Does Romney believe Jesus wrote the Constitution?

spidergoat

spidergoat

pubic diorama
Valued Senior Member
On another forum I was talking with some Mormons. Apparently in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, there is a passage that says Jesus is responsible for the Constitution of the United States.

101:77 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;

101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

101:79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.

101:80 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.


Questions: Does Mitt Romney believe this? What degree of delusional belief is acceptable in our public leaders? Does this mean Jesus approved of slavery? What does this say about the Constitutional amendments?
 
spidergoat said:
Questions: Does Mitt Romney believe this? What degree of delusional belief is acceptable in our public leaders? Does this mean Jesus approved of slavery? What does this say about the Constitutional amendments?
Click to expand...
Considering that Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) approved of most Jewish traditions, can we assume that he approved of both slavery and animal sacrifice?

If Romney were Jewish would the absurdities of Judaism be more acceptable than the absurdities of Mormonism?

Does he believe in magic underwear?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbfgmorIGE

Should someone who believes in magic underwear be allowed anywhere near the nuclear button?
 
Well if you are going to be around dangerous material like nuclear bombs, magic protective underwear can come in handy. And what does Romney need with Secret Service protection when he has magical protective underwear?

To be fair, the Mormon Church does not warrant the secret underwear to provide physical protection to the wearer, only moral protection. However, it is a common belief among church members that the secret underwear does provide physical protection in addition to moral protection to the wearer.
 
Who's to say Romney isn't a reformed Mormon who goes with the magic of Speedos? I'd could be OK with that, and even with the golden plates, if not for the nutty details:

Smith said he found the plates on September 22, 1823 at a hill near his home in Manchester, New York after an angel directed him to a buried stone box. Smith said the angel at first prevented him from taking the plates, but instructed him to return to the same location in a year. In September, 1827, on his fourth annual attempt to retrieve the plates, Smith returned home with a heavy object wrapped in a frock, which he then put in a box. Though he allowed others to heft the box, he said that the angel had forbidden him to show the plates to anyone until they had been translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language. Smith dictated a translation using a seer stone in the bottom of a hat, which he placed over his face to view the words written within the stone.[3] Smith published the translation in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.
Click to expand...

The irony with thinking that Jesus wrote the Constitution is that this makes Obama, former constitutional law professor, on par with an Apostle. Not good for Romney no matter how he ranks in the LDS. Of course he's always got Ryan, a Catholic, to help the fundies feel centered.
 
The LDS/Mormon Church is led by a prophet. The prophet speaks for God. Therefore his teachings are scripture.
 
Aqueous Id, I think they would say that he studied the constitution only to be able to take advantage of it. Only the founders are sacred.
 
spidergoat said:
From your link:
Life, liberty, property—mankind’s three great rights.​

I thought it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property? Really? This is starting to make sense now.
Click to expand...
You're joking, right?

If not, please read up on John Locke, upon whose writing Jefferson's famous quote was based.
 
spidergoat said:
Aqueous Id, I think they would say that he studied the constitution only to be able to take advantage of it. Only the founders are sacred.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because he's so devious. He lied and cheated his way to the White House just to enact laws that regulate banking and oil, increase equal employment opportunity for women, protect the environment and improve health care. All diabolical acts of Satan, by their standards.

Fortunately there's a ton of Americans who still think the Constitution is sacred. And obviously I'm excluding the bigots from the Right, who flaunt it just to wire up their constituents.

But Republican voters do tend to put a lot of stock in the religion of their candidate. So any borderline voters who fear a Mormon for the reasons your raise may opt for Obama at the last minute, insofar as he's a known quantity. After all, four years of Obama hasn't brought the flames of Hell licking at their feet, nor are we in the rapture yet.

I also think that religious intolerance against Romney may partially neutralize the racial intolerance against Obama.

If it can be neutralized at all, that is. It's a powerful phobia for such weak personalities to handle.
 
madanthonywayne said:
You're joking, right?

If not, please read up on John Locke, upon whose writing Jefferson's famous quote was based.
Click to expand...

There's an analogous interpretation with the principle of a jury of peers. it doesn't mean a jury of people similarly situated as the defendant, but a jury of landowners. And of course the Constitution doesn't enshrine the right to property per se, since it allows for taking as a matter of "due process of law". Thus, your lawn can become part of a freeway service road simply because it was deemed to be in the public interest. "Due process" in this context almost always means either in the government's interest (like a road) or else in the interest of a corporation (like a road builder).

