A return to Christ by an individual will bring peace of mind in place of turmoil, tranquillity to replace strife, courage and optimism in place of fear.
This Christ-centered way of living is not only for individuals but for families, entire governments, and nations, and will bring about similar results. For example, the individual or even a nation living a chaste and virtuous life has little to fear of the dread disease AIDS. Fatherless families created through strife and divorce would be virtually unknown.
As you survey your individual responsibility, where do you stand? There are symptoms or warnings of the descending path. Ten symptoms to be aware of might be:Some are more familiar with the location of sand traps on the golf course or a good tennis backhand than with the location of lifesaving scriptures. Many search for happiness in current financial pages instead of the inspired counsel from prophets. I have observed that the great majority of people the world over waste and wear out their lives making major commitments of time and effort toward projects that have absolutely no exalting benefits yet have eternal consequences.
- An increasing shortness of vision or an inability to see clearly things of a spiritual nature
- An ever-increasing callousness to things of God
- A hardening of the spiritual arteries—attention to spiritual needs moves from daily or weekly to monthly, then occasionally, then not at all
- An increasing dependence upon a growing army of psychiatric specialists instead of priesthood, God, and self
- An increasing independence from spiritual things
- An increasing number of friends with lower moral standards
- Quotes from talk shows instead of scriptures
- Raised voices in place of subdued tones
- Verbal, even physical, abuse replacing a circle of love
- Gradual acceptance of evil, not all at once, but a little bit at a time
We must be involved in a good and a righteous cause. We must see through the glass clearly, with an objective look at ourselves and families so as not to be caught in the second great calamitous worldwide flood that is even now all around us. It has been prophesied that the faithful will win this great war, that they will triumphantly rise up to meet the Lord Jesus Christ at the time of His second coming. The prescription for this victory includes daily individual and family prayers with a family home evening at least weekly. You may say, “I don’t have time.” Brothers and sisters, you simply cannot afford not to take the time. It is amazing how much time suddenly becomes available with the television off. This prescription continues the same as it has always been—keep the commandments; follow the prophets; read, understand, and even ponder the scriptures.
(Durrel A. Woolsey, A Strategy for War, October 1995 General Conference) ↗
Gun Control
Re: Gun Control
Thanks, Ian and Henry.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
I really love that longfellow poem.
Steve, these are some great quotes and a good survey to keep me on the right path. Some years ago, a bishop we had counseled the ward members not to pick their battles with their children. I agree with this and I think that Woolsey is right about where we put our priorities. Also, Woolsey's title is great!!
Every day is a battle and I intend to win this war. I've been thinking a lot about Paul Revere saying "To arms , to arms the war has begun!" No kidding, we must constantly arm ourselves with saying our prayers, reading the scriptures, reading and rereading what our dear prophets and apostles have counseled. I'm reminded of Nephi's younger brother Jacob saying
Ah, that little caveat, IF they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Steve, these are some great quotes and a good survey to keep me on the right path. Some years ago, a bishop we had counseled the ward members not to pick their battles with their children. I agree with this and I think that Woolsey is right about where we put our priorities. Also, Woolsey's title is great!!
Every day is a battle and I intend to win this war. I've been thinking a lot about Paul Revere saying "To arms , to arms the war has begun!" No kidding, we must constantly arm ourselves with saying our prayers, reading the scriptures, reading and rereading what our dear prophets and apostles have counseled. I'm reminded of Nephi's younger brother Jacob saying
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Ah, that little caveat, IF they hearken unto the counsels of God.
Re: Gun Control
Amen!!daughter. That was Bishop Ohlwiler with that great counsel and he added that Satan is not picking his battles.
"Condemn me not because of mine imperfection,... but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Mormon 9:31
Re: Gun Control
It does seem like the world is trying to draw nearer to Heaven through artificial means. We want all the blessings promised to the righteous without being righteous. We would build towers of legislation to establish Zion.A secular society is the most likely cultural candidate to be especially surprised by a Jesus who comes "as a thief in the night." A society indifferent, even hostile, to things spiritual will be truly astonished.
