Gun Control

[Betsy]

The point I'm making is that we had to amend that little mistake in the constitution(understatement?) and we can do that now, at the cost of, really, nothing. The document is obviously fluid, based on the fact that we abolished slavery.

[Betsy]

Killing is the most severe sin. We support legislation that would ban killing

Exactly.

[Ian]

this is an old, pitiful attack.

our constitution never sanctioned slavery. the word “slavery” does not appear anywhere in the constitution, until the thirteenth amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

this was an amendment to the constitution. it didn’t alter the constitution. it didn’t correct the constitution. not one word of the original document needed to be changed. frederick douglass said at the time, “Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or syllable of the Constitution need be altered.”

slavery was permitted in certain states, but the constitution was never anything but anti-slavery. the thirteenth amendment was made to abolish slavery, not to fix a "mistake" in the constitution.

[Betsy]

Slavery was practiced when the constitution was created. It was amended to abolish slavery. Clearly, amendments are permissible, lawful, and necessary.

[Betsy]

The Constitution: Article IV Section II, Clause 3: No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due.

In other words, you can own a person.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1:"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

So, you're right. They didn't use the word slave. Congress was not allowed to ban the slave trade until 1808. Obviously, the slave trade was inspired by God.

[Steve]

Killing is the most severe sin. We support legislation that would ban killing

Exactly.

Exactly what? Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 51. It is already against the law to murder someone. That's already legislated.

On a side note, it's going to be hard to continue this discussion, at least for my part, if the opposing side does not read and respond to the things I share. To suggest that we have a strong moral imperative to ban guns is simply not supported by the only authority that holds any weight in this world. As this is a moral issue, and as killing is numbered as the severest of sins, why do you suppose that our prophets have not spoken out against members owning firearms? They've spoken out about video games, exercise, physical appearance, nutritious meals, poker, academic integrity, mortgages, social media, and literally hundreds of other topics. Yet, Betsy believes (and perhaps others do as well) that it is out of place for them to speak up about firearms because that's strictly a "political issue." Seeing as how firearms seem to relate to the thing you've argued is the most pressing issue in America, one would think that at least one General Conference talk would choose "guns" as the topic. If killing is the most immoral thing you can do, prophets would certainly denounce its delivery mechanisms. Yet, even with pornography raging across this wide world, I've heard no calls for banning computers, and this despite so many casualties among friends and loved ones.

Oh, if only those pressing for gun control would have the same passion for things that are truly important. If only we had such participation and vigorous support from them when we talk about living prophets, or the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, etc. If I could point to one thing that bothers me above all others in these discussions, it is the way that some people brush aside the words of holy prophets as "lazy rhetoric" or as some kind of supplemental argument that simply can't stand toe-to-toe with the supposed wisdom of social scientists, politicians, and uncles. If you're lacking a testimony of prophets, pursue it! Pray for it! We need prophets more today than ever before...why is that? It is because the very elect are being deceived by the snares of a wicked and perverse adversary. If you don't recognize this, pray about it! Ask Heavenly Father for help to discern. Live worthy of the Holy Ghost.

I do appreciate these discussions, even when we disagree. At the very least, they expose us for who we are and where we stand. Do you try to align yourself with the Lord's servants? Do you want more than anything to be seen holding tightly to the rod of iron? Does it give you confidence when the people of the world find you peculiar for placing spiritual things above the things of this world? Can you see the world laughing at you from a great and spacious building a ways off from where you're currently standing? Do you find yourself often accepting things on faith despite their foolish appearance by the world's measures? Do you simply want to be a good boy or a good girl, and see that as being the highest praise? Do you "trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding"? Or do you prefer to hold fast to the things you think your clever mortal mind understands—the things you think you see that others who hold prophets of God in high regard do not see? Do you think these disciples are kind of funny? Or overly simple-minded? Are they naive to dismiss the things you know are so important? Is it foolishness that they think they can solve violence with righteousness?

Do you really believe the U.S. Constitution is a divinely inspired document, or don't you? Were every one of the modern prophets lying when they said it was? Do you believe that God talks to prophets or don't you? Is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Savior's Church, or isn't it?

I will continue to post quotes by men and women of God in every thread that relates to something they've said. You may read them or not. But I promise you'll never find any of the good things you may be looking for if you dismiss their words—you likely won't recognize them when you see them, and you'll certainly mislabel evil things as good without their help. This is certain. I feel such a mix of urgency in declaring these things to you while at the same time hoping you'll not find me too harsh or overbearing. But I cannot emphasize these things enough. I am so imperfect as it is; I would hate to allow my own imperfections to lead and control me. I want to be led by God, not by my own petty learning. I hope you understand what I'm saying in this regard, whether we're discussing constitutional amendments, motherhood, or whatever it may be.

[Edward]

Obviously, the slave trade was inspired by ...

I won't finish this quote. But I find it sacriligious, if not outright blasphemous, even if it is dipped in sarcasm. If you must resort to such mockery in order to defend your position that I don't see how it can be taken seriously.

[John]

I still want to know on what authority the claim is made that prophets "are not supposed" to counsel on political issues.

[Betsy]

I don't understand that question. I don't claim any authority, I only know that they don't.

[John]

But you very emphatically said: (pardon the quote box. please read)

They are not supposed to council on political issues.

So again, who says that they are not supposed to counsel on political issues? What is the source of that claim? On what authoritative source do you base it? And hence, are they in a position to be dictating to God what He may or may not do through His duly authorized mouthpieces?

And by the way, you also said,

But like I said before, if you are looking for spiritual guidance on the issue, you could, maybe, consider God's commandment "Thou shalt not kill"?

You yourself resort to quoting Him through the mouth of one of His duly authorized prophets who very dramatically counselled His children on hotly contested political issues of the day. How can you then claim that others should not do so?

[Edward]

I don't understand that question. I don't claim any authority, I only know that they don't.

You have been misinformed. What about when the Church came out in favor of Prohibition, or the First Presidency's letter that come out in favor of the death penalty? What about when Joseph Smith ran for President, or the Church's anti-slavery stance, or their efforts during Proposition 8? You say you "know they don't." Then you are ignoring church history. The prophets can come out on any political issue the Lord wants them to. Nothing has stopped them from doing it in the past, and nothing stops them in the present.

[Ian]

prophets have always spoken out about political issues. edward listed just a few modern examples. we could list many more. prophets spoke out about franklin roosevelt’s new deal, government welfare laws, sunday business closing laws, right-to-work laws, alcohol access laws, gambling laws, state-run lotteries, the equal rights amendment, military missile programs, abortion laws, etc. of course, throughout old testament and book of mormon times, prophets were political counselors and political leaders.

[Steve]

By the way, while I await a response to my questions from the previous post:

Pretty sure the prophets never told us who to vote for in the last presidential election

Prophets tell us who to vote for in every presidential election.

Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest.

(October 9, 2014 First Presidency Letter to be read in sacrament meetings)

From the same letter:

The Church also affirms its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues.

[John]

SO AGAIN, who is it who says that they are NOT supposed to counsel on political issues? What is the source of that claim? On what authoritative source is it based? So that I can fairly judge the validity of my own opinion, I want to understand the basis and validity of an opposing point of view. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." In the spirit of good will and honest debate, I want to know.

[Ian]

maybe the church's policy of not endorsing particular political parties or candidates has been misunderstood to mean that prophets are not supposed to counsel on political issues?