What's kind of odd about Locke is that he predates the LDS. We can only guess what he would have thought of the present attacks on civil rights by the Right Wing, and the way they exploit religious affiliation to manipulate voters. In this context, even Locke might not be so willing to overlook the kooky Mormon doctrines Romney follows.
 
spidergoat said:
On another forum I was talking with some Mormons. Apparently in the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, there is a passage that says Jesus is responsible for the Constitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

I suppose that theists in general would say that anything good that happens is ultimately part of God's plan. Hegelians would attribute good things to the dialectical unfolding of the Absolute. Sciforums atheists would attribute those things to deterministic natural causation. Ancient Romans would likely speak of inexorable fate.

101:77 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;
Click to expand...

I haven't verified the accuracy of this text and don't know its context. So I'm just assuming that "constitution of the people" refers to the US Constitution and not to some constitution of the early LDS church. I don't think that very many American Christians, or any other American theists for that matter, would disagree that God allowed or even inspired the Constitution to be written.

101:78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Click to expand...

The idea there seems to be that God intended the Constitution to provide everyone the freedom of action in which to behave morally and in accordance with principle. It's interesting to note that the approach to these ideas is individualistic, addressing the rights of "every man", and as such distinctly modern and American. It isn't addressing nations, peoples, classes or whatnot, in the older traditional manner.

101:79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone would argue with that. It underlines the idea in the passage immediately before it, that the ability to choose to act morally implies freedom from bondage, freedom from control by the will of another.

101:80 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.
Click to expand...

The speaker (God I assume) isn't saying that he wrote the Constitution. He's saying that it's part of his plan, that he inspired it, that he willed it to be written, but that it was literally written "by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose".

Questions: Does Mitt Romney believe this?
Click to expand...

Probably in a broad and vague sense, yes. I'm an agnostic and I broadly agree with it.

What degree of delusional belief is acceptable in our public leaders?
Click to expand...

That's up to each individual to decide for themselves, Goat.

That's the fundamental point of the passage that you quoted.

Does this mean Jesus approved of slavery?
Click to expand...

The text you quoted says: "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another".

What does this say about the Constitutional amendments?
Click to expand...

Perhaps that the Constitution was a work-in-progress, written by the hands of finite and fallible men, even if they were inspired by God to the purpose, and that glaring flaws like slavery still needed to be addressed by other men, perhaps divinely inspired themselves.
 
Carcano said:
Does he believe in magic underwear?

Should someone who believes in magic underwear be allowed anywhere near the nuclear button?
Click to expand...

Would a Jewish yarmulke merit similar remarks?

If it was a Jewish Democrat running for President, sarcasm from the right about his wearing a stupid little beanie on his head would almost certainly be denounced as evidence of the right's "ignorance", "intolerance" and "anti-Semitism".
 
I understand your points, Yazata, but I think a principle here is being overlooked. They think the Constitution is a sacred document from God, like a scripture. That means not only does it not establish a secular state, it's immoral to change the Constitution as the founders intended (at least Thomas Jefferson).
 
spidergoat said:
From your link:
Life, liberty, property—mankind’s three great rights.​

I thought it was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Property? Really? This is starting to make sense now.
Click to expand...

The "pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration. "Life, liberty and property" is from the Constitution, in the fifth amendment:

"nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

It's also in the 14th Amendment, section 1.
 
Pandaemoni said:
The "pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration. "Life, liberty and property" is from the Constitution, in the fifth amendment:

"nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."

It's also in the 14th Amendment, section 1.
Click to expand...

OK, thank you.
 
Pandaemoni said:
The "pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration. "Life, liberty and property" is from the Constitution, in the fifth amendment:

"nor shall any person . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...."
Click to expand...
Of course, that doesnt prevent the government from passing laws that deprive persons of life liberty and property.

It only states that government cannot deprive 'arbitrarily'.
 
Yazata said:
Would a Jewish yarmulke merit similar remarks?

If it was a Jewish Democrat running for President, sarcasm from the right about his wearing a stupid little beanie on his head would almost certainly be denounced as evidence of the right's "ignorance", "intolerance" and "anti-Semitism".
Click to expand...
Most Jews are of indo-european and turkic origin...not semitic, which isnt even a religious designation.

Society should be intolerant of all FAITH yes. Faith simply means believing something without any reason to believe it.

What's important about 'ignorance' is the honesty and willingness to admit it...first to yourself and then to others. This is the agnostic approach...agno and igno are related derivatives.

We dont have a clue what lies beyond the physical realm unless its directly experienced...if ever and at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top