscussMormonism.com

"And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land." Revelation pronounced by Joseph Smith, Jr., June 1, 1833; D&C 98:5–6 (emphasis added). "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." Revelation pronounced by Joseph Smith, Jr., Dec 16 and 17, 1833.

Ten years later, however,...

"I am a lawyer, I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God. The Constitution is not law to us, but it makes provision for us whereby we can make laws." Joseph Smith, Jr., Feb 25, 1843, History of the Church, Vol. 5, pp289-90 (emphasis added).

Joseph Smith made many platitudinal announcements early in his "prophetic" career that he later whittled away at, as he sought to usurp power wherever he found it did not suit his fancy.

The cynic in me says that the only part of the Constitution many Mormons really care about is the Second Amendment.

I remember how angry the Elders were when the Supreme Court started agreeing to civil rights. Down with the "Activist Court" they would say.

With the ascendance of Dallin Oaks to the LDS Presidency, it would be great to publish his amicus curiae brief from back when he was young, blasting the Earl Warren court for their decision in Brown v The Topeka Board of Education.


Scenes like this made righteous LDS blood boil! No drinking fountain for this rabble on Temple grounds.

slskipper wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 23, 2024 4:25 am

The cynic in me says that the only part of the Constitution many Mormons really care about is the Second Amendment.

So long as it is read without the restrictive clause at the beginning that defines the meaning of the rest of it. You know, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ... ." It wasn't for defense of one's person or home, but the security of the free State. It wasn't for hunting. It wasn't for those who get a thrill from target shooting (at a gun range or elsewhere), so that they can imagine they are Dirty Harry.