Interesting article on Mormon belief of divine Constitution

BoiseBYU wrote:

declocoug wrote:

Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

I like what you're saying here. I think the constitution was and is the best foundation a government can build on. It means that Mitt has a lot of work if he is serious about upholding those virtues the constitution outlines (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc). Those have all been attacked for the past century such that our government and society would be unrecognizable, except in the form of pure structure, to the men who wrote that document.

Great comments here by both of you. I like it.

Who knew we had such scholars among us? As I said above, what is divinely inspired to me is the "revolutionary" way the constitution divided up powers, identified where those powers come from (the people) and set forth a process by which the constitution could be adjusted to address new issues. We do not have to believe that every word in the Constitution is of divine imprimatur or that we cannot deviate from it as provided for (Amendments; repealed amendments etc.) I really think Romney should embrace this--one of America's greatest export ever is our idea of govt. and constitution.

Exactly, this is something I feel like I can agree with.

I wonder if the author is trying to imply that Mormons think the Constitution shouldn't be changed or amended. I mean if we feel like it came from God than possibly ANY change wouldn't be correct?

Well the constitution is not in our scriptures.

Even the scriptures have been changed/amended. Your current quadruple combination reads about the cursing of the Lamanites quite differently than your grandfather's Book of Mormon.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I wonder if the author is trying to imply that Mormons think the Constitution shouldn't be changed or amended. I mean if we feel like it came from God than possibly ANY change wouldn't be correct?

The Constitution was drafted with an innate method of changing it, which would make that process part of the original, inspired document.



For my part, I don't think the Constitution, per se, is divine (I mean, how many of you have read each Article?), but I do think that the form of government it established is. Government by the people and for the people with three branches who check and balance the others was unique to the American "revolution" in government. The Bill of Rights is perhaps the most divine expression of natural human rights that exists in our time.

I must disagree with you about the Bill of Rights being "the most divine expression of natural human rights that exists in our time." The amendments that comprise the "Bill of Rights" are very limited and full of the shortcomings over which many of the founders were concerned. Though those amendments have proven to be necessary, they also have caused some damage of their own which was the chief concern regarding them. They have eroded the reverence for our greatest founding document and expression of human rights, that being the Declaration of Independence.



The "Bill of Rights" (even the name given it is misleading) cannot, should not, and was never intended to hold a candle to the Declaration of Independence.



If you are tempted to expound on the opinion of some activist judge to convince me that the Declaration of Independence is not our greatest founding document, then save your breath and I don't expect there is any other argument that can be brought up against it.

scott715 wrote:
Well the constitution is not in our scriptures.

No, but God does reference it in our scriptures and tells us that He established it.

tww wrote:
I must disagree with you about the Bill of Rights being "the most divine expression of natural human rights that exists in our time." The amendments that comprise the "Bill of Rights" are very limited and full of the shortcomings over which many of the founders were concerned. Though those amendments have proven to be necessary, they also have caused some damage of their own which was the chief concern regarding them. They have eroded the reverence for our greatest founding document and expression of human rights, that being the Declaration of Independence.



The "Bill of Rights" (even the name given it is misleading) cannot, should not, and was never intended to hold a candle to the Declaration of Independence.



If you are tempted to expound on the opinion of some activist judge to convince me that the Declaration of Independence is not our greatest founding document, then save your breath and I don't expect there is any other argument that can be brought up against it.

I'll agree with you that the Declaration of Independence is also a wonderful, divine expression of human rights, and one of the (if not the) greatest of our founding documents. The first two paragraphs anyway.



The difference is that the Bill of Rights codified into constitutional law the rights so eloquently described by Jefferson.



It has been two and a half centuries of judicial review that has eroded and diluted the enlightened principles of the Bill of Rights, much more so than any review or interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.