The boredom of self-serving secularism and the masking of materialism will cause their devotees to be unaware of events which foretell Christ's coming. One who is wise, however, will take time both to smell the flowers and to check the leaves on the fig tree (see Matthew 24:32). ...
Jesus foretold that in the last days there would be "distress of nations, with perplexity" (Luke 21:25). "Distress" means great pain, anxiety, sorrow, trouble, or affliction. "Perplexity" means confusion, uncertainty, and bewilderment over situations that are tangled, involved, and complicated. Surely this describes the growing condition of the world. There are so many problems with so many variables and perplexities.
Cut off from traditional, biblical values and from heaven's insights, man—with his lower ways—tries to tackle the world's highest priority problems. No wonder man is perplexed! ...
Speaking of being surprised, what, one wonders, were the feelings of the architect for the Tower of Babel? He probably would have been named "architect of the year." But his plans went a floor too far!
(Elder Neal A. Maxwell, That Ye May Believe, 1992)
We should strive earnestly to establish the principles of heaven within us, rather than trouble ourselves in fostering anxieties like the foolish people of the Tower of Babel, to reach its location before we are properly and lawfully prepared to become its inhabitants. Its advantages and blessings, in a measure, can be obtained in this probationary state by learning to live in conformity with its laws and the practice of its principles. To do this, there must be a feeling and determination to do God's will. (6 May 1882, JD, 23:191.)
(President Lorenzo Snow, Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, Chapter 6)
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
i’ve been thinking about meaning and interpretation.
the first presidency issued the following statement, leading up to the bicentennial of the united states: “We urge members of the Church and all Americans to begin now to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles…” (ensign, 1973)
we are urged to reflect on the "meaning" of the constitution. that implies that the constitution has meaning.
what does the constitution mean? to learn the meaning of the constitution, we have to study. study is hard. it’s also risky. it’s risky because we might learn something that we don’t like.
what if the constitution means something that we don’t like? one option is to attempt to change the meaning. how do we attempt to change the meaning? by private interpretation.
is there a correct way to interpret the constitution? elder oaks described the language of the constitution’s bill of rights as “scriptural.” can we interpret the constitution in the same way that we interpret scripture?
in relation to scripture, joseph smith taught: “What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads.” (teachings of the prophet joseph smith, 276)
in relation to parables, the bible dictionary explains: “It is important to distinguish between the interpretation of a parable and the application of a parable. The only true interpretation is the meaning the parable conveyed, or was meant to convey, when first spoken. The application of a parable may vary in every age and circumstance. But if the original meaning is to be grasped, it is important to consider its context and setting.”
can we follow this approach to interpret the constitution? if so, then the only true interpretation of the constitution is the meaning of the constitution. in other words, as joseph smith said, the rule of interpretation is no interpretation at all. the application may vary in every age and circumstance, but to understand the original meaning of the constitution, we need to consider its context and setting.
what is the context and setting of the constitution? more specifically, what is the context and setting of the second amendment?
at the time that the second amendment was enacted, and for at least 100 years afterward, it was understood that the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to own and carry guns for personal defense. nobody has been able to find a single actual statement from the founding era that expresses any other understanding of the second amendment.
in recent years, however, strange new interpretations have surfaced. for instance, someone recently invented a theory that the second amendment protects a “collective” right, rather than an individual right. another new interpretation is that the second amendment protects only a “military” right. these are interesting interpretations, but as far as we know, these interpretations were totally unknown to the founding fathers.
the founding fathers designed the second amendment to guarantee an individual’s right to arms for personal defense. this right secured the militia by ensuring a populace familiar with arms. that was the meaning of the second amendment. that meaning was reflected in early colonial practice, throughout the constitutional ratification debates, and in state amendment proposals. the very fact that this right was included within the bill of rights, which is a bill of individual rights, evinces that the founders considered it an individual right.
