You say you'll change the Constitution

[DU Ute]

Nice thread title.

Yeah, the constitution worship drives me nuts sometimes. Yesterday we waiting for the parade to start and some lady came by handing out brochures from some third-party candidate running for the US Senate. She said that he differs from the other candidates in that he would bring our country back to where we are abiding by the US constitution.

For fast and testimony meeting on Sunday we had an older brother get up and give some prepared remarks on the Constitution. He ended with a mini-rant on how "they" were trying to take away our God-given Constitutional rights. I was tempted to approach him after the meeting and let him know I was glad to find someone else who thought the Bush administration was playing fast and loose with the Constitution wen they declared war on Iraq and ask him how he thought we could stop the anti immigration crowd from getting rid of the citizen-at-birth portion of the 14th Amendment, but I decided against it.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

LOL, I have this same painting in my office. Apparently it was left here by the previous tenant. I always assumed the other two were Adams and Madison. Whatever, it's a crappy painting anyway.

Benjamin Franklin looks a lot like an old Jesus in the painting. If Jesus lived into his 70s, he would have looked exactly like Ben Franklin.

[creekster]

I wonder if this isn't a good example of how the notion of 'inspiration' can sometimes be misused or misapplied. In my mind, the inspiration of the Constitution is not any particular clause or compromise or amendment, but in the fact that it exists at all. That a stable nation was created that allowed an environment for religious freedom. That the rights of the governed were elevated to an equal status with the governors. That a nation could be conceived and created and governed by the authority of the people. It was an amazing turn of events, a true miracle of the age, and we forget just how unlikely it was, at that time, because we only see it through the prism of the centuries since, when it has proven itself and served as a model and inspiration for others.

I don't think God wrote it or put specific words in anyone's mouth. I think he inspired them to create something that exceeded what should have otherwise been possible.

I also think this is what happens with Scriptures, sometimes. We want to ascribe a very literal meaning to words and, in fact, fall short of the mark by doing so. Scripture is frequently, IMO, a struggle to describe the ineffable and the infinite with the profane and the finite. When your spirit has been touched by God's spirit, how can you possibly describe it in mere words? So we see similar concepts described with different words and we argue about the distinctions and look for God's message in those differences when, perhaps, his message is only found in the similarities.

Just my idea, not to be taken too seriously, but something to consider.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Benjamin Franklin looks a lot like an old Jesus in the painting. If Jesus lived into his 70s, he would have looked exactly like Ben Franklin.

Wow. I had no idea that Franklin had such rugged good looks.

[Pheidippides]

Wow. I had no idea that Franklin had such rugged good looks.

How do you think he seduced half of Paris?

[Jarid in Cedar]

How do you think he seduced half of Paris?

$$$$$$$$$$. He made it rain.

[marsupial]

All members of my family (excluding myself) are Constitution Party members.

My inbox is jammed full of their propaganda. *sigh* It gets a little old and they are all very obsessed. They can twist any conversation into one about how we need to return to the values of our Founding Fathers.

Wake up America and read your constitution!

[UtahDan]

I wonder if this isn't a good example of how the notion of 'inspiration' can sometimes be misused or misapplied. In my mind, the inspiration of the Constitution is not any particular clause or compromise or amendment, but in the fact that it exists at all. That a stable nation was created that allowed an environment for religious freedom. That the rights of the governed were elevated to an equal status with the governors. That a nation could be conceived and created and governed by the authority of the people. It was an amazing turn of events, a true miracle of the age, and we forget just how unlikely it was, at that time, because we only see it through the prism of the centuries since, when it has proven itself and served as a model and inspiration for others.

I don't think God wrote it or put specific words in anyone's mouth. I think he inspired them to create something that exceeded what should have otherwise been possible.

I also think this is what happens with Scriptures, sometimes. We want to ascribe a very literal meaning to words and, in fact, fall short of the mark by doing so. Scripture is frequently, IMO, a struggle to describe the ineffable and the infinite with the profane and the finite. When your spirit has been touched by God's spirit, how can you possibly describe it in mere words? So we see similar concepts described with different words and we argue about the distinctions and look for God's message in those differences when, perhaps, his message is only found in the similarities.

Just my idea, not to be taken too seriously, but something to consider.

Your thoughts are pretty close to what Dallin Oaks said.

I agree about how hard it is to describe the ineffable. I think I have said before that I like the Buddhist story where the moon represents the path or the way and that as a person tries to point to the moon, it is at best the moonlight on the person's finger that we attempt to describe. Never the moon itself.

[statman]

I'm speculating what statman is referring to is that the slave states had less representation in Congress due to the reduced head count from all the slaves they had -- and therefore they had less influence on legislation that would favor their states over the "free" states.

You speculate correctly. Th 3/5ths compromise took a significant number of Congresssional Representatives from the South and kept them in the North. Had the South had more votes, they could have done more to entrech slavery even more than it was.

The 3/5ths compromise was a significant victory for the North and, in the long-run, against slavery.

[DU Ute]

You speculate correctly. Th 3/5ths compromise took a significant number of Congresssional Representatives from the South and kept them in the North. Had the South had more votes, they could have done more to entrech slavery even more than it was.

The 3/5ths compromise was a significant victory for the North and, in the long-run, against slavery.

That still doesn't change the fact that the original Constitution was a less than perfect document. It had as much or more to do with keeping the South down and the view that blacks were somehow less than human than with the desire to abolish slavery.

[BigFatMeanie]

Well, you know, we all want to change your head.

[pellegrino]

That still doesn't change the fact that the original Constitution was a less than perfect document. It had as much or more to do with keeping the South down and the view that blacks were somehow less than human than with the desire to abolish slavery.

I hate to defend the Birchers, but I think the actual language ETB used to describe the constitution is that it was "divine" not that it was perfect. I say ETB, because he is primarily responsible for the constitution worship that is so prevalent amongst Mormons.

Now it might be that some folks jumble ETB's lexicon "divine" with the phrase "a more perfect union" which is in the Preamble, but they do that on their own, it's nothing that ETB has stated, at least as far as I can tell.
This also reminds me that in the late 80s BYU put out a film "A More Perfect Union" that dramatized the Constitutional Convention. It got a lot of play amongst Mormons. The whole cast of overused (for LDS films at least) Mormon actors, including Marvin Payne and Darryl Yeager participated in it. It's a classic.

[DU Ute]

I hate to defend the Birchers, but I think the actual language ETB used to describe the constitution is that it was "divine" not that it was perfect.

I think the problem is a lot of people fail to make the distinction.

[wuapinmon]

They can twist any conversation into one about how we need to return to the values of our Founding Fathers.

Man, who wouldn't want a little Sally Hemmings on the side?