this was understood long before the second amendment was drafted. sir william blackstone, the preeminent authority on english law during the founding era, described this common law right as “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and, “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”
during the constitutional ratification debates, pennsylvania proposed the following, clearly showing what the second amendment was understood to mean: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people…”
naturally, many state constitutions adopted at that time likewise guaranteed an individual right to arms for self-defense. for example, pennslyvania (“that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state…”), vermont (“the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”), kentucky (“that the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”), missouri (“that the people have the right… to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.”), mississippi (“every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the state.”), connecticut (“every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State”), michigan (“every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.”), etc. etc.
even 100 years after the constitution was ratified, the second amendment was widely understood to protect a private right to arms, not limited to military context: “The Right is General. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies a right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” (thomas m. cooley, ll.d., the general principles of constitutional law in the united states of america, 298-299 (3rd ed. 1898))
many other statements and writings show that americans understood the original meaning of the second amendment. however, beginning sometime in the 20th century, people began to subject the second amendment to various private interpretations.
for gun control advocates, the biggest problem with the second amendment is that it must mean something. that meaning was widely understood throughout the early history of our country. only recently have people tried to revise our history to accommodate their private interpretations. only recently have scholars and judges tried to attack or ignore or re-interpret the second amendment. to their dismay, the second amendment is still there, along with the rest of the constitution, and it still means something. the meaning cannot be changed.
the first presidency issued the following statement, leading up to the bicentennial of the united states: “We urge members of the Church and all Americans to begin now to reflect more intently on the meaning and importance of the Constitution, and of adherence to its principles…” (ensign, 1973)
we are urged to reflect on the "meaning" of the constitution. that implies that the constitution has meaning.
what does the constitution mean? to learn the meaning of the constitution, we have to study. study is hard. it’s also risky. it’s risky because we might learn something that we don’t like.
what if the constitution means something that we don’t like? one option is to attempt to change the meaning. how do we attempt to change the meaning? by private interpretation.
is there a correct way to interpret the constitution? elder oaks described the language of the constitution’s bill of rights as “scriptural.” can we interpret the constitution in the same way that we interpret scripture?
in relation to scripture, joseph smith taught: “What is the rule of interpretation? Just no interpretation at all. Understand it precisely as it reads.” (teachings of the prophet joseph smith, 276)
in relation to parables, the bible dictionary explains: “It is important to distinguish between the interpretation of a parable and the application of a parable. The only true interpretation is the meaning the parable conveyed, or was meant to convey, when first spoken. The application of a parable may vary in every age and circumstance. But if the original meaning is to be grasped, it is important to consider its context and setting.”
can we follow this approach to interpret the constitution? if so, then the only true interpretation of the constitution is the meaning of the constitution. in other words, as joseph smith said, the rule of interpretation is no interpretation at all. the application may vary in every age and circumstance, but to understand the original meaning of the constitution, we need to consider its context and setting.
what is the context and setting of the constitution? more specifically, what is the context and setting of the second amendment?
at the time that the second amendment was enacted, and for at least 100 years afterward, it was understood that the second amendment guaranteed an individual right to own and carry guns for personal defense. nobody has been able to find a single actual statement from the founding era that expresses any other understanding of the second amendment.
in recent years, however, strange new interpretations have surfaced. for instance, someone recently invented a theory that the second amendment protects a “collective” right, rather than an individual right. another new interpretation is that the second amendment protects only a “military” right. these are interesting interpretations, but as far as we know, these interpretations were totally unknown to the founding fathers.
the founding fathers designed the second amendment to guarantee an individual’s right to arms for personal defense. this right secured the militia by ensuring a populace familiar with arms. that was the meaning of the second amendment. that meaning was reflected in early colonial practice, throughout the constitutional ratification debates, and in state amendment proposals. the very fact that this right was included within the bill of rights, which is a bill of individual rights, evinces that the founders considered it an individual right.
this was understood long before the second amendment was drafted. sir william blackstone, the preeminent authority on english law during the founding era, described this common law right as “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and, “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.”
during the constitutional ratification debates, pennsylvania proposed the following, clearly showing what the second amendment was understood to mean: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people…”
naturally, many state constitutions adopted at that time likewise guaranteed an individual right to arms for self-defense. for example, pennslyvania (“that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state…”), vermont (“the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”), kentucky (“that the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”), missouri (“that the people have the right… to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.”), mississippi (“every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the state.”), connecticut (“every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State”), michigan (“every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State.”), etc. etc.
even 100 years after the constitution was ratified, the second amendment was widely understood to protect a private right to arms, not limited to military context: “The Right is General. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies a right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.” (thomas m. cooley, ll.d., the general principles of constitutional law in the united states of america, 298-299 (3rd ed. 1898))
many other statements and writings show that americans understood the original meaning of the second amendment. however, beginning sometime in the 20th century, people began to subject the second amendment to various private interpretations.
for gun control advocates, the biggest problem with the second amendment is that it must mean something. that meaning was widely understood throughout the early history of our country. only recently have people tried to revise our history to accommodate their private interpretations. only recently have scholars and judges tried to attack or ignore or re-interpret the second amendment. to their dismay, the second amendment is still there, along with the rest of the constitution, and it still means something. the meaning cannot be changed.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Gun Control
Thanks, Ian.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
This makes a great deal of sense to me and I have read nothing yet that convinces me otherwise. My former ignorance on the matter made me vulnerable to what I now consider, at best, misguided and misinformed (note..not "uninformed") opinion, or at worst, sophistry.
"Music's golden tongue flatter'd to tears this aged man and poor."
Re: Gun Control
To be sure, I haven't studied the constitution as long as many, but I have been doing nothing else for the past few months. I feel ready to discuss the document; in it's historical context and how it applies to us today.what does the constitution mean? to learn the meaning of the constitution, we have to study. study is hard. it’s also risky. it’s risky because we might learn something that we don’t like.
I am thrilled to have read Ian treatise on interpreting the constitution. I can tell he put a lot of thought into it. Allow me to add some of my own thoughts, respectfully and plainly.for gun control advocates, the biggest problem with the second amendment is that it must mean something. that meaning was widely understood throughout the early history of our country. only recently have people tried to revise our history to accommodate their private interpretations. only recently have scholars and judges tried to attack or ignore or re-interpret the second amendment. to their dismay, the second amendment is still there, along with the rest of the constitution, and it still means something. the meaning cannot be changed.
Ian used the logic that the Constitution = scripture, and that scripture = the word of God. If it is the word of God, it is unchangeable, and not open to interpretation. In law, the idea original intent might be referred to as precedent, which is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts." What courts have attempted to do for the sake of clarity is to declare one interpretation, and have that meaning apply to all further cases, lest any disagreement ensue. This might be part of the idea that Ian is talking about when we defends the Constitution's unchangeable nature. In article 6 of the document we learn that the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and that all members of congress have a duty to uphold it. This idea applies to all the amendments and was pre-emptively established in order to accommodate further amendments that the founders didn't foresee.
In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, we have a solemn reverence for the Constitution, the founders, and the laws that were set forth in the time after. We believe in being subject to our rulers, and in obeying the law. I believe in this.
However much we want to tie these laws, which are laws of man, to the laws of God, it cannot be done as simply and cleanly as we would like. So far in this forum, the idea that God inspired the founders and the Constitution, has it's merits. But it seems (to me anyways) to have come to the point where we consider the founders as prophets with the ability to see into the future. While we believe God knows all that was and is to come, that is simply not the case for people like James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. We have seen in our own nation's history, under our own constitution, unjust laws set forth. If you don't agree with what I just wrote, please consider again our discussion on slavery, segregation, racism, and discrimination. Frederick Douglass said that “Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery —the great sin and shame of America!”
Please understand that when it comes to gun control, I don't compare slavery to bearing arms. I am drawing an example from history to show how ideas of justice change. D&C 134:1 says “We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”
If I dare insult the constitution(it's no insult at all, actually), I believe it to be a living document. It was designed, at its birth, to grow as the population grows. To be honest, I don't consider the 2nd amendment to be a mistake, or in need of interpretation. In it's historical context, I have no problem with the way it served the people during the revolution, or even 100 years after.
The problem I have is how the current problem we have now, which is a disturbing amount of mass homicides and suicides by gun, is somehow being defended as a constitutional right. Do you really want to say to a person who just lost a loved one to an impulsive act of suicide that it was an act of justice? How is our current law truly serving us, if it is at all? How many of us in this discussion actually owns a gun???
Are we aware of the true dangers of gun ownership? Are we willing to believe the statistics discovered with real scientific means? How do we feel knowing that “for every time a household gun is used legally in self defense, there are 4 unintentional shootings, 7 assaults or murders, and 11 attempted or completed suicides by firearm" ? I don't ask these questions to induce guilt. I believe all of us here in this discussion have the humanity to see the problem. But what makes me curious is comments like Angela's, who said
I agree that prayer, scripture reading, and following the council of prophets are good things to do, but I'm assuming you also meant that we need to take up our guns. Why is nobody actually doing this?? Are we, as members of the Huntington family, truly going to set forth to purchase a gun, and keep it in our homes for defense? What are the implications of what we are arguing?Every day is a battle and I intend to win this war. I've been thinking a lot about Paul Revere saying "To arms , to arms the war has begun!" No kidding, we must constantly arm ourselves with saying our prayers, reading the scriptures, reading and rereading what our dear prophets and apostles have counseled.
The one simple implication from my stance, is that in order to keep my family safe, I will absolutely not purchase a gun. People with access to firearms have an approximately 300% higher risk of dying by suicide, and a 200% higher chance of dying by homicide. I don't have to state how serious of a risk this is, but I'm saying it anyway.
One of my favorite quotes from President Monson applies to this. He said "God left the world unfinished for man to work his skill upon. He left the electricity in the cloud, the oil in the earth. He left the rivers unbridged and the forests unfelled and the cities unbuilt. God gives to man the challenge of raw materials, not the ease of finished things. He leaves the pictures unpainted and the music unsung and the problems unsolved, that man might know the joys and glories of creation." I believe the laws of the land are one of those creations. As a potter, I mold the clay from inspiration. That inspiration comes from God, but comes out through my effort. The glory of creating a just government is a work that takes time and effort, trial and error. We are meant to learn from experience. If we cannot learn from our problems, our brothers and sisters dying by guns, we do a great offense to ourselves, and God. He does not inspire me to debate this issue with contention, and I am at peace with the way I have presented my ideas. The conclusion I have come to is that greater measures need to be established to make guns more difficult to obtain for the purpose of our population's survival.
Last edited by Betsy on Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Gun Control
well, first of all, let's read your wikipedia article a little more closely:Betsy wrote:In law, the idea original intent might be referred to as precedence, which is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Gun Control
Also, not ashamed of the fact that I use Wikipedia! 
Re: Gun Control
Betsy: By the way, just so you know, I don't read the large block quotes you post. Not because I don't believe in them, but because I believe that to be lazy rhetoric, and somewhat close to plagiarism. If you have something to say, by all means use quotes, but please use shorter ones that apply to your point and then argue your stance using your own words, not the words of literally almost everyone else.
When God can do what he will with a man, the man may do what he will with the world. ~George MacDonald
Re: Gun Control
Yup, Steve that's what I said! ...
Re: Gun Control
this statement is still incorrect, because “original intent” is very different from “precedent.”Betsy (after editing her post) wrote:In law, the idea original intent might be referred to as precedent, which is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts."
“original intent” refers to a manner of interpreting the constitution.
“precedent” refers to a common law rule that judges should maintain consistency with other judges.
personally, i’m interested in the original meaning of the constitution, more than original intent interpretation.
the original meaning of the constitution cannot be changed by judges. if a judge adopts an interpretation that contradicts the original meaning of the constitution, than that judge has established a mistaken precedent which should be reversed. the original meaning of the constitution always trumps precedent.
so let it be written... so let it be done.
Re: Gun Control
This is all fine and well, but the Constitution can still be amended.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest